Study Abroad and Second Language Use: Constructing the Self

Study Abroad and Second Language Use Language plays an essential role in how we portray our personalities. Through soc...

Author: Valerie A. Pellegrino Aveni

26 downloads 771 Views 628KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Study Abroad and Second Language Use

Language plays an essential role in how we portray our personalities. Through social interaction, others develop a picture of us based on our linguistic cues. However, when we interact in a foreign language and in a new country, limitations in linguistic and cultural knowledge can make self-presentation a more difficult task. This book explores the problems faced by language students embarking on “study-abroad” programs, spending time in a foreign country, and having to interact – and express their personalities – in a second language. Drawing on her extensive work with students, Valerie Pellegrino Aveni explores the factors that complicate self-presentation and the strategies students use for overcoming these, looking in particular at issues of anxiety, control, age, gender, risk-taking, and self-esteem. Offering rich insights into the study-abroad experience, this book will be an invaluable resource for professionals in second language acquisition and for teachers and students preparing for study abroad. va leri e a . pe l l e g r i n o av e n i is the former Director of the Russian Language Program and Graduate Teaching Associate Coordinator in the Department of Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures, Ohio State University, where she is currently Visiting Assistant Professor. She is a specialist in second language acquisition and foreign language pedagogy and has spent twelve years studying, working, and leading study-abroad programs for high school and college students. In addition to Study Abroad and Second Language Use, she is currently developing a series of multilingual storybooks for children aged one to five.

Study Abroad and Second Language Use Constructing the Self Valerie A. Pellegrino Aveni

publis hed by th e press syn dicate of t h e u n ivers ity of cam bridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom cambridge university press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge, CB2 2RU, UK 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011–4211, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org C Valerie A. Pellegrino Aveni 2005

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of the relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2005 Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge Typeface Times 10/12 pt.

System LATEX 2ε [tb]

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data Pellegrino Aveni, Valerie A. Study abroad and second language use : constructing the self/Valerie A. Pellegrino Aveni. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0 521 82766 3 – ISBN 0 521 53494 1 (pb.) 1. Language and languages – Study and teaching. 2. Self-presentation. 3. Foreign study. I. Title. P53.P39 2004 418 .0071 – dc22 2004049685 ISBN 0 521 82766 3 hardback ISBN 0 521 53494 1 paperback

The publisher has used its best endeavours to ensure that the URLs for external websites referred to in this book are correct and active at the time of going to press. However, the publisher has no responsibility for the websites and can make no guarantee that a site will remain live or that the content is or will remain appropriate.

For Carl, Lucy, and Eamon, and in memory of Michelle.

Speech is a mirror of the soul: as a man speaks, so is he. – Maxim 1073 Publilius Syrus, First Century BC

Contents

Acknowledgments Note on text conventions Abbreviations Introduction

page ix x xi 1

1 Language use in a social context 1.1 Language and self 1.2 Communicative goals

2 The social dance: second language use and the construction of self 2.1 Constructing the self: social hierarchy and social distance 2.2 Social hierarchy 2.3 Social distance

3 Learners and their environment: factors affecting self-construction 3.1 Social-environmental cues 3.2 Learner-internal cues 3.3 The whole picture: interactivity of cues

4 Coming into our own: the convergence of real self and ideal self 4.1 Balancing learner-internal cues and social-environmental stimuli 4.2 Progressive development of internal security

8 11 25

34 36 38 46

54 56 86 107

113 114 124

Conclusion: The self in the second language: implications and next steps

144

Appendix 1

151

Study context and research methodology

vii

viii

Contents

Appendix 2 ACTR study-abroad program participants: 1995–1996 demographic profile

158

Appendix 3

159

References Index

Participant profiles

177 185

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Research Scholar Program through the American Council of Teachers of Russian (ACTR), funded by the United States Information Agency, and by the Mellon Scholar Program at the National Foreign Language Center. I wish to express deep gratitude to these institutions for their support, without which this study would not have been possible. A most important thank you to the many students who participated in this study and to ACTR’s resident directors and staff members, whose tireless help was invaluable in the data-collection process. I would like to thank the staff at the National Foreign Language Center, who provided the technical and moral support throughout the data-analysis phase. I also thank the faculty and students of the Department of Russian at Bryn Mawr College and the Department of Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures at the Ohio State University for their endless support and valuable insights and for making my work possible. Thanks to Dianna Murphey and Audra Starcheus for their work transcribing and formatting, to Jennifer Bown for her administrative support, and to Laurie Paule for her assistance in the preparation of the final manuscript. Professors Diane Birckbichler and Daniel Collins also provided invaluable feedback and support, for which I am most grateful. I give special thanks to Professors Richard D. Brecht and Dan E. Davidson for their ever-ready encouragement, help, wisdom, patience, and trust. Most importantly, I wish to thank those who stuck around and were always there when I needed them, even at times of many exclamation points: my family and especially Carl, who gave more than his share.

ix

Note on text conventions

Russian words that were written in Cyrillic in the original data are transliterated according to the US Board on Geographic Names and are marked as transliterated by italics. Russian words are also translated in parentheses following the word.

x

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are commonly used throughout the text: ACTFL ACTR C1, C2 FSI/ILR ICC L1, L2 NFLC NNS NS OPI RD SLA TL

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages American Council of Teachers of Russian first culture, second culture Foreign Service Institute / Interagency Language Roundtable intercultural competence first language, second language National Foreign Language Center non-native speaker native speaker Oral Proficiency Interview resident director second language acquisition target language

xi

Introduction

A number of years ago, I traveled abroad and became one of the thousands of students who leave their home every year to experience the world and, more specifically, to learn another language. I noticed then in myself and my peers what I have observed since in my students: an excitement and drive to mix with native speakers that vacillated regularly with a complete avoidance of speaking, at times for no apparent reason. Teachers and students have long believed in the powers of study abroad for second language education. The extensive authentic interaction with native speakers (NSs) that in-country living can provide cannot be duplicated in the classroom. As a result, students around the world spend millions of dollars annually on the study-abroad experience, and still billions more are invested in the development of self-directed language-learning programs, such as distance learning, individualized instructional programs, computer-assisted programs, and independent, unstructured travel. These learning experiences all have two things in common: each is designed to enhance and expedite the foreign language learning process, and each is primarily learner-directed. As efficient means of language education, these programs are designed to maximize communicative language-use opportunities in a culturally authentic (or approximately authentic) environment. As learner-directed programs, however, they typically lack the constant guidance and influence of a language professional and require great student initiative in spontaneous language use for communication. Given the high cost of study abroad in time and money and the importance of authentic interaction in language acquisition,1 it seems somewhat 1

Language educators and students alike have long valued study abroad as an important resource in the development of second language skills. Researchers in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) have reported that when students move from the domestic classroom setting to the pure immersion setting of study-abroad programs, their communication skills increase multifold. Charles Stansfield (1975), for example, reported that after only three and a half months in Mexico, students who began their study-abroad experience with zero proficiency in Spanish performed at a level comparable with students who studied four semesters of college-level Spanish. Similarly, John Carroll’s (1967) study of 2,782 college language majors found that the two strongest variables affecting the students’ listening scores were age at which they began studying the language and amount of time they spent studying abroad. Moreover, Barbara Freed (1995) reports

1

2


counterintuitive that students would waste any of the opportunities to speak that they encounter during study abroad. Yet variability in language-use patterns is quite common among language learners not only in self-directed programs, but in traditional classrooms as well. This book presents a study, conducted in the second half of the 1990s, that examines the social and psychological factors that affect language learners’ spontaneous use of a second language and the ways in which learners exploit and avoid spontaneous speaking opportunities. The study draws on the experiences and insights of actual language learners and finds that learners communicating in a second language are often unable to present to others an image of themselves that is accurate and acceptable. Instead, learners often report that due to imperfect language skills, the self-image that they produce during social interaction is significantly inferior to the image they would ideally like to produce or that they are capable of producing in their first language. As a result, learners often reject or reduce their interactions in the second language in order to maintain and protect an ideal self-image. This avoidance of language use ultimately reduces their opportunities for learning and growth and can even inhibit the learner from continuing language study. What is the purpose of this book? The object of this book is twofold. First, this volume is designed to help readers become aware of the many barriers that learners experience when attempting to speak in a second language. As teachers, we encourage our learners to go abroad or make friends with native speakers, but we often do not adequately prepare them to deal with common social, psychological, and cultural barriers. In qualitative changes in speakers’ attributes following a period of study abroad. In her study, she noted that learners who had lived and studied abroad spoke more frequently and more quickly, experienced fewer dysfluent silent pauses and dysfluencies in general, had longer uninterrupted or fluent speech runs, and typically attempted linguistic expressions of which they were not entirely certain, leading them to reformulate their speech and produce more false starts than those students who had not studied abroad (142–43). The authentic language-use experience afforded by study abroad may play an essential role in the development of L2 proficiency for the majority of learners of Russian who wish to acquire Russian to a level at which they may function professionally or personally. Richard Brecht (Brecht, Caemmerer, and Walter 1995) of the National Foreign Language Center writes, “The American Council of Teachers of Russian, National Foreign Language Center, and Educational Testing Service data . . . clearly indicate that the overwhelming number of native English speakers who study Russian exclusively within the educational system in this country cannot get enough ‘time-on-task’ to bring them even to a minimal level of functional proficiency: level 2 on the FSI/ILR scale and Advanced on the ACTFL” (106). Study abroad is an educational goal for many learners of other languages. The accelerated and qualitatively distinctive language acquisition demonstrated by learners immersed in the in-country environment has confirmed in the minds of those interested in language learning that study abroad is essential for mastery of a second language. See also Chapter 1, note 1, for more information.

Introduction

3

many ways, the problems presented here are intuitively familiar to anyone who has studied a language independently, particularly during study abroad. Astute teachers will also recognize many of these issues in their classroom students. Yet the in-depth data analyses presented here identify and illustrate issues that are not easily articulated, provide a framework by which to understand them, and suggest possible solutions for overcoming these barriers. By analyzing and understanding the spontaneous language-use phenomenon, it is possible to address those inhibiting factors while empowering learners to maximize the interactive experience. The second goal of this book is to introduce a research project that is in many ways novel for the fields of second language acquisition (SLA) and language pedagogy. First, the majority of studies to date deal primarily with the acquisition of a second language (L2) rather than its communicative use. This study operates instead on the principle that language acquisition depends, in part, on the extensive communicative use of the language during interaction. Therefore, the study does not look at learners’ levels of oral proficiency or grammatical knowledge but rather investigates the ways in which learners use the language they do have during interactions. Second, issues of self-presentation and selfpreservation have yet to be explored in any depth in the field of SLA. This work introduces research on the construction of the self and communication theory from the fields of clinical, developmental, and experimental psychology, as well as sociology and social psychology. Finally, the research method used in this study, Grounded Theory Methodology (Strauss and Corbin 1990, 1998), has been used extensively in the fields of social psychology, sociology, and medicine but has been used little in studies of SLA. Through close and rigorous analysis of extensive narrative data, the resulting theory is firmly grounded in the data themselves. Thus, the copious diary entries and interview excerpts presented in this work both provide the basis for the research findings and illustrate those findings, making the theories easily understandable and immediately applicable. While this book attempts to incorporate literature and theories from a wide range of disciplines, it is important to note one vital area that is not addressed here, that is, the topic of individual learner differences, in particular, learning styles. Without a doubt, cognitive style, environmental preferences, sensory preferences, and personality, as well as ego boundaries, tolerance for ambiguity, and other commonly studied individual differences play a vital role in the individual’s construction of the self and concurrent L2 use. Unfortunately, the scope of this book has been restricted to general trends among learners due to the limitations of space. It is my fervent wish, however, that the ideas presented here will garner further attention with the added consideration of the individual learner’s needs and preferences.

4


Who should read this book? The issues explored here are of concern not only to language professionals in self-directed language-learning programs, but also to classroom teachers and students of language and culture. Given the popularity of communicative language teaching in the contemporary classroom, the identification of barriers affecting communicative language use will be of interest to language teachers and program administrators. For those who work with study-abroad programs, knowledge of the factors affecting spontaneous language use may impact on programmatic structure, student orientation, and teacher and hostfamily training. Given the extensive use of authentic diaries and interviews, this book is accessible to both practitioners and students alike. The real-life illustrations and analytical discussions provide learners with practical suggestions for developing communicative and intercultural competence. Whether participating on a formal study-abroad program or traveling independently, foreign language students of all levels may find this book to be a helpful and interesting guide. How is this book structured? The book is divided into four chapters. The first chapter, “Language use in a social context,” introduces the reader to the concept of self-presentation through social interaction. Humans use language for many reasons, including communication of thoughts, recording of events, and the establishment of relationships. Yet language plays an even more significant social role for the individual. It is through the use of language that we create and develop our own self-image and convey our personality to others. With imperfect command of a new language, learners’ ability to reveal their true thoughts and identity becomes severely impaired. A paradoxical conflict results in that the language learner wishes to create and maintain an ideal sense of self in the second language, yet the very act of language use threatens that image. Chapter 1 explores this conflict further and investigates the reasons why learners, given this potential conflict, choose to use the second language at all. Thus, the chapter looks as well at learners’ communicative goals in the second language. Chapter 2, “The social dance: second language use and the construction of self,” further explores the presentation of the self in social L2 interactions. Learners interacting in the target language (TL) look to protect their sense of security (i.e., their self-image) along two social scales: the scale of social hierarchy and the scale of social distance. Within the scale of social hierarchy, learners seek to present a self-image that guarantees them a degree of relative social status and control during interactions. On the social-distance scale, learners create a self-image that helps them feel accepted and validated by their communicative partners and safe in their social interactions.

Introduction

5

Chapter 3, “Learners and their environment factors: affecting selfconstruction,” investigates factors that may affect learners’ self-presentation. These factors include social-environmental factors (such as caretakers’ behavior, attitudes, and personal characteristics, including age, gender, and physical appearance)2 and learner-internal factors (such as learners’ own attitudes toward themselves, the L2, and the language-learning environment, and their ability to predict the potential outcome of communicative interactions). Finally, the chapter addresses how these factors interact and how they affect learners’ L2 use. Chapter 4, “Coming into our own: the convergence of real self and ideal self,” highlights the ways in which learners address the presentation of the self in the second language and overcome barriers to their second language use. As learners spend longer amounts of time immersed in the learning environment, they naturally begin to develop strategies to deal with the problems of creating the self-image. Some of these strategies incorporate greater amounts of second language use, while others cause learners to withdraw from speaking. Thus, this chapter explores the problems of “fight” and “flight” behavior in selfpresentation in the second language and considers the development of selfpresentation and preservation strategies. The conclusion addresses the importance of the construction of the self for second language acquisition research and practice. The development of communicative and intercultural competence for the benefit of improved selfconstruction and language use plays a central role, and practical suggestions for improving self-presentation and empathetic perceptions are offered. This section also revisits the use of qualitative research in this study, exploring the present and future roles of qualitative research methods in second language acquisition and language pedagogy. Student voices: the participant profiles The experiences of actual study-abroad participants, gathered during their time in-country, play a central role in this work. In August, 1995, a group of 49 American students met in Washington, DC, to prepare to travel abroad. Nine academic-year students were getting ready to live in the Russian Federation for ten months, while the remaining 40 packed for a four-month semester program. In January, the academic-year students and five of the semester students remained and were joined by 27 new students. These 76 students made the decision to live in Russia in order to develop Russian language skills, to improve their knowledge of Russian culture and society, and to seek the lifechanging personal exploration and development so inherent in the study-abroad experience. 2

For discussion of “caretakers,” see Chapter 2, note 2.

6


These students were participants in a competitive international study-abroad program through the American Council of Teachers of Russian (ACTR). Each student was selected on the basis of her or his academic achievement, number of years of Russian study, and recommendations, among other criteria. Among the total 76 students, there were 54 women and 22 men, ranging in age from 18 to 29 with the majority (70 percent) falling within conventional college age of 18–21. All of the participants were enrolled in or were graduates of American universities, and 84 percent were undergraduates during the program. All of the students were American citizens with the exception of one student of Korean citizenship and one of Indonesian citizenship. The majority of participants (73 percent) were majoring in Russian or Slavic-related fields. Most students (80 percent) had only two or three years of college-level Russian before participating on the program, and 65 percent had not studied Russian in high school. Furthermore, 73 percent had never studied in the former Soviet Union before participating in this program and, therefore, were presumed to have no more than academic contact with native Russian speakers. All but two had reached a minimum of 1 on the pre-program Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI),3 the highest pre-program score reaching 2+. Three of the academic-year participants did not complete the program, one leaving before the end of the first semester, the other two during the second semester. During that year, all seventy-six students agreed to share their experiences with me through the use of narrative journals, interviews, and questionnaires in order to gain a better understanding of the study-abroad experience (see Appendix 1 for a detailed description of data collection and research techniques). The students were simply asked to describe their language-use experiences, both in and out of the classroom, while abroad. They were given some general guidelines to direct their thoughts but were not asked specifically about their “self” or “sense of security” in the second language. The thousands of pages of narrative diaries and hundreds of hours of interviews provided the foundation for the theory presented here. The data their words provided were extremely rich, as the students were tremendously candid in their stories. The insights of each student provide an invaluable perspective into the world of language acquisition in a culturally authentic environment. The amount of data collected using the instruments described above is extensive and multifaceted. Therefore, a case-study approach provided an organizing principle and basis for selection of material within data sets. This book focuses in particular on the experiences of six young men and women: Camille, Jim, Madeline, Reanna, Bob, and Rebeccah. These six individuals were chosen according to two parameters. First, they were chosen according to their amount of participation in the project. Learners who provided a large amount 3

For more on the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) proficiency guidelines, see Liskin-Gasparro 1984, Clark and Clifford 1988.

Introduction

7

of information through multiple instruments and frequent interactions with the researcher were best suited as case studies because of the thoroughness of their cases. The extensive data sets on these individuals facilitated triangulation and enhanced researcher sensitivity to nuances in their individual behaviors. Second, case-study learners were selected to represent the demographics of the overall participant pool in an effort to help establish the potential generalizability of research findings to the larger group.4 In addition to the six primary case studies, the reader will occasionally hear the voices of eleven other students. Their added stories enhance the color and depth of the findings and contribute to the general applicability of the theories. Before moving on to the chapters, the reader may wish to become more familiar with each of the participant profiles in Appendix 3. These descriptions provide considerable depth and insight into each personality and give background information that will provide a context for understanding the learners’ experiences. To the extent that it has been possible, the students’ words are presented exactly as they were recorded, including all hesitations, false starts, errors, even symbolic drawings. Furthermore, each student, including those mentioned by the diary authors, has been given a pseudonym to protect their identity. The theories here are based on the experiences of a single group of American students studying in a particular country at a particular time. Naturally, detailed aspects particular to Russian and American cultures will remain specific to this group. However, the overarching experience of self-presentation in a second language and the maintenance of security (i.e., status, validation, safety, and control) in a second culture (C2) are, I believe, quite common for study-abroad students and many self-directed language learners. Final thoughts The process of language study is like no other. To learn another language is to redefine yourself publicly, socially, and personally. No other topic of education so deeply affects the individual’s own self-presentation in society. Yet, many universities require mastery of a foreign language for admission or graduation, businesses create international networks and demand proficiency from their employees, and students continue to sign up each year for courses in languages from Spanish to Arabic to Zulu. As you read the words of the seventeen students introduced here, listen to their voices and recall your own experiences in language learning. Many of us have “been there,” but we didn’t always know that others were there as well. By addressing these common, but often covert experiences, others may enter into language study even better prepared, self-assured and ready to speak. 4

See Appendix 2 for complete group demographics.

1

Language use in a social context

The self, then, as a performed character, is not an organic thing that has a specific location, whose fundamental fate is to be born, to mature, and to die; it is a dramatic effect arising diffusely from a scene that is presented, and the characteristic issue, the crucial concern, is whether it will be credited or discredited. Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

I just feel like a lot of times there are things I want to say, but I would rather say nothing than look stupid. Jill, Fall Semester

What role does language play in a society? Is it merely a means of conveying messages from one person to the next, or is its role greater in scope and significance? It is upon the basis of sounds, symbols, and linguistic rules that we encode and catalogue our world, record meaning, and communicate information both within and between communities. Yet language is not only a primary means of human communication, but also a symbol of cultural and social unity and division, a fundamental mechanism of self-presentation and social identity, and it is simultaneously an instrument of power and a source of weakness for its users. All elements of language help define language users’ image to those around them: not only the ideas that they express, but the words that they choose, the syntax of their sentences, the lilt of their intonation, and the precision of their pronunciation. Even beyond the content of the message, interlocutors look to their partner’s speech to help define the individual; pronunciation and intonation suggest a person’s heritage and the degree of his or her social refinement; lexical and grammatical proficiency point to levels of education, maturity, and even intelligence. Upon these factors, individuals amass social acceptance and power among their peers. Consider, for example, the caller who rings the university registrar to “inquire about the availability of funding for the coming academic year and the conditions of admission and enrollment,” as opposed to one who calls to say, “yeah, I wanna know what I need to do to get in and get money.” Regard the store clerk who greets his customers with a friendly, “Good afternoon! How may I help you?” as opposed to the one who barely 8


9

glances at the customer with a surly “Yeah?” Who is immediately perceived to be more intelligent, educated, and refined, and who is more likely to make the sale and earn a customer’s loyalty? It is not only that “the clothes make the man,” but it is also the language that embodies the man’s wit, personality, and sophistication. Speakers of multiple languages come to understand this phenomenon better than most. Second language learners, whose knowledge of cultural conventions and communication skills in the new language may be particularly novice, might find conversation partners responding to them in unexpected ways, such as simplifying and slowing their speech excessively or speaking more loudly, as if to compensate for a loss of hearing. Madeline Ehrman and Zóltan Dörnyei (1998) appreciate this point, writing, “language learning frequently entails new thought processes, identity, and values that can present a threat to learners” (184). For example, Mamie, one of the many students we will encounter here, relates the following experience: The second day we did a whirlwind tour of the city but I soon got tired of her pointing things out to me and repeating everything 3 or 4 times like I was blind, deaf and stupid. I couldn’t enjoy anything because she just kept rattling on and treating me like I was five years old. Why do people always assume that if you are speaking with an accent that means you don’t understand and are slow and stupid too?

Stripped of the comfortable mastery of their first language and of cultural and societal adroitness, learners in immersion environments, such as study abroad, often report feeling as if those around them may perceive them to be unintelligent, lacking personality or humor, or as having the intellectual development of a small child. Accents, incorrect intonation, grammatical errors, and unsophisticated lexical choices, all a natural part of a developing linguistic system, contribute to this “inferior” presentation of the individual. As language learners and teachers, we understand the importance of authentic language use for successful second language acquisition.1 By using this new language, however, 1

Language education is a staple element of study-abroad programs, as noted by Jerry Carlson (1990), who wrote, “One of the primary objectives of study-abroad programs is the improvement of students’ foreign language skills” (43). Researchers in second language acquisition have begun to examine the nature of benefits that study abroad provides language learners and the process by which improvement in language skills occurs. Goodwin and Nacht (1988) note that “Mastery of a foreign language has traditionally been perceived as the most direct educational benefit of study abroad. A foreign language, say its advocates, is not merely a tool and a key to both scholarly inquiry and commercial success; it is also the main route to cultural understanding” (15). Study abroad provides a cultural context with which learners may associate the language and in which learners may develop their language skills. Moreover, study abroad offers learners innumerable opportunities to practice and learn to rely on their L2 skills, as Goodwin and Nacht note, “overseas the variety of linguistic opportunities is unlimited while the ‘need to know’ is everywhere around” (15). Concerning language-use opportunities, Brecht and Robinson (1995) write, “Indeed, the contribution of study abroad to significant language gains is commonly believed to derive from

10


learners risk conveying an image of themselves to their conversational partners that is inferior to the self they may present in their first language (L1). With their intelligence, personality, and sense of control in jeopardy, students’ language-use behavior can vary drastically from environment to environment. Consequently, language learners may resist learning because to do so means accepting gaps in their own knowledge and struggling with limitations on their own self-expression (Ehrman 1996). In this book, we will explore the question of second language use by learners living abroad, focusing on the social and psychological factors that affect learners’ spontaneous use of a second language. Specifically, we will look at the role of the self and of social influence in learners’ second language (L2) use. By examining the experiences of seventeen American college students living in Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia, we will investigate how learners’ personal sense of security in their self-presentation affects their language use, and how their sense of self develops through study abroad. This chapter lays the groundwork for understanding the construction of the self in a second language and how that self-construction affects a learner’s L2 use. First, we will explore what is meant by the “self,” based on existing literature on the construction and presentation of the self-image in social interaction. We will consider the effects of culture and society in the development of the “self,” and we will contemplate the distinction between the learner’s “real” self and his or her “ideal” self. We will examine four areas in which learners must maintain a sense of security in order to construct the self in the L2, that is, through validation, safety, status, and control. Further, we will consider a new approach to the issue of anxiety in L2 use, specifically as it arises due to a loss of security and the derogation of the “real” self. Finally, this chapter explores the risks learners take when using the L2 and the goals they have for taking such risks. By understanding the risks and goals, the reader can better appreciate the difficult decision learners must make when deciding to speak or not to speak in the numerous opportunities program participants have to engage in first-hand language practice on ‘the street,’ in restaurants, in shops, in the homes of native speaker friends and acquaintances as well as a variety of other out-of-class environments in which students find themselves while living in-country” (317). In fact, the increased and varied opportunities learners encounter for activating their language skills may be of the greatest value to students studying in the target language culture. The American Council of Teachers of Russian (ACTR) and the National Foreign Language Center (NFLC) found in their large-scale study of American students studying Russian in Moscow and St. Petersburg (Brecht and Robinson 1993) that students who made a measurable gain in oral proficiency from 1 to 1+ (according to the FSI oral proficiency scale) spent 25 percent more time speaking Russian only than those who made no measurable gain. Moreover, those who made a gain from 1 to 2 on the OPI scale spent 45 percent more time speaking only Russian than those students who demonstrated no gain in oral proficiency. This finding reveals a clear relationship of “time-on-task,” that is, time spent using Russian, and gain in oral proficiency. Thus, study abroad provides for learners that which domestic classrooms cannot: intensive exposure to target language use, numerous and diverse opportunities to activate their L2 skills, and a certain demand to use the L2 for daily survival.


11

the L2, a decision that is often taken for granted as necessary and expected for good language learning. 1.1

Language and self

1.1.1

Defining the self

Defining the self is by no means an effortless task. Its ineffable nature invites a series of descriptors of the things it includes and lists of the things it is not, yet what it is and where it resides is the subject of much theorizing and debate. Researchers in clinical, developmental, and social psychology, and sociology have conducted considerable exploration to identify the “self” and its role in the individual and in society. Yet few have attempted to define what the self is, per se. Those who have ventured into definitions have resorted to circular phrasing; Kihlstrom and Klein (1997), for example, suggest that the “self is one’s mental representation of oneself – or, put another way, that the self represents our own knowledge of ourselves” (5). Despite the difficulty of the task, it is important to understand how the “self” is to be used here; nevertheless I, like those before me, will resort to lists and platitudes. One may consider the “self” to be the mental representation of an individual’s own personal qualities and characteristics.2 Because selfknowledge is processed through the subjective eyes of the individual and his or her interlocutors, the self cannot be objective or factual. The self consists of perceptions alone – the perceptions of the owner of the self as well as those of its beholders. The self is not monolithic or static; it undergoes constant growth and change, adapting and bending with new experiences. Memory preserves the self through the recording of events, and these recollections serve to build a system of knowledge and perceptions held by the individual about the self, a unit known as the “self-concept.” This self-concept allows the individual a sense of security in his or her personal strengths and weaknesses, as well as a feeling of predictability about the self’s future capabilities. The nature of the self is highly personal, and only its owner can be privy to its multiple facets and secret depths (although its entirety will be known 2

Psychologist Joan Gay Snodgrass (Snodgrass and Thompson 1997, 1) offers four ways in which the self may be represented: (1) as a fuzzy set of characteristics with a prototypical structure (e.g., the personality a person may be identified as having), (2) the self as narrative (i.e., the self is how we depict the self in stories about our personal experiences), (3) the self as based on our own images of ourselves “in which our notion of ourself interacts with the environment to produce our self-image,” and (4) the concept of the self represented as a series of abstract propositions which can be accessed independently according to the episodic knowledge on which they are based, thus making the self a product of semantic memory (i.e., how a person is viewed within given events). What is striking in her model is the fact that each of the four conceptualizations relies entirely on the perceptions of the owner of the self or its beholder. Her definition, while conveying how the self is expressed, stops short of defining what the self, in fact, is.

12


by no one). Yet the “self” is impossible to define in isolation from its environment. It is, in fact, inextricably linked to the interpersonal relationships, society, and culture by which it is formed (Mead 1934; Goffman 1959; Tedeschi 1990; Miller 1994; Andersen, Reznik, and Chen 1997; Burck 1997; Neisser 1997; Walsh and Banaji 1997; Weaver 1998; Pittam 1999). As the quotation by Erving Goffman at the opening of this chapter suggests, the individual within society is not granted a role that is his or hers by divine edict. Rather, the individual is a performer, working to create an image of the self that he or she ideally wishes others to perceive him or her to be, and this self continually undergoes definition and reinterpretation by the audience to whom the individual plays. According to Goffman (1959), this self is constructed not only by the verbal message that is articulated via language (i.e., the “expression that he gives”), but also by the non-verbal signs and behaviors that are produced in the process of interaction (i.e., the “expression that he gives off”). By watching for expressive signs beyond the content of the message, observers look to create a definition of the individual that will help them understand the motives behind the interaction, the behaviors they may expect in the future, and the true message the individual wishes to convey. The perceptions and behaviors others exhibit in response to the self serve as fodder for the self’s further growth. Our relative position within a society or a relationship may be defined by the self that we project to our observers and by the interpretation and value our observers assign to that image. Goffman writes: Society is organized on the principle that any individual who possesses certain social characteristics has a moral right to expect that others will value and treat him in an appropriate way. Connected with this principle is a second, namely that an individual who implicitly or explicitly signifies that he has certain social characteristics ought in fact to be what he claims he is. In consequence, when an individual projects a definition of the situation and thereby makes an implicit or explicit claim to be a person of a particular kind, he automatically exerts a moral demand upon the others, obliging them to value and treat him in the manner that persons of his kind have a right to expect. He also implicitly forgoes all claims to be things he does not appear to be and hence forgoes the treatment that would be appropriate for such individuals. The others find, then, that the individual has informed them as to what is and as to what they ought to see as the “is.” (1959, 13)

Through social interaction the individual communicates the self by multiple means, including both non-verbal (e.g., gestures, behaviors, facial expressions, physical appearance) and verbal communication. This communication of the self is so tightly connected to language use that language becomes perhaps the most robust social means at one’s disposal of presenting the self (Harder 1980; Hoffman 1989; Hogg 1996; Burck 1997; Weaver 1998; Pittam 1999; Budwig 2000).


13

The intimate relationship between self and language is most acutely felt by those in the position of language surplus or deficit, that is, by those with skills in more than one language and by those who possess no language at all.3 Fran¸cois Grosjean (1982) writes of the change in personality bilinguals often experience when using different languages in different environments, writing, “some bilinguals report that when they change language they feel they are changing their attitudes and behaviors” (279). He also notes that identity can be bound to language on the part of the observer as well, explaining that bilingual children closely identify those around them with the languages they speak and tend to become frustrated and even angry when the “wrong” language is used (198). Charlotte Burck (1997) also recognizes the distinct “individual identity” given the speaker by each language he or she speaks, noting, “languages have embed cultures with very different constructions of self . . . bilinguals may hold considerable contradictions in their experiences” (74). Those who experience the deprivation of language due to life in a new country or loss of communicative ability in the first language suffer a crisis of the self as well. In her story of growing up as a Polish immigrant in Vancouver in the 1950s, Eva Hoffman writes that her identity became masked, her self lost, when she had to learn to live in this new English-speaking world. She writes I am enraged at the false persona I’m being stuffed into, as into some clumsy and overblown astronaut suit. I’m enraged at my adolescent friends because they can’t see through the guise, can’t recognize the light-footed dancer I really am. They only see this elephantine creature who too often sounds as if she’s making pronouncements. (1989, 119)

Not only does Hoffman’s ability to present her true self to others become lost in the shuffle of her new language, she finds that without language her identity is lost even to her: I’m not filled with language any more, and I have only a memory of fullness to anguish me with the knowledge that, in this dark and empty state, I don’t really exist. (108) . . . Linguistic dispossession is a sufficient motive for violence, for it is close to the dispossession of one’s self. (ibid. 124)

Without the ability to interact with others, to articulate one’s thoughts, desires, fears, and ultimately, personality, one ceases to exist, bringing to mind the 3

Oliver Sacks (2000) conducts a fascinating review of the deaf world and the history of deaf education. He cites a number of cases throughout the past two centuries of pre-lingual deaf adolescents and adults, focusing in particular on the condition of their intellect and personality. While it is clear that thought is not fully dependent on language, as shown by Piaget, Sacks does point to deficits in these individuals’ cognitive and social abilities. While the case of pre-lingual adults is not to be compared to second language learners with a fully functional first language, Sacks’ work does present an interesting new angle on the relationship of language and self, as well as the perceptions others hold of those without language.

14


age-old riddle of the noise produced by a tree when falling in an uninhabited forest. Does the self really exist if no one can hear it expressed? As a product of human perception, the self is highly influenced by culture (Byram 1995; Miller 1997). Perceptions of right and wrong, positive and negative, appropriate and inappropriate are formed from the time of birth through a child’s interaction with his or her cultural environment. As culture defines the child, so does the child define him/herself. When that child then encounters a system of norms that evaluates and values the world differently, perceptions of reality are disturbed and the culturally defined self must adapt accordingly. The mental representations of reality that are provided to us through our own culture thus become challenged in the next. Ultimately, as Astrid Ertelt-Vieth (1991) contends, “it is only via the brains of people that (foreign cultural) reality ends up as an obstacle to (intercultural) communication” (161), as the “reality” of the self comes into conflict with the unfamiliar world of other cultures. For students who travel abroad to learn a new language and new culture, this deprivation and/or alteration of the self comes with the shock of using the second language. The learner’s self becomes trapped behind the communication barrier that results, and only an altered picture of the self, one filtered through this new, incomplete language, is projected by the learner. Moreover, the cultural frame of the new environment causes the presented self to be reinterpreted through yet another filter of meaning.4 Learners becomes disadvantaged in their ability to assimilate new information, develop their social networks, and present their self when their own frame of reference becomes marginalized by the prominent frame of the new culture. Larsen and Smalley (1972) refer to the resulting identity crisis as “culture stress,” a disorientation that occurs within an individual whose social position or role in the foreign culture has shifted in comparison to that of her native culture. Such stress may reduce the success of second language learning (Schumann 1975; Jensen 1995) by draining energy from the task at hand to the preservation of the self.5 4

5

Erving Goffman’s work on frame analysis (Goffman 1974; Lemert and Branaman 1998) explores the principles of organization that create meaning within a social setting. These frames are perceptual schemata by which the mind works to organize the environment, including the perception of the individual. Based on this concept, we can understand that the cultural framework possessed by members of a culture will differ from that of visitors to that culture. Behaviors and characteristics, will thus be interpreted differently through these different frames of understanding. For a review of literature investigating the role of culture in the development of the self, see Joan Gay Miller’s 1997 article, “Culture and the Self.” Cultural and linguistic settings affect the self by changing the framework within which the self is to be perceived. Language and culture also create social bonds among those who share them. Oliver Sacks (1990), for example, writes of the culture and language of the deaf community, one which has its own culture within the context of a broader national culture. Those who belong not only to the deaf community, but who become fully functional in the hearing world often have difficulty truly identifying to which group they belong, which group better represents who they are. He writes of Lucy K., a deaf woman who became an expert lip reader and was fully


15

This brief venture into the identity of the self makes it clear that the self is a complex and intangible entity that exists at once independently of and intertwined within society. One may say that the self, in fact, does not exist as a single unit, but that the individual possesses multiple selves that substitute one another as the situation requires. Andersen, Reznik, and Chen (1997) propose the existence of a self that consists of a fixed, central core of knowledge and a more malleable set of secondary concepts. The core self-conceptions “may be chronically active, lending stability to the self, while less central self-conceptions may be less chronically acceptable, varying contextually and motivationally across situations” (236–37). Thus, the working self-concept consists of “the subset of one’s entire pool of self-knowledge that is accessible and active in working memory at a given time and in a given context” (236). This intricate structure of the self gives individuals the flexibility to respond appropriately to new environmental stimuli, thus controlling the self-image projected to others, while maintaining a thread of consistency within the personality. The shifting of self-presentation through social interaction allows the individual to gain and maintain power and status within a society. James Tedeschi, a researcher in the psychology of tactical communication, has also noted a distinction between what he terms the “real” self and the “ideal” self in the development of power and self-esteem in small children. Tedeschi (1990) proposes that children view models of successful individuals and aspire to make themselves like them, thus developing a concept of their ideal self. Through the maturational process, these children then strive to construct a real self that most closely approximates their ideal. Self-esteem can be reduced in social interaction when there is “an increase in the discrepancy between ideal and real self, a decrement in one or more of the individual’s power bases, and a loss of effectiveness in gaining interpersonal objectives” (321). Since the “ideal” and “real” selves can be established only by the individual’s perceptions, one must continually reevaluate the self based on what he or she believes others’ perceptions of that self to be. The behaviors and perceived opinions of others become the individual’s mirror, and the individual attempts to view the self through what he or she believes to be the eyes of interlocutors.6

6

functional in both the deaf and the hearing worlds. He writes, “She herself has mixed feelings about her status: ‘I sometimes feel,’ she once said, ‘that I am between worlds, that I don’t quite fit into either’” (132). This sense of group membership and confused status also represents the selfproducing power of language; identification with other individuals and groups has also been found to play a significant role in the definition of the self (Goffman 1963; Ertelt-Vieth 1991; Aronson 1995; Byram 1995; Miller 1997; Walsh and Banaji 1997; Lemert and Branaman 1998). The ability to interpret attitudes of others accurately based on their verbal and non-verbal feedback is referred to by Michael Byram (1995) as empathy, that is, “an apprehension of someone else’s state of mind, point of view and emotion.” The development of empathy constitutes what Byram calls savoir-être, or the ability to relinquish one’s own ethnocentric attitudes when in the context of a new cultural setting. A comprehensive review of empathy and the development of intercultural competence in relation to the construction of the self is given in the conclusion of this volume.

16


Thus, the self is defined not only by the individual from within, but also by the society within which the individual resides. The self is formed through the perceptions of individuals, perceptions shaped by personal experience and interaction with others, society, and culture and is stored within the memory. The self takes on multiple forms within a single individual; it is dynamic and formative, changing with the needs of the moment. Language plays a fundamental role in the development, manipulation, and expression of the self. Yet what happens to individuals who choose to study abroad in order to develop their skills in a foreign language and their knowledge of a foreign culture? How does the sudden deficit in linguistic skills and cultural knowledge affect the individual’s ability to establish and maintain a “real” self in any approximation of the “ideal”? How does the nature of this changeable and complex self affect one’s ability to use the new language and, thus, acquire the new language? How does the new language affect the presentation of self, and what changes within the self are necessary for the learner to grow in the foreign language? 1.1.2

Language use and social influence

Given the importance of language and communicative behavior in the construction of the self in society, language use and interaction must be conducted in such a way that the self will be enhanced or at the very least protected. In this regard, language becomes both an instrument of power and a weakness for the user. Tedeschi (1990) has examined the social strategies used in communication, social influence, and impression management by individuals in linguistic interactions with others. According to Tedeschi, “problems of power and influence are ubiquitous in human relationships. If it is assumed that some form of psychological egoism is fundamental to human conduct, then people are largely (if not exclusively) motivated to obtain positive consequences and avoid negative outcomes” (1990, 302–3). Tedeschi views the need to maintain control over one’s social environment as central to communicative behavior and selfpresentation and closely links individuals’ desire to control their environment with the development of their self-esteem. Thus, human beings use language to present themselves in such a manner as to exert influence over others: Self-presentation is a form of social influence in which actors attempt to control the identities audiences attribute to them. We have seen that a desire to control the actions of others motivates the individual to invest time, energy and resources in constructing identities that enhance the ability to influence others. (ibid. 313)

Social influence for Tedeschi includes creating positive attitudes in others toward the self, as he writes, “if we want love, we must make ourselves lovable to the relevant target person(s), and if we want respect, we must somehow either earn it or con others into believing that we merit it” (ibid. 303). The ability to


17

control the self-image one expresses through social interaction depends upon the skill with which the individual is capable of manipulating his or her own expressions and behaviors within the interaction. When creating expressions within a second language over which the individual has relatively less control and within a culture that holds different standards of behavior that may also be unknown to the learner, the ability to control the self-image is severely impaired. A loss of the self-image can be seen in the example of Beth, who after having her privacy invaded in the bathroom finds it difficult to resolve her embarrassment since she lacks the appropriate language: I’m so much cooler in English. I would’ve been like, “Oh! no big whoop!” Or, you know, said something funny, or like, made her see, like, I could give a flying crap. But my silence, my immobilization, just must have given just a totally different impression that it did, like, affect me, or something like that . . . It’s not the same “Beth-ism,” you know? They won’t understand how, like . . . or like, I couldn’t joke, like I’m a stranger, like I would have joked around with him afterwards . . . or something like that!

In addressing this awkward situation, Beth went on to consider what the most difficult part of communicating in the L2 was for her: I’m not myself [here]! I’m not the per–, I think, I okay, I know I’m a pain in the ass, but I think I’m a really cool person when it comes down to it. I think I do have a good personality, and it’s so frustrating being, like, so vacuous! [laughs] . . . I can’t be sassy in the language! A little sassy, but not, like, as sassy as I want to be! And, and the sassiness empowers me, and says, Hey! You’re not gonna’, you know, you’re not gonna’ screw me over, or you’re not gonna’ . . . Like I think if you knew how sassy I was, um, how, maybe intelligent I was, or maybe, mmm, how confident I am normally, I wouldn’t be treated this way. Because, it just wouldn’t happen because the respect, I don’t think I have it, and the respect is so, so important to me. But there’s no way! I never can get it if I can’t communicate, so it’s difficult, it really is . . .

Beth’s inability to find the appropriate words and express the social equivalent of “cool attitude” in the target language inhibits her command over her selfpresentation, leaving her with a self-image that is, in her words, vacuous and far inferior to the ideal self she has created in her first language. Speaking in a second language, therefore, involves the risk that the speaker will be misunderstood and his or her self-image will be misperceived. Communicatively, learners are often unable to express their thoughts fully, and an incomplete knowledge of the language can confound messages conveyed from speaker to listener. Socially, learners may find themselves feeling uncomfortable in establishing relationships with others. Since they are less proficient than others in the new language, speakers may feel that their audience perceives them to be unintelligent or immature. If the learner lacks sociolinguistic competence, she may inadvertently use culturally or situationally inappropriate language and, thus, be thought of as ignorant or rude. This reduced form of the

18


self, one that is farther removed from the ideal self, has been recognized by others as well. Harder (1980), for example, speaks of the learner as a “coarse and primitive character from an interactional point of view” (268), possessing a “reduced personality.” This reduction of the self makes approximation of the “ideal” self nearly impossible for the learner. Thus, by interacting in the second language, learners are continually creating, evaluating, and revising their self-image and protecting that image when necessary by opting not to talk. As a behavioral activity that involves personal risk, therefore, learners must make decisions about the reasons why they will speak in the language. This decision is particularly important for self-directed learners since they must independently create and maintain opportunities to use and practice the L2. The risk that second language use poses to learners’ presentation of the ideal self-image varies depending on many factors. Such factors include elements in the social environment, attitudes and beliefs internal to the learner, and the goals learners maintain for using the language. Each time learners choose to use the language to achieve a communicative goal, they evaluate the impact all of these factors will have on their self-presentation. Given the magnitude of self-presentation in human society, the risks that learners take to communicate in a new language are substantial. Thus, the questions to be posed are: what factors produce this reduced sense of self and what effects does this reduced sense of self create on the learner’s spontaneous use of the second language? 1.1.3

Constructing the self in the foreign environment

As this book sets out to demonstrate, if a learner perceives that L2 use will threaten her self-presentation, thereby increasing the discrepancy between the real self and the ideal self, he or she is less likely to use the L2. As the reader will see, students frequently point to instances when they feel that by using the second language, they will appear to their observers as less than who they want to be. Threats to the self can be categorized into four types, two that reflect the social distance learners feel from those around them, and two that are indicative of their place in the social hierarchy. The scale of social distance7 represents the intimacy and acceptance experienced by participants in a relationship. To maintain a sense of security along this scale, learners strive to foster a sense 7

The term “social distance” is borrowed from the work of Brown and Levinson (1987) and Geoffrey Leech (1983), who characterize it as the “horizontal distance” between individuals, as opposed to the “authority” or power one has over another, which Leech illustrates as “vertical distance” (126). Leech notes that this is akin to Brown and Gilman’s scales of solidarity and power (130). The vertical scale is also discussed in Mills (1992) as the “Speaker–Hearer gradient” (“the relative degree of power and/or authority perceived to exist between the two speech participants” [76]). Brown and Levinson note that the “social distance” scale represents a symmetric relation between the participants, whereas the scale of relative “power” represents an asymmetric relation between its members (74).


19

of validation through social interaction, that is, a sense that their presence is welcome, even sought after, as well as a sense of safety, that they will not be physically or emotionally harmed by the other member(s) of the relationship. For successful language use, the learner must also remain secure in the social hierarchy by maintaining an appropriate status among the interaction participants, as well as a feeling of control over the interaction and their own destiny. When learners sense a loss of security in these four areas, suggesting that the “real” self they can present is significantly inferior to the “ideal” self they desire, they opt to take no further risks to the self by speaking. The result of this conflict is a sense of “anxiety,” a factor often identified as connected to reduced foreign language use, although typically presumed to be a cause of inhibited speech, not a symptom, as it is identified here.8 Threats to the self and one’s sense of security come from both learner-external sources, such as the behaviors and personae of others, and learner-internal sources, including the learner’s own attitudes toward the self, the target language, the target culture, and interlocutors, and his or her ability to predict the success or failure of his or her own participation and language use. As will be discussed in Chapter 4, learners who rely more heavily on socialenvironmental cues for their sense of control, safety, validation, and status ultimately have a more difficult time constructing a sense of self with which they feel confident. Those who rely more on learner-internal cues, however, are better equipped to maintain a secure self in the face of quickly changing social threats. As learners gain more experience in L2 interactions, they develop their own ability to disregard social threats and form better attitudes toward their self-image. This progression from social-environmental cues to learnerinternal cues also includes naturally acquired strategies that may be taught to learners as a way of developing L2 use more effectively during study abroad. The implications of these strategies, as well as the concept of the self in the L2, for language pedagogy and study abroad are great, as learners’ use of the L2 may be increased through a better sense of self. Throughout the course of this book, we will examine the effects of these factors in greater detail and explore the ways in which extended exposure to social interaction in the target language affect the overall development of language use in the learner. While the phenomenon of self-presentation and language use during study abroad has an intuitive appeal, SLA researchers have not yet explored the role 8

The issue of anxiety, including foreign language anxiety, has been explored rather extensively in the field of second language acquisition. Anxiety has been shown to have a negative correlation with foreign language use. However, this correlation has typically been considered as a causal relationship, that is, the presence of anxiety will inhibit foreign language use. The research presented here will explore the validity of this relationship and will consider that anxiety may, in fact, be not a cause of inhibited L2 use, but rather a symptom of the conflict of self that arises and which ultimately inhibits speech. This topic will be explored in greater depth in Chapter 2

20


of self and often regard learners who are reluctant to speak simply as lowachievers, unwilling to try. Robert DeKeyser (1991), for example, makes an important observation on proficiency gains during study abroad, writing, “. . . the sheer number of hours spent in the native-speaking environment provides a huge amount of comprehensible input for all students, and a sizable amount of speaking practice for those who are willing to make an effort” (116; emphasis added). As DeKeyser termed this difference in behavior, pedagogues and researchers frequently attribute L2 use in informal interactions to “willingness” of the learners to use the language or to “differences” in their personality (Rubin 1975; Ely 1986; MacIntyre and Charos 1996), thus labeling learners as “good language learners” and “good risk-takers.” “Willingness” implies a general disposition to employ the L2, but doesn’t necessarily consider what makes learners willing or unwilling to speak, either generally or during specific interactions.9 Labeling learners as “risk-takers” or “good language learners” suggests that learners use more or less L2 during interactions due to relatively immutable and consistent features of their nature as learners. However, anecdotal experience and observation data are incongruous with this suggestion, since even language learners who generally avoid L2 use may be observed interacting in the L2 in a variety of situations, whether their participation in the interaction is required or not. Voluntary participation may occur in such situations due to the presence of social or personal conditions that may be more appropriate to learners’ preferences or needs for L2 use. Furthermore, given that certain evaluative and observation-based methods of data collection may, in fact, create inhibitions in L2 use in certain individuals, it is difficult, if not impossible, to know how learners use the L2 when they are not being evaluated or observed. Consequently, the very processes of classroom education and research may create “poor language learners and risk-takers” by the nature of the classroom interaction alone, making categorical labeling of learners unjustified and potentially harmful, preventing opportunities for becoming better users of the L2.10 9

10

McCroskey and Richmond (1998), in fact, note the importance of perception in assessing one’s willingness to communicate. In their study they found that “the communication skills of selfidentified reticent speakers did not differ from those of nonreticent speakers. The reason for this lack of support may well be that it is not a person’s actual communication competence or skill that determines one’s WTC [willingness to communicate], but rather it may be the individual’s self-perception of that competence or skill” (126). They go on to write, “regardless of the validity of our self-perceptions, however, we do make decisions about whether or not to initiate communication (at both trait and situational levels) on the basis of how competent we think we are” (127). Thus, the actual skill of the learner is inconsequential in one’s willingness to communicate, and it cannot be considered a trait characteristic alone, given that willingness to communicate is variable at the situational level as well. Research on individual learner differences suggests that learners will participate in various environments and tasks more or less depending upon their unique composition of learning styles, preferences, and needs. While these factors are not being addressed in the present volume, the reader is encouraged seek more information on risk-taking and individual differences in L2 use (see, for example, Pellegrino 1994, Ehrman 1996, Leaver 1997, Ehrman and Dörnyei 1998).


21

Thus, the risk learners take in presenting the self may be great, as the selfimage they project rides firmly on the language they produce. With each spontaneous interaction, learners must decide what effect language use will have on their self-presentation and the goal they wish to achieve through language use. When L2 use threatens to increase the gap between one’s “real self” and “ideal self,” the result is the experience of “anxiety.” Before moving into greater depth regarding the self and security, it is important to understand the effects self-construction has on language learners, as well as the nature of the risks learners must face. 1.1.4

The threat of L2 use: risk and anxiety

Largely the issues of social influence and the construction of self have remained outside the realm of second language acquisition research. Few researchers have considered the effects of learners’ need for self-preservation in terms of deciding when and how to use their language skills during interactions with others, since studies typically relate variables under investigation to gain in proficiency, not to L2 use. In a study examining voluntary classroom participation by students of Spanish, Ely (1986) examined the effects of “language class discomfort” on “language class risk-taking” and “language class sociability.” Ely defines language class risk-taking as “an individual’s tendency to assume risks in using the L2 in the second language class,” and language class sociability as “a desire to interact with others in the second language class by means of the L2” (3). Using a series of questionnaires and observations of classroom L2 use behavior, Ely determined that language class discomfort, that is, the degree of anxiety, self-consciousness, or embarrassment felt when speaking the L2 in the classroom, correlated negatively with language class sociability and risk-taking. Findings further indicated that risk-taking was a predictor of classroom participation, which positively correlated with students’ oral correctness. Although Ely’s study does not identify a need for students to protect their sense of security during L2 interactions, it supports research in this area in two important ways: first, by addressing issues of foreign language use and its effect on the development of foreign language skills (i.e., the more students use, the more they learn and the better they perform), and, second, by identifying a variable which Ely labels “language class discomfort,” consisting of anxiety, self-consciousness, or embarrassment. Ely relates language class discomfort to the variable “French Class Anxiety,” reported in several studies by Gardner and his colleagues (Gardner and Smythe 1974; Gardner et al. 1979). Ely notes that French Class Anxiety has been negatively correlated with French proficiency (Gardner et al. 1976). Although SLA research has not explicitly identified a need of L2 learners to maintain social psychological security, research on

22


language class anxiety appears to share many common findings with the concepts presented here and, thus, provides valuable information concerning the phenomenon of learners’ L2 use during study abroad. Many researchers who have investigated language class anxiety describe behaviors of anxious learners, which resemble the language avoidance behaviors of the case studies presented here. Foss and Reitzel (1988) identify foreign language anxiety as sharing common features with communication anxiety, which they define as an “abnormally high and debilitating level of fear associated with real or anticipated communication with one or more persons” (438). Foreign language anxiety includes symptoms such as “high feelings of self-consciousness, fear of making mistakes, and a desire to be perfect when speaking” (438). Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) also provide a clinical definition of anxiety as “the subjective feeling of tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry associated with an arousal of the automatic nervous system.” They note that clinical evidence of individuals’ experience of anxiety includes subjective emotional and behavioral responses, as well as psycho-physiological symptoms. For example, “they experience apprehension, worry, even dread. They have difficulty concentrating, become forgetful, sweat, and have palpitations. They exhibit avoidance behavior such as missing class and postponing homework” (126). Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope also note that, “the more anxious student tends to avoid attempting difficult or personal messages in the target language” (126). In Dolly Young’s review of literature on foreign language and L2 anxiety (1991), she lists manifestations of anxiety, such as avoidance of the L2 use opportunities, competitiveness with others, “freezing up” during L2 performance, fidgeting, avoiding eye contact, coming to class unprepared, and using short-answer responses (430). MacIntyre and Gardner (1991b) also distinguish learners with lower levels of anxiety from their classmates, finding that less anxious students are able to learn better, are more willing to volunteer answers in class, and interact more socially with target language speakers. Ganschow and Sparks (1996) similarly found that students with lower levels of anxiety performed better than those with high anxiety on measures of both foreign language and native language skills. MacIntyre and Gardner also proposed that learners who experience high levels of anxiety encounter difficulties in comprehension due to short-term memory loss and in language production due to difficulties in long-term memory retrieval processes. Thus, anxiety is manifested most significantly in learners’ reduction of their L2 use and their avoidance of L2 use opportunities. This finding parallels reports given by learners of their own avoidance of L2 use opportunities and their own tendency to reduce their L2 use during interactions in which they feel their security is in some way threatened. Avoidance of L2 use may vary qualitatively and quantitatively. For example, learners may avoid the L2 partially (for example, by avoiding difficult constructions) or totally. Moreover,


23

as Bailey (1983) notes in her article, the withdrawal from the language learning experience “can be either (a) mental or physical; and (b) temporary or permanent” (95). The ultimate effect of these mental, physical, and emotional responses to feelings of anxiety, therefore, is manifested as severely reduced L2 use in terms of quality of performance, extent of risk-taking in using new and/or complicated constructions, and spontaneous L2 production for socializing with other members of the classroom. The question remains, however, as to the origin of anxiety during L2 interaction. Although most researchers in the area of L2 anxiety have examined only the presence of anxiety and its effects on the language learner, some have noted that a rise of anxiety may be directly linked to factors that cause learners to feel they are personally at risk in using the new language. Ehrman (1996) has stated that “anxiety relates to the response a student has to a perceived threat to his or her sense of security or self-esteem . . . low motivation or intense anxiety interferes with [students’] ability to use their skills and abilities” (137–38; emphasis added). Ehrman has elaborated this point further, writing that anxiety may arise due to factors threatening learners’ sense of status as intelligent, capable individuals: “anxiety is often linked to fear that one will fail in some way: on an assignment, speaking in class, on a test, in the final grade, in competition, maintaining one’s position in the community, in interactions with native speakers, or on the job.” As Ehrman notes, the fear of failing to maintain one’s social esteem, through competition or loss of one’s position in the community, suggests a fear of loss in status. The task of learning a skill in which learners must perform in a public forum in order to improve their skills further creates an environment replete with threats to one’s sense of status. Ehrman (1993) writes, “Psychoanalysis also addresses the profound riskiness of learning, in which the student faces the danger of discovering his or her lack of capacity or helplessness . . . and risk of shame for not knowing. Sussman (1989) describes how novelty may arouse defenses against feelings of inadequacy. With this kind of powerful threat carried by new input, it is hardly surprising that we build boundaries” (338). Thus, a threat to learners’ sense of status may reduce the amount of L2 they produce. Dörnyei and Malderez similarly note: the relative status of group members influences the amount and quality of communication they initiate or receive from others: in general, more communication is both initiated and received by high status than by low status people, and the content of such messages tends to be more positive than messages directed downwards in the status hierarchy. (1997, 72)

Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) have also addressed the negative effects engendered by learners’ feelings of loss in social or intellectual status due to L2 use:

24


Because complex and non-spontaneous mental operations are required in order to communicate at all, any performance in the L2 is likely to challenge an individual’s selfconcept as a competent communicator and lead to reticence, self-consciousness, fear, or even panic . . . In sum, the language learner’s self-esteem is vulnerable to the awareness that the range of communicative choices and authenticity is restricted. (128)

It is, in fact, this discrepancy between learners’ true self in all its worth and the limited self they are capable of communicating through their imperfect L2 skills that leads to and distinguishes foreign language anxiety from other forms of academic anxiety (Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope 1986; Foss and Reitzel 1988). As the following chapters will illustrate, students’ experiences, as well as the findings of other researchers, suggest that anxiety may not be the factor that affects learners’ use of L2 directly. Instead, anxiety may be only the symptomatic panic that results from the challenges and threats learners feel against their personal sense of status, which in turn is the true agent inhibiting learners’ abilities and desires to use the L2 in social interaction. Bailey suspected the possibility of such a relationship, noting that it is difficult to identify if anxiety is the cause or the result of poor speech performance: “one cannot identify the causal variable. Does anxiety impair students’ oral fluency, or do they become anxious in oral production tasks because their speech skills are low?” (68). The stories offered here indicate that as learners are faced with the need to protect or enhance their self-esteem, they will accordingly adjust the amount of L2 they use in order to do so: when self-esteem is highly threatened by L2 use, learners may reduce the amount of L2 they produce in order to protect self-esteem; when self-esteem is not threatened in L2 use, learners may feel at ease to produce more L2 without fear of damaging their sense of status. A conflict arises between learners’ intention to communicate in the L2 at any given moment and their desire to maintain their sense of status. This conflict engenders anxiety, feelings of fear and dread, and other such emotions. Subsequently, the learner experiences a sense of dissonance, which leads to discomfort until such time as the conflict is resolved, that is, the compulsion to protect the self is alleviated or the need to use the L2 is eliminated. Ehrman has gone so far as to suggest that the development of feelings of anxiety in the context of social interaction may even be used by learners as a means of protecting their self-esteem. She describes the physical and emotional symptoms of anxiety exhibited by one student undergoing an important testing situation, including hysteria, negative comments regarding the language learning program, and panic. In analyzing the woman’s response to the anxietyprovoking event, Ehrman writes: Celia’s issue was related to her fear of failure. As it turned out, she was indeed sabotaging herself so that she would have an excuse for not meeting her goal. If she did badly, she could say to herself “if I’d really tried, I would have succeeded.” The result was that her anxiety was a protection of her self-image as competent through setting things up so she


25

could not succeed, but at the same time it also produced a threat to her self-perception. (1996, 150)

It is not clear to what extent anxiety may be invoked by students subconsciously as a means of protecting one’s self-esteem. Ehrman suggests in this passage that the student’s unproductive anxiety-ridden behavior allows her to fail by giving her an excuse for not trying harder, but the anxiety also damages her self-perception. As will be demonstrated in the following chapters, the present study contends that while a correlation indeed exists between anxiety and threats to self-perception, it is not anxiety which invokes the threat, as others maintain, but rather the threat to self-perception which produces feelings of anxiety. In the field of second language acquisition, therefore, studies of anxiety and self-esteem most closely parallel and support the concepts presented here, while the words of the students shed new theoretical light on the constructs of anxiety and self-esteem. The findings of the present study may help explain ambiguities and contradictory findings in the area of anxiety. Phillips (1992) reported that she obtained mixed results in her study on the relationship between anxiety and oral test performance. A review of the literature on anxiety by Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) demonstrates that the field has had considerable difficulty drawing strong conclusions about the role of anxiety in second language achievement. They attribute this difficulty to the lack of anxiety measures specific to foreign language learning and the lack of research into the subtle effects anxiety may produce on foreign language learning (126). The present study, however, offers a third possible explanation, that anxiety presents itself in learners’ behavior as a symptom of the deeper conflict that remains, as of yet, unexamined. Learners adopt various ways of resolving the conflict presented to them by threats to security by the use of L2. Thus, learners’ L2 behavior and performance ability may vary under conditions of anxiety as learners use or avoid the L2 in order to protect their sense of security. If studies consider only the symptom of the problem without fully understanding the source, it is impossible to reach consistent findings. Therefore, the ambiguity in the research to date is hardly surprising. 1.2

Communicative goals

1.2.1

Self-presentation and goals for second language use

Given the potential threat to self-presentation that speaking in a second language creates, the decision to speak or remain silent in a second language closely parallels the decision-making process in risk-taking. Before acting in a situation that involves a degree of risk, individuals subconsciously or consciously evaluate two things about the task they wish to perform: the potential value or harm that may come to them, and the likelihood of their success or failure. By the

26


subconscious or conscious calculation of value and cost that the goal has in store, along with an estimation of how possible success or failure may be, learners evaluate whether or not the benefits of speaking will outweigh the potential harm. The drive to ensure that benefits outweigh costs is termed felicitous calculus by the nineteenth-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham (Heilbroner 1986, 174).11 In order to judge the potential value, costs, and probabilities, humans rely on their perceptions rather than on objective measures. This use of perceptions in decision-making leads to broad human variation in behavior. In terms of second language use goals, learners tend to pursue goals in which they feel fairly sure of successful completion and which will be most beneficial for them in terms of practicing their L2 skills, creating a social network, or exchanging information. Conversely, they will reject communication goals in which they perceive costs that are too great or that carry too strong a risk of failure. During each interaction, learners must subconsciously evaluate their goals to determine whether it is worth risking the costs to gain the benefits. If the costs outweigh the benefits, or if the benefits are not sufficient to warrant the effort of communication, then the learner is unlikely to pursue the communication. If, however, the value outweighs the cost or the value is sufficiently high to motivate the learner to communicate despite the cost, the learner will be more likely to attempt communication. For example, Bob reports that the value of gleaning new information about the target language is sufficiently strong to outweigh the personal costs of ridicule from the interlocutor: “The 14-year-old 11

Psychologists have supported Bentham’s claims through research focusing on risk-management and decision-making. Researchers have identified that the choice of action that an individual makes in pursuing a goal may be calculated mathematically depending upon the individual’s subconscious or conscious calculation of the costs and benefits offered by the potential failure or success of his or her actions toward that goal (e.g., Kogan and Wallach 1967; Yates 1992). Psychologists initially theorized that individuals, such as gamblers, when faced with a choice of behaviors in an unpredictable scenario, such as money games, would be most likely to opt for behaviors that would maximize their gain while minimizing their losses. The relationship may be summed up in a simple mathematical equation. By multiplying the probability of failure by the monetary cost of failure and subtracting it from the product of the probability of success times the monetary value of success, it is possible for gamblers to maximize the expected value of their actions and, thus, predict the most beneficial act for protecting themselves against loss while gaining as much benefit as possible. This equation, termed the expected-value theory (EV), was later modified to account for individual subjectivity in the assessment of expected benefit and loss (Kogan and Wallach 1967). Subjectivity in assessing benefits and costs includes individuals’ perception of their own skills, their need for information, and their motivations to achieve success or avoid failure. Language learners who choose to communicate in the L2 to achieve some goal undergo a similar calculation, subjectively determining how beneficial their L2 use will be and the potential harm it may also cause. The concept of maximum benefits at minimum costs is based on the thoughts and beliefs of Western philosophers and researchers. While data consistent with this philosophy are presented in this chapter, this is not to exclude other possible explanations based on the philosophies of other cultures for human decisionmaking behavior.


27

[host-brother] Vitalik is a typical kid, likes to clown around. He often laughs at us, makes fun of our pronunciation. I don’t mind as long as I hear the correct way to say it, somewhere down the line, instead of just mocking the way we say it.” For Madeline, however, the value of practicing the language with other American students is not strong enough to outweigh any costs of the effort she must expend to produce the L2 or the potentially incorrect input she would gain. Thus, the benefits do not motivate her to pursue this communication goal. In an interview she reported: Well, I try not to speak Russian with Americans, that just does not work! . . . I don’t feel like I should be practicing Russian in an environment with people who don’t know Russian. I mean, you know, I don’t need you influencing my conversation, you know, I’ll be in class one day talking, and they’ll be like, where’d you come up with that grammar construction, and you’ll be like, you know, oh, you know, ’cause if it’s like wrong, and it gets in my head somehow, then it’s all over with. And I [don’t] want it to come off my tongue ’cause if it comes off my tongue once then God knows, I could do it again.

As Madeline’s and Bob’s words illustrate, learners tend to evaluate goals according to how likely they are to be attained, as well as the ultimate value or cost they may encounter for their success or failure. The participants of this study frequently wrote about the reasons they chose to use the L2. Many established friendships. They found work in various places. Some did research. All went abroad to improve their language. For some, their communication goals were significant; for others, they were not so important. Some goals learners held for life; others were immediate to the situation.12 12

In addition to experiencing multiple communication goals within a given interaction, students also possess differing goals across different periods of time: lifelong goals, language program goals, and situational goals, that is, tasks specific to a particular interaction. Differences in the length of these goals may also affect learners’ decisions to use or avoid the L2. Learners all possess certain lifelong goals in terms of communication and their L2 development: they wish to present themselves in certain ways to others socially, they have life interests about which they wish to learn more, and they have L2 learning goals for shaping their future careers and activities. Lifelong goals help give learners direction in choosing language learning opportunities, and they help learners define the self-image they would like to present in that L2. Learners also set language program goals in terms of communication and L2 development: they anticipate creating a social network of L2-speaking friends and colleagues, they wish to learn more about the culture and discuss personal interests with those they encounter, and they desire to improve their proficiency significantly during their language study. Program goals help learners determine their expectations about their projected progress and the relationships they wish to create. Such expectations can both stimulate and inhibit learners in their L2 use. Finally, under the conditions of any given interaction, learners will also pursue situational goals for a communicative task: knowledge is gained and shared through the content of the communication, relationships are structured through the interaction of two or more individuals, and learners stretch and develop their L2 competency by practicing authentic communication. It is the situational goals that create immediate need and directly affect the extent to which learners use their L2 on a moment to moment basis. The combination of lifelong goals, language program goals, and goals for managing interactions appears to be present in any given communication to varying degrees and can affect learners’ use or avoidance of the L2.

28


Yet, for all learners, these goals prompted them to attempt communication in a second language, putting their self-presentation at social risk. The numerous reasons that compelled learners to speak may be categorized into three types of goals: information exchange, social networking, and L2 practice. 1.2.2

Types of communicative goals

The first type of goal, information exchange, encompasses communicative tasks for the purpose of providing or receiving information to satisfy a physical, affective (i.e., emotional), or intellectual need or desire. Such needs and desires may include asking for directions, communicating with instructors, physicians, or other service officials in order to obtain a desired result, and discussing a favorite topic of interest to share opinions and knowledge with others. The need to exchange information may be so compelling that learners will spontaneously use the L2 despite typical fears to do so. For example, Rebeccah, who is typically shy in social situations, writes in her diary that upon needing to find a restroom at a club and being ignored by a female bartender, she has an immediate goal of finding out important information: “I just was so desperate, I touched this guy’s arm, leaned toward his ear & asked privately, ‘gde tualet? (where’s the bathroom?)’ And he answered me. And I went on my merry way. I still can’t believe I did that!” Rebeccah’s pragmatic need to obtain a desired result through the transfer of information drives her to communicate in the L2, even in an embarrassing interaction: “It’s kind of like – something needs to be done and I will do whatever is necessary to accomplish it. Like taking care of myself since no one else is here to do it for me.” A second type of communication goal, social networking, refers to communication performed for the establishment and development of relationships between the learner and interlocutors and for the maintenance of etiquette and social propriety during interaction with others. Social interaction is one of the most important factors in L2 acquisition. For this reason, learners are typically encouraged to create friendships with native speakers. Thus, those students studying abroad often look for ways in which to meet and communicate with others in order to broaden their social circles outside of their compatriot study groups. This desire for social interaction leads students to spontaneous L2 use. Reanna, for example, meets her host sister’s boyfriend and describes the interaction with him, which consisted of “discussions of differences in cultures, family, etc. Probably enjoyed that discussion the most of any here because Luda had wanted Dima to ‘join the social group’ for so long and because I wanted to get to know Dima (Luda’s great so I figure he must be too).” For Reanna, speaking in the L2 was necessary to meet the goal of building a relationship with a potential friend. Social networking also includes communication designed to maintain the niceties of social etiquette and to ensure that all


29

members of an interaction are included as fully as possible. For example, Gina writes: Jill and I were speaking English together for about the first 10 minutes. Dasha was silent. I realized how incredibly rude we were being, so I switched to Russian, and sort of filled Dasha in on what we’d been talking about. She seemed to appreciate being included in the conversation . . .

Thus, the desire to maintain social connections in a polite and appropriate way can promote L2 use. Second language practice, the third type of communication goal, refers to communication initiated or sustained by learners in order to develop their second language skills. Such practice allows students to automatize linguistic forms, test hypotheses about target language structures, increase L2 input, discover new linguistic features, develop better L2 listening comprehension, among other benefits. For the participants of a study-abroad or immersion program who profess a desire to improve their communication skills in the second language, L2 practice is or should be an integral part of most interactions. This is often demonstrated by students’ persistence in speaking and, thus, practicing the target language even at times when English would be more convenient. For example, in describing a conversation with an English-proficient Russian friend involving some emotionally difficult topics, Camille writes: Somehow I explained all of this in Russian with some help and a lot of understanding on Anya’s part . . . I explained that I need to speak Russian but it’s hard because we also want to talk on a higher level than I am able to in Russian – so to speak English is so tempting. I think she also loves speaking Eng. and doesn’t get much practice so I feel bad about being militant.

Despite Camille’s sympathy for her friend’s need to practice English and the accessibility of English to both, she diligently works to communicate with her native speaker friend only in Russian. Camille also speaks Russian with the students to whom she teaches English when she interacts with them outside of the classroom. She describes an interaction with one of her students after class: “He walked to the metro w/ me and wouldn’t speak Russian at all. I realized that he wanted an English buddy and this I will not be. I didn’t call him back, it was a nice invitation [to join his family at a sporting event] but I am not in Russia to speak English.” Clearly Camille’s students would benefit if she were to speak English outside of the classroom. Yet, Camille places her own goal of practicing Russian ahead of her desire to advance her students’ learning in informal interactions outside of class. To increase opportunities for L2 practice, learners occasionally initiate conversations with compatriot students solely to practice the L2 when native speakers are unavailable. Reanna writes, “Made 2 trips to the Metro and

30


Brandy accompanied me the second time. Long discussion in Russian about class, language, country.” She explains, however, that the success of L2 practice with other Americans depends in large part on the willingness of the others to maintain that communication in the L2: “Would definitely speak, write, etc. only in Russian if I felt all the Americans were willing to do that. Usually start a few times in Russian and if other people revert to English then I do too.” Camille also explains that in the first few days of living in the dormitory in Russia, she spoke in Russian with another student instead of with a native speaker: “The first 4 days I lived in the dorm. On one occasion Marlene and I spoke in Russian for a few hours. Of course it was pigeon [sic] Russian and I wasn’t afraid of speaking w/ her (although sometimes speaking in front of Americans terrifies me) but it was something.” Thus, learners may at times turn to members of their own linguistic community simply to gain extra speaking practice in the L2. All three of these types of communicative goals prompt learners to use the L2. Based on the narrative data, it is apparent that students generally strive for more than one communication goal during a given interaction. For example, Jim wrote: As I have a strong background in Russian history, I possessed both the interest and the background knowledge to enable me to be a full participant. I would often ask questions to which I have the answers in order to keep the conversation going and to practice my Russian . . . The fact that I was the guest and therefore the focal point, meant that even when I got tired, I still had to remain engaged in the conversation.

For Jim, his combined goals of information exchange (interest in the topic), social networking, and L2 practice keep him active in a discussion with an older friend. 1.2.3

Communicative need for L2 use

In order for students to use the L2 during a communicative interaction, there also needs to be a reason why the communicative goal is best achieved in the L2.13 The extent to which L2 use is necessary for achieving the communicative goal will vary according to the type or combination of goals and the circumstances of the communicative environment. Certainly the goal of L2 practice will, by definition, require L2 use, although a metalinguistic discussion may not. 13

The movement between two or more languages for communicative purposes is termed “codeswitching.” Susan Ervin-Tripp (1973) and Fran¸cois Grosjean (1982) address conditions by which bilinguals engage in “code-switching.” Reasons include greater facility in one language over another; establishing or emphasizing group membership; including or excluding others from the interaction based on their language skills; changing the role of the speaker in terms of authority, expertise, or status; and continuing discussion in the language last used (Grosjean 152). Codeswitching may be a conscious communication strategy or a subconscious event. Code-switching for language learners occurs for quite similar reasons, although often the issue of facility wins out over more strategic uses. Moreover, learners may choose to speak in the L2 for the sake of practicing their L2 skills.


31

However, information exchange may not only be possible in the L1, but may in fact be more successfully performed in the L1 if the information exchange is urgent and the interlocutor sufficiently proficient in the learner’s L1 to convey the needed information. Similarly, social networking may, in certain contexts, be more successfully performed in the L1 if L2 use will cause the learner to be ostracized. For example, when interacting with other American students, use of the L2 is often viewed by others as an inappropriate medium for relaxing and “getting away from” the exhausting demands of L2 communication. Social networking may also be unsuccessful in the L2 if the learner’s performance is inadequate to portray the self accurately and create a satisfying social bond with native speakers (NSs). For many reasons, therefore, communicative goals may best be achieved in one language over another, which will impact on second language use. 1.2.4

Personal responsibility for goal achievement

Finally, in order to produce the L2 for communication, the learner needs to feel a degree of personal responsibility for achieving the goal or goals.14 For example, the relationship between Jim and his American fiancée’s host mother, Galina, has soured by the end of the semester, but in an effort to satisfy his stated desire of remaining a “good guest,” Jim feels responsible for using the L2 to interact and maintain a social network with this individual whom he would normally avoid: In general, I don’t go out of my way to spend time with people with whom I clash so strongly (I know, strange English) but in this case, my desires to be a good guest, to not make things hard for Ann, and to perhaps return to the friendly relationships which Galina and [I] previously enjoyed – combined to force me to be both polite (as possible) and to converse with Galina for an extended period.

Similarly, Reanna reports that her classmates seem to expect her to correct misunderstandings and represent the group’s opinions to their teachers: I think that I kind of get the feeling from the group that they consider that my position almost. They just, they expect me to be the one to speak up first. Although I’m sure, if I, if I waited, I think other people would speak up as well, and I recognize that, but it’s kind of expected already, so I just do that. 14

Noels et al. (2000) refer to “self-determination theory,” in which there exist two types of motivation that are positioned along the extreme ends of a continuum: intrinsic motivation (which derives from the learner’s own interest in the activity) and extrinsic motivation (which is based on rewards the activity may provide the learner). Intrinsic motivation would be considered a form of greater self-determination, while extrinsic motivation is a lesser form. According to Noels et al., increased perceptions of freedom of choice and personal competence to complete the task are connected to more self-determined forms of motivation. Therefore, feelings of individual autonomy help to foster learners’ motivation in activities.

32


Being made to feel personally responsible for communicating for her American peers leads Reanna to use her L2 more frequently. The amount of personal responsibility for active L2 production in each communication goal varies according to type of goal and surrounding circumstances. Certainly, if learners wish to improve their L2 production abilities, this is most successfully achieved when they are the ones to communicate in the L2 during an interaction. Listening comprehension, of course, may be developed through passive observation in the L2. However, if learners are not concerned with L2 practice and instead wish to exchange information, they may obtain specific knowledge by simply allowing someone else to request the required information and observing the interlocutor’s response. For example, in learning the diagnosis of her mysterious illness, Madeline remains silent throughout the doctor’s evaluation, allowing the doctor to pass all pertinent information to her host mother while she listens to gather information. She reports, “I crawled back under my covers and went silent while the doctor related the tale of other adults who had chickenpox.” Similarly, a social networking goal may also be satisfied just by being associated with another student who bears the weight of responsibility for communication. Typically, however, the social bonds that a NS establishes with the observing student are weaker than with the acting student. As Rebeccah’s journal demonstrates, the social network she creates with a NS is weakened by her choice to interact passively: I went somewhere with B. today. We went to meet a certain person. So we arrived and we were introduced to “him.” And B. took over completely doing all the talking for the two of us. And like an ass I let her. The whole reason we went was so I could meet the man. And I sat there like an idiot, while B. chattered away and had her Russian complimented etc. “The man” even alluded to my inferiority and as he talked he only looked at B.! I’m so sad this happened. If I had been alone, I could have done just as fine as B. did.

When learners do not feel personally responsible for goal achievement, they may enlist others to perform the communication if they believe the others will be more successful in achieving the goal.15 As Camille explains, “Yesterday Amy, Mamie & I met at 8:15 to catch the parade. It was closed to the public so we spent our time trying to schmooze w/ the border guards in vain. Amy did most of the talking. She is brave, speaks great and is beautiful so we figured she had the best chance.” In a similar example, Rebeccah writes: I was at a teatralnaya kassa [sic] (theater ticket office) today w/ an American friend visiting from Moscow. There was a big crowd of people and long lines. So I made Alicia do all the talking and buying. I don’t think her Russian is so much better than mine. I just chickend [sic] out since I knew she could buy the tickets. Alicia has balls of brass. She even argued loudly with a woman in the crowd! I would’ve never done that. 15

For more information regarding the influence and role of designated and peer group leaders in language education, see Ehrman and Dörnyei (1998).


33

Rebeccah recognizes that although she may have been able to achieve the same goal of obtaining tickets as Alicia, it wouldn’t have been possible without large costs: “If I was alone, I probably would’ve gotten the tickets – but it would have been stressful & I wouldn’t walk away proud.” When the onus of responsibility for communicating is removed from the learner, the drive to speak the language may be significantly reduced. Considering the experiences of these students, we recognize that when language students choose to use the language for authentic communication, they need to have goals that are of sufficient value that the benefit outweighs the cost of performance. They need to feel personally responsible for achieving the communication goal, and they need to recognize that the goal is best or only performed in the target language. Most importantly, students often have multiple reasons for using the target language. The question of costs is an important one when considering how languageuse decisions are made. What kinds of costs are possible? Perhaps the communication will fail and the necessary information will not be conveyed, the tickets will not be purchased, the wrong phone number will be jotted down. Perhaps the learner will be unable to practice a new form adequately or receive satisfactory feedback from his or her conversational partner to make the practice successful. Or perhaps the learner will feel foolish and awkward after making mistakes, embarrassed by the inadequacies that show through the transparent veil of his or her novice skills. Language learners encounter this final scenario, that of self-consciousness, perhaps most frequently of all. As we will discuss in the following section and throughout the remaining chapters, human beings have a natural drive to protect their public image and create and project an image that best embodies their “ideal.”

2

The social dance: second language use and the construction of self

I need to have the feeling I’m in control of my life to feel secure. But here I feel like a child. I mean I barely have control over what I eat, let alone anything else. Jill, Fall Semester

Those who feel they are making fools of themselves and that they are exploiting their native speaker friends in an unacceptable way, may feel relieved of the bad conscience, at least partly, if they are told that this is not just their individual dilemma: in order to be a wit in a foreign language you have to go through the stage of being a half-wit – there is no other way. Peter Harder, “Discourse as Self-Expression – on the Reduced Personality of the Second-Language Learner.”

Everyone crowded around the table as the guests crammed into the small Russian apartment. Jill had wanted to speak with Assya, a young Russian woman about her own age. It was a dinner party, and several American and Russian girls were enjoying themselves, discussing classes, men, and their families back home. Jill chatted along with the others, making friends, sharing information, and practicing the language she had come to study – generally feeling good about the evening. Suddenly, the party took a decidedly different turn for Jill: I began to zone out and Assya asks me where I live and how long I’ve been studying Russian. Well, I wasn’t really paying attention and I thought she asked me how long I’d lived in Washington. So I said 20 years. She just gave me the most horrible “you’re a complete moron” look I’ve ever seen. I realized what I had done about a minute later ← I told her I’d been studying for three years. I should have said two weeks – because Gina and Tia had both said three years too and they hadn’t made such idiots out of themselves. Assya never spoke to me directly at all after that, which was good because I really had no desire to speak Russian at all after that. I can take a little humiliation, but this was so severe. I think it’s very hard for me to make mistakes at all at anything I do, so it’s been a major effort on my part to swallow my pride and realize it’s normal to make mistakes. But this was way too much – I was in a foul mood the whole evening and barely spoke.

With a simple misunderstanding, Jill goes silent and excludes herself from the rest of the evening, believing her image to be irreparably destroyed. 34

Second language use and the construction of self

35

Jill’s experience is, unfortunately, all too common for many language learners. Because they lack the communication skills, flexibility, and finesse in the L2 that they have in their L1, learners may find themselves disadvantaged in the construction of their social self. Language learners produce utterances that are often garnished with grammatical errors, their pronunciation and intonation mark them as foreign, and the complexity of thoughts they are capable of expressing is severely impaired by the lack of appropriate vocabulary and advanced communication skills. The functional communication skills of novice learners remain relatively simple; speech functions that we would consider rather basic in the L1, such as description and narration are, in fact, characteristic of advanced level proficiency in the L2, while persuasion and the expression and support of opinion belong to the superior level of development, attained only after copious amounts of interaction and study of the language.1 Mastery of these speech acts represents full communicative capability during social interaction, and the skills needed to perform them are instrumental in the presentation of the self. Thus, language learners can be severely hindered in their ability to create or approximate the ideal image of the self they wish to project in the second language. As with Jill, simple communication errors can become gaping wounds in the learner’s presentation of the self. By nature, humans are driven to survive and create situations in which they feel protected and comfortable. In establishing and maintaining this sense of security, they are better able to project a self-image that approximates their “ideal” self than when that security is threatened. Learners’ sense of security must be developed in four key areas: they must sustain a sense of status in a social interaction, control over their environment, validation of their own selfworth, and physical and emotional safety. Regarding this psychological survival of the fittest, Goffman (1959) writes: We find that preventive practices are constantly employed to avoid these embarrassments and that corrective practices are constantly employed to compensate for discrediting occurrences that have not been successfully avoided. When the individual employs these strategies and tactics to protect his own projections, we may refer to them as “defensive practices”; when a participant employs them to save the definition of the situation projected by another, we speak of “protective practices” or “tact.” Together, defensive and protective practices comprise the techniques employed to safeguard the impression fostered by an individual during his presence before others. (13–14)

As this chapter explores, the drive to protect the self thrives in second language learners, who continually seek to establish and protect their position within relationships in the L2 by using a series of such “defensive” and “protective” practices. In an effort to exert social control and gain acceptance, they must 1

For more information, see ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 1998.

36


constantly monitor the self that they are projecting or that they believe they are projecting to others around them and take action to ensure that their “real self” most closely approximates the “ideal” they wish to convey. Reports of social acceptance, power, and control established through language use pervade the writings of learners immersed in the study-abroad environment. In communicative encounters in which learners perceive a threat to their self-image, second language use is often avoided and either alternate forms of communication are found or the communication is abandoned completely. In this chapter we’ll explore the ways in which learners construct and protect their self-image along the scales of social hierarchy (i.e., establishing status and control) and social distance (i.e., maintaining a sense of validation and safety). We will investigate the ways in which learners use or avoid the L2 in response to violations of their sense of security in these four areas. 2.1

Constructing the self: social hierarchy and social distance

Social hierarchy influences every aspect of the human world. With status and control comes the ability to create a higher quality of life for oneself and one’s family. Yet elevation on this hierarchical scale is relative and by no means comes with equal justification. The business magnate, political leader, eminent scholar, or even the midlevel boss above you each possesses a position of respect and regard, thanks to the perceptions of those who appointed them. One’s experience, intelligence, age, pocketbook, physiognomy, personality, and even gender all serve as rungs of this social ladder. Language, of course, plays a major role in such self-elevation. It is no wonder that for centuries weary travelers have gladly bent and kissed the Blarney stone to receive the gift of eloquence, for the golden tongue will surely win the respect necessary to gain status and maintain control over one’s world. Yet what of the weary travelers who study abroad? For those learning a new language, no amount of stone kissing will bring them the eloquence they need; only authentic communicative practice and time will begin to grant that gift. Language learners frequently report that their simple phrasing, elementary mistakes, hesitations, and false starts cause others to perceive them to be childlike, underdeveloped, and in need of help and guidance. Because they are unable to express themselves completely and with sophistication, learners may feel that they lack the ability to influence others’ behaviors or attitudes, gain respect, or control the environment in which they find themselves. Learners who believe that others hold negative perceptions of them may avoid speaking in the second language as a defensive or protective measure, just to preserve their position on the social hierarchy, that is, their sense of status and control. Conversely, situations may also arise in which the learners’ speech may protect their position more effectively than their silence, thereby prompting spontaneous L2 use.


37

While status and control may affect learners’ willingness and desire to use the L2, acceptance and intimacy with peers and colleagues, that is, learners’ sense of their “social distance” from those with whom they interact, also affects their L2 communication. Through social interaction, individuals form a sense of how intimate or detached they would like to feel with those around them. They may find that they wish to feel closer or have a friendship with certain individuals, while maintaining a sense of distance with a stranger may be more desirable. In social environments, learners express a desire to be accepted by those around them, to feel validated as an intelligent, mature individual, worthy of friendship and respect. They also express concern about their safety, especially around individuals with whom they are less familiar. By using the second language, learners may find that they are able to affect their feelings of validation and safety with others. Social stimuli in self-presentation and preservation can have a strong effect on one’s perception and behavior. In his review of literature on human behavior response to social influence, social psychologist Elliot Aronson (1995) explains that human response to social influence may take three different forms and that these behaviors are rooted in aspects of security. The first form of behavior is compliance, in which learners are driven to certain behaviors in order to gain reward or avoid punishment. The major component of compliance in behavior is power, the power of the influencer to dole out punishments or rewards. By behaving in a manner consistent with what is expected of us in order to gain reward or avoid punishment, we are able to exert some control over the outcome of our actions and are also able to gain power in social interactions as well. Our need to avoid punishment also illustrates our drive to protect ourselves against threats to our safety, be they physical, emotional, or some other threat to safety. The second type of response is identification, in which learners are driven to certain behaviors in order to become more like the individual acting as the influencer. Identification as a response to social influence is driven by attractiveness; our desire to be like others whom we admire or unlike those we dislike drives us to behave in a manner we believe will win their respect and make us more equal to them. Thus, we hope to gain desirability and status by pleasing others and being accepted as their equals. Third is the response of internalization, in which an individual is driven to adopt certain behaviors in order to be “right” in his or her beliefs or actions (34). The central component driving internalization is that of credibility: by being influenced by an individual whom we find to be highly credible, we are more likely to adopt similar behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes in order to be correct and also gain credibility. This need for credibility is consistent with the final aspect of security, validation, being accepted as correct and worthy (38). Thus, when faced with social interaction learners experience the same need to protect their sense of security in that they look for a sense of validation, control, status, and safety as in response to other social stimuli.

38


In the following pages, we will look to the words of the students themselves to illustrate these points. It is important to remember that these students were merely asked to describe their experiences. They were not asked about their sense of status, control, safety, or validation. Yet the diaries and interviews are replete with examples of how the learners’ perception of their own sense of security affects their L2 use choices, not only in the amount and frequency with which they use the L2, but also the extent to which they take risks by using complicated linguistic constructions and new vocabulary. 2.2

Social hierarchy

2.2.1

Status

The effect of status on L2 use is the most frequently discussed topic in learners’ journals. An interlocutor’s confused look, unexpected response, or slow, corrective speech can cause learners to perceive themselves, or believe their interlocutors, caretakers,2 or observers perceive them, as inferior to other learners or to NSs in terms of linguistic abilities, intellect, maturity, or social equality. Consider Bob’s negative experience in his Russian literature class: Third class, another female instructor, my first impression of I don’t like.3 I understand that looks, gender and personality shouldn’t matter. She’s there to teach, I’m there to learn, but I don’t like her. I found myself not wanting to speak or listen. I had to make a conscious effort to pay attention. She teaches the literature classes and the first hour she played a game like “are you satisfied with your name? Guess what my name is.” I understand that she needs to learn our names and our speaking ability, but “guess my name” was weak. I may be in first grade in Russian language, but I’m not mentally retarded. To end the class she passed out some books, told us to read and be able to answer questions, memorize words you don’t know. I looked at the first paragraph of the 3-page assignment and understood only a couple of words. Maybe I am mentally retarded.

Bob’s thoughts provide an interesting reaction to the use of classroom games, especially given their frequency in the modern, communicative classroom. 2

3

Caretakers can be of various types depending on the amount of their involvement with the learner and the extent of their responsibility. For the purposes of this work, caretakers are defined as interlocutors who aid learners in their use and learning of the language; caretakers may be official (e.g., teachers) or unofficial (e.g., friends), familiar or strangers, and so forth. Interlocutors may be native speakers (NSs) or non-native speakers (NNSs) of Russian. This work often refers to the people with whom learners interact as “others.” For more information regarding caretakers in SLA, see R. Ellis (1995). Although Bob doesn’t describe his teacher’s looks or personality, it is unlikely that her gender affects his attitudes greatly since another teacher was also a woman toward whom he expressed more positive attitudes than toward an earlier lecture that was taught by a man. Instead, it is more likely that Bob objected to his teacher’s behaviors.


39

Although Bob clearly acknowledges his caretaker’s motivations for using this activity, he can’t seem to help interpreting her choice of activity to reach those goals as simply derogatory treatment of the American students and as a reflection of a potential attitude she holds toward them as intellectually inferior (a mental deficiency, a first-grade intellect). In searching for a resolution of the conflict he experiences between language use and self-preservation, his desire to use the L2 to participate in and thereby prolong this derogatory activity is sharply reduced. By not participating, he shows dissatisfaction and disagreement with the instructor’s perceived attitude. Yet he also deprives himself of an opportunity to benefit from L2 practice. Bob’s reaction may remind us that the value students assign to classroom activities chosen in good will may detract from their intended purpose. Similarly, Jim experiences a brief interaction with his host father whose behavior threatens Jim’s sense of maturational status. Jim wishes to boil water, and in an effort to help him, the host father instructs him on how to do it, repeating his instructions frequently. The repetition upsets Jim, as he explains, “I was irritated . . . because I felt that he was treating me as a child (boiling water is not difficult) and therefore I was very unwilling to participate in the exchange.” Boiling water is a basic function of independent living that mature adults are typically presumed to be capable of, regardless of language abilities. Thus, to explain such a task implicitly questions one’s ability to handle adult-level tasks, not just one’s linguistic ability. Jim does not recognize possible cultural differences underlying his host father’s behavior. This behavior, which to Jim is overbearing and controlling, is in the eyes of the NS polite and attentive.4 Nevertheless, Jim’s perceptions are what shape his behavior, and Jim uses only enough L2 as is necessary to curtail the interaction. He communicates to his host that he “understands entirely” (in an effort to stop the other’s irritating behavior), “[The exchange was entirely in] Russian – after finally figuring out how ‘sovsem’ (completely) is used, I used it, as in ya sovsem ponimayu (I understand completely)!” Jim also communicates his unwillingness to continue the interaction: “I merely indicated my understanding, and apparently communicated my 4

Astrid Ertelt-Vieth (1991) reports on a contrastive analysis study conducted on the perceptions of culture between West Germans and Soviets. In one typically Soviet episode, which was to be analyzed by representatives of both cultures, a foreign scholar at a Russian institute completes a conversation with a Russian administrative clerk. Following the conversation, the clerk leaves the office to show her exactly which button to push in order to reach the correct floor in the building. Like Jim’s boiling water scenario, using an elevator is a basic task for adults. The Germans also perceived it as such, assessing this behavior as a sign of “over-protectiveness, under-rating of their capability and spoon-feeding” (166). The Muscovites construed this behavior to be a “basic form of politeness and attentiveness” and were rather surprised at the reaction of the Germans (167). Thus, the divergence of the two cultures led to discomfort and conflict due to the misperceived symbolic meaning of performed actions.

40


unwillingness to continue, because the exchange was short.” Even before he manages to end the interaction, Jim limits his L2 production and his L2 reception extremely early on as a result of his frustration, thus removing himself mentally even before ending the interaction: “I was much more of a listener – although my listening even tapered off after the first minute, mainly due to frustration at the repetition of the conversation.” So, because of a negative, emotional reaction to his host’s behavior, Jim mentally removes himself from an L2 use opportunity. Linguistic status, that is, the status learners feel based upon their proficiency in the L2, also can affect whether or not they are willing to use their L2. Reanna provided some insight during an interview: Yeah, sure I do [feel intimidated to speak sometimes], but only when I feel like I’m completely out of place where my level of Russian is very poor in comparison to everybody else. And in the Russian classes here, that, that doesn’t happen because we’re all pretty well equal, I don’t think there’s any problem with that . . . Yeah, for instance, sitting in on the med. school lectures I would certainly never say anything [laughter] . . .

Learners who see themselves as linguistically inferior to their peers often hide their inferior self behind a mask of silence, allowing those they perceive to be more talented to take control of the interaction and assume the status of a group leader, while they themselves retreat to the ranks of the lesser participants. What they surrender in status and control in group leadership, they make up for in protecting their intellectual image. Reanna’s self-comparison to other speakers, both native and non-native, is a common method of establishing the self that will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3. While learners often reject L2 use opportunities due to the lowering of intellectual, maturational, or linguistic status, those who believe that others have recognized their intellectual and linguistic abilities may in fact perceive their status to be elevated. As a result, they’re encouraged and are better able to use their L2. Consider Rebeccah’s following two entries. These two events, described back to back in her narrative journal, demonstrate the malleability of the self and the drastic effects differences in status may have on learners’ L2 use. She writes: 11/16ish/95 Last night, I went to the Smolny Sobor w/ June, Madge & Hannah. Hannah’s muzh (husband) was there too. I could not bring myself to say boo to him, I don’t think I’ve ever even introduced myself! How rude! (if he noticed) I spoke english [sic] the entire evening . . . so did everyone else. So he could not participate in the conversation. I am always vigilant about not excluding people from a conversation, but last night I felt too self conscious [sic].


41

I didn’t want to speak Russian in front of everyone. Actually, maybe I was nervous because Hannah was there, and 1) I’ve never spoken Russian in front of her & 2) she speaks so well & I didn’t want to make mistakes. And I know that’s an irrational reason – yet it was strong enough to keep me from being polite to Mr. Hannah. I aspire to attain her language level someday, I really admire her . . . so that makes me want to impress her w/ my Russian to gain her praise . . . Maybe. This is all pop psychology. Who knows? 11/17/95 Today after 1st para (class period), I asked “***” what score she got on her 1st OPI exam. I asked because: 1) we’re in the same class, 2) it would give me an idea of where I am, comparing myself to her. I was really surprised to know we got the same score. I couldn’t believe it. I already knew that 1 other girl in our class got a 1+, therefore I assumed the other 2 girls were 1+ too. I felt they were so much better than me, and that they knew it. Then “***” said she thought I was better than her! Far Weird! Anyway, at the 2nd para (class period) I shone in class. I tried to talk a lot & I used a new word & was happy with my speaking. All because I knew that I wasn’t the lowest in the class. Perhaps when you think you’re lowest, you fulfill that subconsciously. I was really willing to go out on linguistic limbs today – I even made a phone call in Russian!

In comparison to Hannah, her American resident director (RD),5 Rebeccah sees her own language as far inferior. So at the price of being rude to her RD’s Russian husband, Rebeccah remains silent. She does so to preserve her image before her proficient American RD, whom she greatly admires and by whom she wishes to be liked. This event also illustrates how the lack of security affects L2 use as a factor independent of the communicative goal, which for Rebeccah is social networking in the form of etiquette and acceptance by others. For her, social acceptance is more important from her RD than from the NS, since her RD in fact embodies an “ideal” self-image for Rebeccah in terms of language skill. Rebeccah believes that poor L2 production could not impress her, despite the difference in their educational and experiential backgrounds. Rebeccah chooses protecting her intellectual status over maintaining social etiquette and remains silent in order to preserve her status and protect her “real” self. In the second entry, however, written the following day, Rebeccah finds that she has been rated as an equal among peers whom she had perceived to be better than she. Consequently, her “real” self is immediately elevated toward her ideal, and she chooses to speak at great length and with considerable risk. This increase in confidence and L2 use stands in marked contrast to Rebeccah’s previous experience of negative self-comparison. 5

Resident directors are American speakers of Russian who travel with the students, coordinate their academic and travel programs, and aid them in issues of health, host families, and diplomatic problems (visa support). These individuals, typically in their twenties, are hired by the studyabroad program, are experienced in study abroad, and have at minimum a bachelor’s degree.

42


2.2.2

Control

With each step along the hierarchical ladder, individuals also amass greater autonomy and independence. The result of this climb is increased control, the power to manipulate certain aspects of an interaction, influence others’ opinions, and impact on others’ actions. To gain such social control, learners must be in command of their own language and actions. Learners frequently report instances in which they feel as though they are unable to affect the environment around them, through either their actions or their linguistic skills, and therefore are often discouraged from using their L2 due to the apparent inefficacy of their attempts. For example, recall the story of Jim’s strained relationship with his fiancée’s host mother, Galina (see p. 3). In this relationship, we can see the effects of relinquished personal control on L2 use. Jim explains the way he perceives the nature of their stressful relationship and what effect it has on his speaking: Q: If you ever get to the point where you don’t understand something that’s been said, do you still keep going “um-hmm, um-hmm,” or do you stop and you ask? A: It depends, it depends . . . actually I do it [nod and pretend to understand] quite a bit when I’m at Ann’s host family’s . . . Q: Oh, really? A: . . .’Cause her host mom stresses me out . . . Q: Why, how so? A: Um, I don’t know, I’ve been thinking about it and I think this morning I kind of finally got to it, and I think what it is, is that, we were talking about it and I called Galina the true, true stereotype of a, of a Soviet.6 Kind of like, she’s extremely controlling, but . . . I . . . her kind of hospitality I . . . drives me nuts and I call it controlling [laughs] hospitality. It’s one of those things where everything is the way she wants it. If you turn anything down . . . I try not to, but there are . . . some of the things she offers are just kinda, ew, I just, I won’t eat fish, I’m not a big fish eater anymore, for example, I won’t eat fish over here. Um, and so, I’ve had to turn it down frequently and she’ll keep, like, hitting away, trying to find a little, like one time she took the tactic “well have you ever eaten salted fish?” And I don’t know, I just think, well, every once in a while, yeah, back in the US, and she right away went over to the fridge, taking it out, wanted me to eat it, and she wanted, and she does this to Ann, too, she wanted me to eat what she wants me to eat. You know, and, I don’t react to that well at all. So sometimes when she’s talking, I’ll just kind of nod and say yeah, yeah . . . And I go on and and it’s like, “yeah, yeah . . .” Which is too bad because at the start of the semester I had some really nice talks with her, like every once in a while I do, on rare occasion, but it’s . . . this controlling thing is, that, is, part of it is the irritation thing, like, I get irritated, so I lose comprehension . . . so I just kind of idle on, or I just keep a happy face and ignore the fact that she’s getting 6

In an article reviewing studies of cross-cultural perceptions of Russians throughout the world, Stephan and Abalakina-Paap (1996) report that foreigners have often viewed Russians to seem publicly “indifferent, pushy, and discourteous” but value close relationships with friends more than in most of the West (368). As Ertelt-Vieth’s (1991) work also suggested, Russians are likewise often shown as over-protective or controlling of those for whom they must provide care.


43

irritated [laughs] as we’re walking out the door. Like when she, Ann’d be all bundled up, scarf and her jacket, with the hood of her jacket, you know, over her head and Galina would think, no, she has to have a hat on instead. Like, you know, that kind of thing, she’s like, well, it’s cold out. Yeah, well, we’re, we’re okay, we’re heading out the door . . . [laughs] . . . So I’ve gotten some, some, she’s gotten some . . . I guess we’d call it a “slam” in the US. I mean, a couple of times, just because of that, and I just kind of let it go. It’s not worth it.

To young Americans, the Russian people can seem overly cautious about weather and health. The Russians who host these students feel duty-bound to protect them and do so as they would their own family. Galina’s sense of responsibility and caution foster an unanticipated effect on Jim’s sense of autonomy and language use. Because of the “controlling” behavior Galina exhibits, Jim’s attitude toward her sours. As a result, their strained relationship generally affects Jim’s L2 use negatively, causing him to feign comprehension and physically avoid communicative interactions. He wishes to reduce irritation and limit Galina’s control over him. The result is limited effort to practice and interact in the L2. Like Jim, Camille also complained frequently in her narrative journal about the overwhelming domination her host mother exerted over their interactions in the L2. When Camille first arrived in the host-family apartment, Ol’ga Nikolaevna overwhelmed Camille with long-winded stories in fast-paced Russian, doing little to aid Camille’s comprehension and learning. Camille wrote, “She never shuts up. In direct violation of what [the study-abroad] orientation warned me against, I spent the first night nodding, smiling, and spacing out big time.” While the host mother may not have been intentionally controlling Camille’s participation in the interaction, her quick and verbose barrage of Russian dominated Camille’s low level of proficiency and wholly prevented Camille from managing the conversation: “Her stories are so longwinded [sic] and tangential that they would lose me if said in English. I get really tired. So you might ask, ‘well why don’t you explain that ty ustala (you are tired) and go to sleep.’ If I could get 2 words in edgewise I would.” Without the caretaker’s consideration for her ability level in Russian, Camille remained unable to control the dynamics of the conversation, and her active participation was severely limited: “Instead I turn on autopilot, sit, smile pleasantly and phase out.” As Camille became increasingly familiar with her host mother’s controlling behavior she learned to recognize it and avoid interactions in which Ol’ga may act this way: Saturday we went skiing in the park, ate lunch and then it hit me. She started babbling and I could tell she was getting into her “I don’t care if you are listening I am going to talk at you” mode. I started to avert my eyes, yawn and look at my watch, but somehow she didn’t get it. I finally interrupted her midway through a word that I had to use the bathroom. When I got back she had lost her thoughts, so I was free. I told her I needed

44


to sleep. I seriously could [sic] keep my eyes open at all (4 o’clock pm). I crawled into bed and hid, I felt like shit. I was exhausted physically & mentally, I didn’t want to be trapped there for the weekend, and I felt frustrated at my general lack of ability to understand.

Camille is clearly accustomed to Ol’ga’s “I don’t care . . .” style of conversation. Her feeling of being trapped suggests that she feels she has no control over her own destiny, in terms of both interactions with her host mother and her social calendar. There is evidence throughout Camille’s journal that she feels controlled by Ol’ga socially. For example, Ol’ga pressures Camille into changing social plans that she’s made. Camille writes: I told her my plans . . . She started to act angry & offended, told me that the bar was 1 hr. away, dangerous, and that Edik came an hr. away to visit. The original plan that Marlene and I had was to take off to Yaroslav where we would stay w/ a girl who lived in the dorm. Well, Olga intervened to say the least. She was so worried about our accommodations, that we would be cold, etc.

On other occasions, Ol’ga makes plans without consulting Camille: As soon as Edik left, Andrei appeared. She just invited people w/out asking. She informed me that guests would arrive at 2 for obed (lunch) so my day was planned w/out my input. So I was generally pissed. As much as I want to meet any Russian who isn’t Olga, I don’t like having my day planned and at that moment I wished I had other plans so that she would feel dumb & ask in advance in the future.

Similar events are repeated throughout Camille’s diary. Ol’ga’s continuous controlling behavior creates in Camille a need to find ways of exerting control over her environment in order to maintain her sense of self. Realizing that interaction with Ol’ga means loss of autonomy, Camille begins to avoid Ol’ga more frequently, consequently limiting opportunities to use her L2 in authentic interactions. She writes: When I don’t have definite plans, Olga tries to move in for the kill . . . Olga always wakes up as soon as she hears me and she quickly gets dressed and sort of acts like she has been up for hours. She sleeps w/ her door open so unless I stay hidden in my closet, I can’t fool her and I can’t have a moment alone. I was hungry but I didn’t want to get trapped talking to her. If she has to cook something it usually requires me to sit at the kitchen table and talk to her while she cooks. This is frustrating and I find it so hard to concentrate on what she is saying. When she gets really into a story she will stop cooking altogether so she can concentrate. So I am left starving with 1/2 cooked food all around, totally unable and unwilling to listen to Olga. So on Sat. I said I didn’t want to waste time eating and I ate a breakfast of crackers, bread, fruit, and choc. spread . . . I decided to break out.


45

After living with Ol’ga for two and a half months, Camille knows what behavior to expect and how to respond. The remainder of this particular morning, Camille avoided contact with Ol’ga by reading and skiing alone. What may be meant as friendly and inviting behavior by a NS caretaker can create the need to maintain a sense of personal control that leads learners to seek out alternative activities in which they are able to control their environment and do not feel manipulated or dominated by another. As a result, learners may limit their opportunity to communicate in the L2, often significantly. Conversely, when learners believe their control over the L2 use environment has increased, they tend to raise the amount and extent of their L2 use. For example, Jim describes his experiences teaching English as a foreign language to young children in a local Orthodox church in St. Petersburg. During the first lesson, the children’s mothers were present in the room. They did not attend the second lesson, however, about which Jim wrote, “This was our second meeting with the class, and w/out the mothers there, it went much more smoothly.” During a follow-up interview, Jim explained in more depth: Q: How would you describe “much more smoothly”? What does that mean? A: . . . Oh, it, uh, it was like having, like at work, having your boss taken away from standing over your shoulder watching you work. I mean, it suddenly went from being just somebody who’s trying to teach a few things to us being in charge. Also, once we’re in charge and in control, and I think it was probably the control thing, made it a lot easier to speak both Russian and English. Q: How did that affect your speaking? A: Oh, [it] improved dramatically.

The sense of taking charge and being in control of the interaction helped Jim use Russian more extensively and with greater ease than when his leadership was challenged by the presence of his students’ parents. Learners’ relationships with others, such as caretakers, are often asymmetrical in nature. This is especially true in instances where the caretaker is older than the learner or bears the responsibility for the learner’s physical or emotional well-being, such as a host family. The responsibility hosts may feel for the health, welfare, and entertainment of visitors may lead them to become insistent. Often university-age American students have lived away from their parents for a number of years by the time they study abroad, and such concern and careful oversight can make them uncomfortable. A well-intentioned caretaker’s controlling behavior can thus cause learners to feel that they have lost control over their own participation and they may minimize or avoid further interaction with the NS in order to preserve a sense of autonomy and power.

46


2.3

Social distance

2.3.1

Validation

Everyone has experienced rejection in life – the feeling that comes with telling a joke that flops, asking a question that gets willfully ignored, expressing an emotion that goes unrequited. At times, the rejection is direct and purposeful; other times, the recipient only perceives it as such. Nonetheless, it is perception, not reality, that causes one to withdraw and reevaluate one’s self-image. An individual who feels his or her presence and worth to be validated by the acceptance of others tends to feel more confident that his or her real self has been presented in an ideal way. Thus, validation plays a significant role for individuals in a new social situation. L2 learners report that they use their L2 more extensively and more frequently when they feel that their interlocutor not only accepts but also appreciates their presence and communicative efforts in an interaction. Learners feel validated when they perceive that others view their contributions to an interaction not only as worthy of attention and respect, but also as interesting and valuable to the common good. Reanna, for example, describes her sense of acceptance in a male-dominated, Russian-American basketball team: Talked to Leroy in English about future bball events. Too tired and apathetic to speak in Russian. Having heard other Russians comment on how good Leroy’s Russian was I figured why try even though Leroy himself is not critical of my Russian at all. Lyusen’ came up though so we switched into Russian. I was able to spit the Russian out and was encouraged by both Leroy and Lyusen’s willingness to listen to me – they didn’t cut in, fill in words, etc. In fact they seemed quite happy to talk to me.

Of course, fatigue and indifference affect Reanna’s willingness to speak, but her sense of status also appears to have been lowered by her self-comparison to Leroy’s Russian skills. Nevertheless, she is able to pursue the pragmatic goal of social networking with Lyusen’ and Leroy more easily due to their apparent willingness and interest in having her speak. Their patience in allowing her to speak at her own pace and at her own ability level conveys acceptance and encourages Reanna to use the L2 to interact with them. For Reanna, validation is an important factor in the extent to which she uses the L2, as she explains in an interview: “I tend to be less of a risk-taker [in speaking Russian] when I have a pretty good sense that I’m not going to be well received. That either they’re going to completely ignore what I said or laugh at me.” Other learners report similar experiences where they perceive their efforts to speak are invalidated by others’ reactions to their L2 use. Bob, for example, perceives that he is rather unwelcome in his host family. The behavior


47

that members of this family exhibit toward Bob and his wife seem to convey that not only is Bob’s company undesirable to them, his efforts to communicate are unworthy of their respect: “I want to let them know that rolling their eyes and then saying the word louder, doesn’t help! We asked them if they would go to the ballet. They said no! They also thought my translation of Nutcracker was hilarious, they didn’t want to go to that either, or a play, symphony. We still haven’t really met anyone to hang around with.” The result of this treatment is for Bob and his wife to isolate themselves from the host-family members (“[We] spent most of the day in our room”). Bob explains in a later passage: I think the bottom line to all of this, for research purposes anyway, is that when I believe I am being mistreated or taken advantage of, I don’t like to communicate with that person. To me she [the host mother] was not patient or approachable. I did not meet her standards, I tried many different approaches. I sat with a dictionary, she didn’t want to take the time to look up the word or wait for me to do it. I’d asked for her to slow down, she would take a deep breath of exasperation and keep right on talking just as fast as before.

Ultimately, Bob and his wife, feeling unwanted and disrespected, completely isolate themselves from the host family, coming out of their room to watch TV and eat only after the family has gone to bed. Avoiding communicative interactions with NSs is not simply Bob’s modus operandi. Diary entries demonstrate that Bob’s L2 use fluctuates with his sense of validation by others. Bob describes the new host family that they joined after three months with the first family. He writes: Our situation . . . has completely changed. We moved to another family and it is a complete 180◦ turn. The first night we stayed up until 12:30 talking and watching movies together . . . We have covered everything from Stalin’s gulags to Rock ’n’ roll music’s origins. Everyone participated, including myself. I had a good time and Marie and I actually communicated. I understood quite a bit of our conversations, which finally shows some progress, and because I was able to communicate I was encouraged to speak more. Now I will say things just to try out new words or phrases . . . I feel comfortable with this new family. They are patient and helpful. I actually initiate conversations.

By being patient and enthusiastic about communicating with their new guests, this host family validated Bob’s efforts to communicate. The result in terms of L2 use is clear: by being given the validation that his presence and his L2 use efforts are worthy and respectable, Bob has discovered that it is possible for him to use his Russian to communicate with others. Consequently, he increased his L2 use dramatically, even initiating conversations and using forms he is uncertain of simply to test them. Also, he no longer isolated himself physically

48


from others. He later wrote, “They seem to think I study alot [sic]. I leave the door open here and take breaks by going out and sitting with everyone. This was never done at the last place.” By feeling that others had validated his presence, ideas, and efforts to communicate in Russian, Bob found a level of security that allowed him to use more Russian, more frequently, in more contexts, and with a higher degree of risk-taking behavior. Coincidentally, within a week after moving to his new homestay, Bob reported for the first time that even his class performance was improving, writing “it seems that I am getting better and that encourages me to participate more, with confidence my boldness increases (daring, I know).”

2.3.2

Safety

Along the scale of social distance, learners need not only to establish an appropriate and desirable degree of distance between themselves and others, but also to feel they are physically and emotionally safe from harm. If learners sense that interlocutors have come too close socially, emotionally, or physically, they may feel in jeopardy. The narrative data show that when learners believe that they are in danger of physical or emotional abuse from an interlocutor, their use of the second language declines greatly. Quite logically, this is to a great degree due to learners’ desire to avoid further interaction with those who may cause them harm. Such threats also rob learners of a sense of control, invalidate their efforts to be accepted, and may be degrading, thus damaging their sense of status. For example, the conditions Bob experienced with his first host family were untenable, not only due to the family members’ impatience with his imperfect language skills, but also due to the clear physical and emotional abuse Bob and his wife endured in the behavior of the host family’s fourteen-year-old son, Vitalik. Bob writes: Vitalik is still doing his Jekyll and Hyde impression. I walked out of my room one night because I heard what I thought was the sliding action of pistol a handgun [sic]. Sure enough Vitalik was standing there with a 9mm handgun and Papa was trying to get him to hand it over to him, nothing demanding or very forceful. Vitalik sees me, points the gun at me and pulls the trigger. Then turns it into a game of shoot the American, shooting me down like he sees on TV. I have a friend who wears a colostomy bag because another friend of mine accidently [sic] shot him. It’s not funny, but Papa was standing there so everything was OK. Vitalik now, when he is by himself, no parents at home or near, he comes up to us and says “Fuck you motherfucker,” “son of a bitch” thrusting out his chin in a confrontational manner. Needless to say we don’t speak much Russian with him.

Vitalik’s abusive behavior was not limited to this one interaction. At midsemester, I recorded the following in my researcher field notes:


49

I’ve been spending quite a bit of time lately trying to talk [Bob and Marie] into moving out of their homestay . . . the teenage son is basically psycho. He’s held a knife to both Marie’s and Bob’s throats at various times, he held a gun on Bob, and he tried to strangle Marie. Yesterday, Bob and Marie shut themselves in their room after the host-mom left and the kid spent I don’t know how long banging on the door and the walls, screaming “motherfucker” and a host of other English obscenities.

The resident director also reported that “. . . the fourteen year [old] only son repeatedly yelled profanities at, hassled, and attacked the husband and wife students living there . . . the son was both dangerous and harmful to our students and their Russian experience.” Regardless of the threats, Bob and Marie chose to stay until the RD forced them to move. Although the danger they experienced did not prompt them to move from the homestay, it did cause them to isolate themselves frequently from any contact with host-family members, and, as Bob’s journal entry indicates, made them reluctant to interact, not only with the child, but with the whole family. Vitalik’s behavior clearly threatened their physical safety, but it also sent the message that their presence was unwelcome. The threats in Bob’s situation are clear, but threats to safety can be much more subtle. For example, Madeline reports meeting a stranger on a train who carefully observes the card game she is playing with her American friends: We caught the attention of this stranger whom we assumed to be rude and/or creepy. At first he was seated behind me, but turned around in his seat to look over at our game. Then he actually switched seats in order to sit across from us. I was slightly nervous because an old man had tried to kiss my hand and although I’ve come to terms with the attention I get I still get on my guard . . . Apperence [sic] of Ruslan → about 5 6 with closely cropped blondish hair, sun-burned and somewhat leathery skin and face, somewhere between 27–36 in age, built like a wrestler, top row of teeth had four gold teeth in the middle. If I hadn’t known better I would have pegged him for a mafia bodyguard. I think that his apperence [sic] had a lot to do with how I treated him, how I regarded him.

When asked during an interview to expand upon why she felt uncomfortable with this individual, Madeline explained: Um, I think maybe like I have to admit, I mean, to be so petty, but I know his appearance had something to do with it. He had like the really close cropped hair, you know, the really, like, you know, suntanned, kind of like, leathery skin, and I was like, oh my God, you know, I mean I have to say if I saw him on the street I would have thought he was like hooked up with the mafia, you know, [inaudible] he’s what’s called a shady character, so, I was like, okay?

Madeline’s experience and intuition clearly guide her perceptions of danger, and her natural inclination to protect herself leads her to avoid interaction with Ruslan. She spoke little during this interaction initially, explaining, “We invited

50


him to have a seat, actually Krista did the inviting . . . I left it up to Krista to explain the rules.” Madeline later explained during an interview why Krista did the communicating during this interaction and not she: I have to say I’m a little apprehensive to know somebody, you know. Normally, like I have to like, either I have to know you or I have to feel unthreatened by you in order to talk. Like most people, I’ll say, you know, I don’t like to talk with him if I feel anything, like, somewhat threatening. This guy had been staring at us for a long time before he actually got close to us, and found out that he wanted to play cards, and I was just like, why are you standing there, and that’s what I was trying, you know, I guess I’m a little more apprehensive than Krista. Q: Is that in English as well as in Russian, or just in Russian, that you need to know somebody or feel comfortable with them before you’ll talk? A: That’s in Russian. Q: What about in English? A: In English, no, I feel like I have such a strong command that I just don’t care, you know, whether I know you or whatever.

In an interesting twist during this interaction, Madeline reports that her L2 use increases as her suspicions and fear of the stranger diminish: Over the time span of an hour we played quite a few hands and Ruslan, we discovered his name to be won an amazing amount of hands while even I made quite a few mistakes. I was surprised. We made acquaintences [sic] during the game using our Russian. We (Krista, Jean and I) discovered where our new companion was from: “Tashkent” and why he was going to: St. Petersburg “to coach a wrestling team.” Needless to say it took us about ten minutes to figure out exactly what he was saying when he said the words wrestling “borot’sya and something else boroba [sic].” At first I was not all to [sic] comfortable with our companion but after a while and I think after I watched with amazement how quickly he picked up the game I started to feel comfortable around him. I swore even in Russian a little when he won or when I did something stupid or lost. We ended up having a lot of fun and although we spoke both Russian and English in his presense [sic] Ruslan didn’t mind and we didn’t do it offensively.

As Madeline’s perceptions of the situation change, so does her perception of threats to her and her ability to protect herself. She gains enough comfort as a result that she begins both to negotiate communication breakdowns and to experiment with the language. In an interview she explained: Well, like as we sat down, and like, he sat right next to me and I was like, okay, he’s not being, like rude or anything. I guess it was like the way he carried himself. But like, you know, okay, I could chill out, ’cause, I was [leery] for a while, and after a while, you know, I like, I guess when I saw his intelligence with like how quick he picked up the game we were playing, like, how he like, like what he understood, I was just like, you know, okay, well this is a regular person, just like me, you know, throw the tensions out the window and [inaudible]. Like I think it had to do with me recognizing him as a fellow eccentric human being. Like before he was like a bug [laughter].


51

As an African-American woman in Russia, Madeline is no stranger to prejudice by physical appearance. Yet, she too uses her own type of physical “profiling” to establish an understanding of this stranger. As she breaks past the barriers of physical appearance and her own frame of reference, she comes to identify with the stranger as a fellow “eccentric,” one who may understand and accept her. As a result, Madeline feels less threatened by his presence, and she not only speaks more Russian but actually takes greater risks in her usage by incorporating Russian obscenities in her speech in order to strengthen the social network and test the limits of her L2 abilities. As demonstrated by the changes in Madeline’s attitudes and L2 use behaviors, when learners feel “comfortable,” that is, unthreatened physically or affectively by those around them, they report an increase in the amount and extent of their L2 use. Learners frequently report in the journals that “comfort,” “trust,” and “non-threatening atmospheres” help them to increase the amount of L2 they use and the extent to which they experiment with it. Thus, a feeling of physical and affective safety, like a sense of status, validation, and control, contributes to the preservation of social image, bringing their “real self” closer to their “ideal self,” and, subsequently, enhancing their use of the L2 during authentic interactions. SLA researchers have focused little on the issue of self-presentation and security, focusing primarily on learners’ sense of security from the aspect of social status and self-esteem. Little investigation has been done into learners’ drive to preserve their sense of validation, control, or safety under threats produced by L2 use in social interaction. One study, reported by LarsenFreeman and Long (1991), performed by Naiman et al. (1978), examined whether learners who are sensitive to rejection would avoid actively participating in language class in order to avoid ridicule by classmates or the instructor. However, Naiman et al. found no significant relationship linking the two variables. SLA researchers have also investigated learners’ tolerance for ambiguity and the effect this trait has on their ability to use the L2 in classroom interactions. Naiman et al. found a significant correlation between learners’ scores on listening comprehension and tolerance of ambiguity. No significant relationship was found between tolerance of ambiguity and an imitation task. Learners who are found to have little tolerance for ambiguity find that they are more reliant on reference materials and the assistance of others for comprehension and L2 production due to their hesitation to rely on their own conjecture and ability to extrapolate meaning from context (Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991). Learners with low levels of tolerance for the ambiguity that is inherent in an L2 must rely more heavily on authority and consequently must relinquish a certain degree of control over their L2 use environment. In this way, research into tolerance for ambiguity provides some support for learners’ need to maintain a reasonable

52


amount of control over their L2 use environment. However, linguistic control is only one type of control learners must maintain in order to use their L2, according to the data of the present study. Control over social plans and personal care and the need to maintain personal autonomy in the face of ambitious caretakers or aggressive interlocutors, such as in the cases of Jim and Camille, stimulate learners to avoid the L2 when its use prolongs the offending interaction or further jeopardizes learners’ sense of control, or to use the L2 in order to regain control when possible. Although studies of anxiety, rejection, and tolerance of ambiguity provide some explanation in support of the findings of the present project, the field of SLA has yet to examine in any serious depth the effects of social and personal factors on learners’ L2 use behavior patterns. Many of the reactions to security threats, reported by the case studies presented here, are indeed consistent with physical, emotional, and behavioral reactions examined in studies of foreign language anxiety. It is, however, inaccurate to suggest that all L2 use or avoidance is accompanied by symptoms of anxiety. Many learners choose to avoid using the L2 without ever experiencing feelings of dread, nervousness, sweats, or fidgeting. While learners at times report a panicked inability to produce or comprehend the L2, at other times they choose not to speak out of annoyance, concern for physical safety, or the desire to maintain an air of intelligence. The key, therefore, to understanding L2 use avoidance behavior requires not a look at “anxiety” per se, but an investigation into the source of the symptoms of anxiety, that is, learners’ need to establish, maintain, and protect their sense of personal social-psychological security in terms of their sense of status, validation, control, and safety. Like Jill’s party, which turned from a fun evening to a night of silent humiliation, so too do many learners’ interactions depend on the vagaries of social image. As learners’ experiences suggest, language learners wishing to pursue communication goals in the target language must feel that they are able to maintain a sense of social and psychological security when using their L2. They must believe that by using the L2, they are enhancing, or at least not jeopardizing, their sense of social, linguistic, and intellectual status. They must trust that their attempts to communicate, their participation in an interaction, and their thoughts and beliefs are validated by others with whom they interact; that they are able to maintain a reasonable amount of control over their environment; and that their physical and emotional safety is preserved. As learners’ narrative journals suggest, changes in their sense of security affect their use of the L2 as well. As their security is strengthened through interaction, they become more likely to use their L2 in further interactions. However, when their security comes under threat, they become less likely to use their L2 skills in an effort to preserve their security and bring no further harm. This conflict between


53

self-presentation and L2 use ultimately results in differences in speaking and feelings of anxiety until such point as the learner resolves the conflict. To understand better the self’s role in L2 use, it is also important to explore what factors affect learners’ sense of security. In the following chapter, we will explore the social and personal factors that affect learners’ sense of self, security, and subsequent L2 use.

3

Learners and their environment: factors affecting self-construction

I get uncomfortable . . . because she really thinks I’m a child with no thoughts and no intelligence. If she doesn’t feel that way then I don’t know why she treats me that way. So it makes me very ill at ease to just sit there and smile and nod. Susan, Fall Semester

I was inclined to speak more not only because I was interested, but because I got the feeling I impressed them a little with my Russian. That was an ego boost I needed. Julie, Fall Semester

As social actors in the intercultural arena, language learners are constantly engaged in an open performance of a rather personal act – the construction of the self. Self-construction in the foreign society is, in fact, a carefully orchestrated spectacle. As in any performance, the actor plays to an audience. The spectators express mixed reactions – some playing the critic, displaying frowns, laughter, and, at times, outright insults, while others act as the undying fans, proud of the actor and ready to support all offerings. The actor looks to the audience as a measure of his or her performance, hoping to understand through critics and fans the picture he or she is publicly presenting. Yet the greatest critic is the individual performer, who observes himself or herself from all angles and ultimately decides whether the performance has been a success. Was the self created and portrayed the desired one, or was the individual perceived by the audience to be one of lesser quality? Julie’s and Susan’s experiences, expressed in the epigraph, represent a common occurrence in study abroad. Their words illustrate the audience’s central role in the development and presentation of the self. The great power unknowingly wielded by the spectators of this personal play can inhibit learners’ speech or give learners the drive to continue. In the previous chapter, we explored the ways in which learners’ sense of self can affect their use of the language. In this chapter, we take a step further into the question of how social factors, external to the learner, and learner-internal psychological factors can affect learners’ sense of security, self-presentation, and subsequent language use. We also consider how the affective response of anxiety affects learners’ L2 use. 54

Factors affecting self-construction

55

Anxiety is traditionally considered to be a learner-internal causal factor in the inhibition of L2 use; the data presented here, however, suggest that anxiety is, in fact, a physiological and psychological response to the disparity between the “real” self and the “ideal” self. As was suggested in Chapter 2, learners often reduce their L2 use to resolve the disparity and, thus, relieve anxiety. Therefore, as will be explored, anxiety is not the cause of L2 reduction, but rather the emotional byproduct of self-presentation. Learners gather information about their sense of status, control, safety, and validation in an L2 interaction from multiple sources. They may look to their interlocutors’ behaviors, like Susan, or the attitudes they believe their interlocutors have about them, like Julie. They may also be affected by interlocutors’ personal characteristics, such as age, gender, and physical appearance. Factors that are external to the learner, such as the aforementioned, are here termed social-environmental cues.1 In contrast, learners also look within themselves to determine their sense of identity in social interactions. These learner-internal cues consist of learners’ own attitudes and beliefs about themselves, others, the foreign language, their own culture, the foreign culture, and the language-learning process. Internal cues also include learners’ ability to predict the success or failure of their own L2 performance, based on their familiarity with the interaction context and the belief that there is a common feature between themselves and the interlocutor. Learners’ sense of self in social interactions is inextricably linked with the language that they use. Given the principal role of languages as catalyst for social interaction, the social environment of an L2 communication plays an important role in the evaluation of the real self. Praise and constructive criticism are both vital in helping learners improve their L2 performance. Language learners are accustomed to receiving evaluative feedback in the classroom regarding their progress in learning. Although most study-abroad programs provide structured language classrooms, the majority of speaking opportunities in the in-country environment occur through unstructured spontaneous language use – impromptu conversations with strangers, spur-of-the-moment chats with friends, even planned but unstructured monologues to willing (or even unwilling) listeners.2 In the language class, learners have the opportunity for 1

2

Although such cues come from the external surroundings in which a learner interacts, they all must be filtered through the learner’s internal perception and interpretation; an overt display of opinion may be no more powerful to the learner’s sense of self than a misinterpreted, unintentional response. In spite of this learner-internal interpretation, each of these factors is classified here as social-environmental, given that the source of each is external to the learner. Learners interact with a variety of “others” in the social environment during L2 interactions. “Others” or other participants in the interaction may include fellow L2 learners or native speakers, interlocutors (active participants), or observers (passive participants). Others may or may not act as “caretakers,” defined as individuals who aid or contribute to the language-learning experience through explicit language instruction, informal language use, feedback, correction,

56


structured, limited practice, as well as support and feedback provided by a systematic rubric of grades and teacher-talk. The teacher has an assigned responsibility for guiding and broadening the learners’ speech, and feedback from teacher to student is expected. Outside of the classroom, students often maintain this dynamic, creating relationships with native speakers from whom they continue to look for feedback. However, in relationships with non-teachers, the balance of power is less certain in nature; the asymmetrical teacher–student relationship may or may not be preserved. Host-family members, whom the student expects to act as a teacher, may decline such responsibility, and friends who should be equal peers may become caretakers. This unclearly defined power dynamic can create an uncertain sense of obligation, expectation, and possibly even resentment for either or both parties. The social distance and hierarchy between students and interlocutors in nonacademic relationships, as such, are less clearly defined than by academic convention; the resulting relationship can be somewhat unnatural or unpredictable. Yet at some level, whether knowingly or unknowingly, intentionally or unintentionally, the native speaker becomes the learner’s source of evaluative feedback. Interlocutors’ facial expressions, mannerisms, evaluative comments, and responses to learners’ use of the L2 convey information to learners about the success or failure of their communicative efforts and about how others accept them. This information feeds directly into the learners’ sense of self and, consequently, informs further L2 use. Thus, the attitudes and behaviors that interlocutors exhibit can greatly affect learners’ perceptions of their own performance and construction of their “real self.” 3.1

Social-environmental cues

3.1.1

Caretaker behaviors and attitudes

Caretakers’ behaviors can impact on learners’ sense of security in numerous ways. Based on their perceptions, learners may interpret interlocutors’ behaviors as indicative of positive or negative attitudes that interlocutors hold about and use of “foreignese” or language adapted to learners’ level for greater accessibility. Caretakers may be native or non-native speakers and may play a wide variety of roles in learners’ lives, such as language instructors, resident directors, host-family members, roommates, or friends. They may be trained to be language caretakers (such as language teachers) or untrained, and caretaking activities may be expected based on the type of relationship (e.g., classroom and homestay situations) or unexpected (e.g., strangers). In addition, caretaking activities may be desired and even overtly requested by learners or may be undesired and even embarrassing to learners, depending on the goals and preferences of the learners. Therefore, learners encounter many different types of caretaking relationships with others in their environment and many different styles and approaches to caretaking methods. Understandably, therefore, the behaviors and perceived attitudes of those who act as caretakers may affect considerably the learners’ perception of their real self.


57

them.3 Behaviors may convey rejection or acceptance, affecting learners’ sense of validation and status. Interlocutors may also behave in ways that suggest comfort or threats to personal safety. Behaviors may be quite candid and unambiguous, such as frank criticism or compliments, or may be vague or even unintended, as in a simple laugh or frown, interpreted by the learner as scorn. Whatever the behavior, for many learners, others’ actions and attitudes are quite influential on their sense of security. The following two sections, “Insulting feedback and harsh correction” and “Complimentary feedback and gentle correction,” explore the effects of negative and positive behaviors and the attitudes learners perceive through them. Further sections investigate other forms of interlocutor behavior. 3.1.1.1 Insulting feedback and harsh correction Examples of good and bad caretaking approaches are common in the narrative journals, with unpleasant episodes reported by learners far more often than pleasant. Although this is a study of non-classroom interactions, some of the clearest examples of caretaking come from the classroom setting. As trained caretakers, teachers are expected to provide learners with corrective feedback and support. However, cultural differences in foreign education programs may foster unexpected conflict for learners. For example, American learners are generally unaccustomed to the directness and openness with which Russian instructors typically perform caretaking duties.4 Learners report instances of caretaking that often seem harsh by American educational standards: teachers may openly criticize students in front of other students, or they may overtly compare students and express preference for one over another. The effect of such interactions is a reduction of learners’ sense of security. In the following illustration, Rebeccah 3

4

Ehrman and Dörnyei (1998) delve into the nature of “social perception,” that is, the impressions we form of others and the value judgments we assign these impressions. They stress that such perceptions are contextual and are conditioned through the perceiver’s “filters,” which are based on the perceiver’s biographical background, personality disposition, and prior experience. Social perceptions include not only how we see others (“first-order perception”), but also how we think others see us (“second-order”), and how we think others react to our perceptions (“third-order”), and so forth. The authors explore numerous sources of error in social perception, including stereotyping, physical setting, presuppositions, and attributions, among others (52–55). While post-Soviet departments of Russian as a foreign language are changing to accommodate foreign students’ learning experiences, the Russian classroom differs greatly from the American one. In American classrooms, negative feedback is typically done in a somewhat concealed manner, couching criticisms within compliments designed to encourage self-respect and an intrinsic will to perform better. Direct criticism is generally reserved for punishments. The Russian educational system, however, values directness and considers poor performance to be a sign of inadequate preparation on the part of the student. In front of their peers, students may be told they are bad or lazy in an effort to encourage them to work harder to avoid such comments in the future. If American students do not have the requisite cultural knowledge to understand teachers’ motives, this difference in style comes as a shock and may be perceived to be rude or insulting, instead of well-intentioned. See Byram (1995) and Jensen (1995) for more on the importance of culture in intercultural interactions.

58


describes an incident in which a new teacher joins her group to instruct a course on economics. She writes: We got a new class today, Economics. So the new teacher went around the room, finding out our backgrounds. When she knew that I graduated from college with a BA in Russian, she said, “Oh – then your Russian must be excellent – we are like colleagues.” I assured her that wouldn’t be the case. (By the way – she’s 56 yrs old – & Russian.) Later in the lesson, I didn’t understand some words (she had asked us to please say something if we didn’t understand). So I asked what the words meant, she turned to me & said (basically), “you’re a bad student, you finished college already and should be ashamed for not knowing!” I replied sarcastically and hurtfully in English, “Thank you.” I really felt like crying! She completely cut me down in front of the class. She also said something mean to Mya. As I really was on the verge of tears, I just kept my eyes glued to my notebook the rest of the class to not cry. I used my dictionary to look up the words I didn’t know. After about 10 minutes, she asked me to define the term “dengi” [sic] (money) in an economic sense. I just looked at her & said, “ne znayu” (don’t know) then went back to looking up words in the dictionary. (Yes, this was rude – but I was so hurt.) At the end of class, as she made her closing remarks, she said something about offending me & that she was sorry – I wasn’t “really” listening – so I don’t know tochno (exactly) what she said. Now I’m dreading this class next week. This teacher obviously does not know how to teach foreigners. I will probably never feel comfortable talking in front of this woman again – since I am obviously not up to par with her standards!

The colleague-like relationship the teacher attempts to establish between herself and Rebeccah creates expectations about her Russian that Rebeccah cannot possibly live up to. The teacher’s efforts only make the later criticism all the more painful, since the teacher establishes an even higher “ideal” image than Rebeccah herself would have. Her subsequent failure to meet that ideal results in depressed status and invalidation of her needs as a student. Rebeccah later explained in an interview that the experience caused her to “willfully cut” the second class. In subsequent classes, the teacher continued her critical caretaking measures, while clearly professing a desire to help the students develop linguistically: She, [didn’t apologize really,] it was more of just her noticing, she’s like “Oh, I see that Rebeccah’s upset . . .,” you know, it wasn’t really “I’m sorry for what I did.” And after that she started to say, “Oh, you know, I want you all to develop your conversational skills and I won’t talk as much,” which she hasn’t fulfilled. She still talks a lot, she still insults us, like not with our language skills, but how we’re at, like she says, oh you’re so comfortable, you Americans, you don’t know about the problems of the world and, like she, you know, she’s, you know, I don’t watch TV, and I don’t watch the news, and she’s like, well, that’s because you’re apathetic. No, it’s because I don’t like TV. But . . . it’s okay now, I’m, I think it’s okay. Some of my classmates don’t think so, they don’t want the class next semester . . . I mean after class every day my classmates are like . . . “I hate her,” as soon as she leaves the room . . . so . . .


59

Despite the teacher’s professed good intentions, though, Rebeccah’s perception of her impatience continued to inhibit Rebeccah’s speech in her presence more than a month after the first incident: [My speaking] still sucks. I’m still not . . . It’s just her continuing behavior, it’s so like, abrupt and, you know, impatient and just, it’s not a really nice atmosphere to speak in.

Not all caretaking efforts are as overtly aggressive or damaging to learners’ sense of security. Camille relates a series of incidents in which her teacher merely devotes extra attention to Camille to help her understand and learn. Unfortunately, the caretaker’s behavior separates Camille from her classmates and consequently damages her sense of status in the group. Ultimately, Camille’s frustrations prompt a meeting with her resident director: So on Friday, Erin called me into her office . . . and asked me how classes had been going. What could I say, I knew what she was getting at. My first day of class (conversation class) I came in late . . . So she [my teacher] picked on me and said I didn’t understand. On Friday she really started getting on my nerves. We would all be sitting there and she would lecture once and a while [sic] asking “does everyone understand?” No one would say anything so this meant yes. Wrong. She would immediately assume that my silence meant that I didn’t get it, as she would say, “Camille doesn’t understand” and then write whatever on the board. Finally I sort of yelled, “yes, I understand, I totally understand.” She told me that I should let her know what’s going on in my head or she can’t know. I think there were 2 things going on, 1) that I got on her bad side [after being late on the first day] from the beginning and was pegged as a space cadet, 2) I don’t understand as much as the others in my group though I have had much more Russian than they have. Of course I have a complex, so I get more frustrated and confused. At one point she was explaining dostigat’ (to obtain) and how it means to buy “s trudom” (with difficulty). For my sake she emphasized ‘s’ and it sounded like stru dom ([nonsense word] house). So I paniced [sic] and started racing back to what adjective sounding like stru could have modified “house/home.” She wrote it on the board for me, and of course I felt like an asshole.

Why single Camille out when everyone was silent? Was it her tardiness on the first day? Her apparent lack of progress? Camille’s sense of “ideal” self is clear; she believes she should be far advanced beyond other students (or at least understand as much as), since she’s had “much more Russian than they have.” The stakes are high, but her performance is threatened by her teacher’s unwanted attention. The coddling but well-intentioned aid emphasizes for Camille the teacher’s apparent image of Camille as troubled. As noted earlier, trained instructors are not the only caretakers available to learners. Often host-family members serve as caretakers not only of learners’ domestic needs but of their linguistic needs as well. Rebeccah, for example, offers such a case of a NS host cum teacher. She writes:

60


Tonight was Russian Paskha (Easter). So I was at the dinner table w/ my family. And it happened that I had to talk a lot. I kept screwing up my cases of numbers. Then Irina said, “I give you a dvoyka (‘D’) tonight in Russian. You’ve been here since Sept. blah blah . . . You shouldn’t be making these mistakes.” I felt very bad. And after that comment I just shut up. I didn’t want to provoke her again w/ my dvoyka russkii [sic] (‘D’ Russian). Was she trying to be mean? Or is that just her nature. This comment from her comes at a time when I’m disappointed w/ my language & I feel May [the program’s end] breathing down my neck. I feel I should be better than I am. And there’s no time left to remedy this.

Rebeccah’s question regarding Irina’s motives reflects the value of cultural frames in interpreting caretakers’ intentions. Yet, presumably Irina is acting the way her teachers did when she was a student; she is trying to be helpful in the way she knows a good teacher to be. Moreover, Rebeccah reveals very clearly the cognitive dissonance she feels between the real self she can project and the ideal self she’d like to, explaining “I feel I should be better than I am.” It is this fear that Irina’s direct comment simply confirms. Insulting feedback and harsh, aggressive correction is also cited by other students as detrimental to their L2 use. The program-end questionnaire results showed that almost two-thirds (62 percent) of the learners replied that they tend to speak little or not at all if they know the person they’re speaking with corrects too much or unpleasantly. One learner reported, “I don’t like someone who over-corrects me,” while another wrote, “I think I learn better when I am not being corrected too harshly, but I need some guidance.” Frequent or harsh correction and insulting feedback can lower learners’ sense of security either by confirming negative perceptions learners already hold of themselves or by implying that learners are incompetent. As a result, learners may feel lower in status or powerless to affect their world. Poor caretaking behavior also can invalidate the learners’ efforts to develop, conveying the message that as learners they do not possess the skills to communicate or learn the language as others would. Poor caretaking consists of more than just insults or personal attacks. A caretaker who is ignorant of learners’ needs may also, through normal everyday behavior, cause learners to feel inadequate to communicate or control their environment. For example, Rebeccah describes the following group excursion: We went on an excursion today to the domik Petra I-ogo (the cottage of Peter the First) at the Hermitage. Our guide spoke so quickly, like a machine gun. She was like 40ish, short as a pygmee [sic], and really unpleasant to look at. She knew we were Americans – yet persisted in speaking quickly & unclearly. I tried to understand for about 3 minutes, then quickly tuned her out. I wanted to ask her to speak slowly, but didn’t want to appear dumb in front of the group. (After all, nobody else asked her to slow down.)


61

So I walked through the exhibition, present in body – absent in mind. I felt angry afterwards – like I had wasted my time. What good is it to go on a tour if you don’t understand a word? And I also wonder if everyone really understood, or if they too felt dumb!

Because her speech was inaccessible and inconsiderate of the students’ needs, the guide seemed to invalidate Rebeccah’s efforts to understand. Since none of the other students asked the caretaker to adjust her language, Rebeccah was left feeling intellectually inferior to her peers. Yet, it is likely that she was not alone in her alienation. 3.1.1.2 Complimentary feedback and gentle correction Just as poor caretaking behavior can greatly impede learners’ use of the L2 by threatening learners’ sense of security in an L2 interaction, positive, supportive behavior can give learners the security they need to pursue their L2 communication goals. For example, before Jim’s relationship with Galina, his fiancée’s host mother, soured, he reported on an interaction in which he felt comfortable and was, consequently, a “primary participant.” Jim cites three reasons for his comfort: extensive knowledge of the topic, the presence of his fiancée (“someone with whom I am more comfortable than with any other person”), and the non-threatening caretaking behavior of Galina. He writes: Galina would correct my pronunciation or case ending from time to time, but in a nonjudgmental way. She would say the word and ask me to repeat it, when she was satisfied, we continued . . . There were occasional times when Galina would lose me, but we would banter back and forth until I understood, and then we would continue.

The result of this non-threatening behavior was a “very high comfort level” that “allowed me to jump into the exchange head first.” His sense of security, consequently, was well supported, and he was able to use the L2 amply. Patient and non-judgmental caretaking also influences Madeline’s choice of interlocutor in her host family. When asked during an interview whom she would choose first in her host family to tell exciting or important information, Madeline responded she would choose her host father over the host mother: ’Cause he’s the most willing to listen. When he’s home, he’s always been real patient and he’ll listen, he’ll listen to me and, you know, he’s just like, he won’t, you know, rush to go get me the dictionary, so I don’t feel, you know, all small [laughs] ’cause I don’t know the word. He’ll throw out some words, and when, you know, it gets too, you know, it’s like, he’ll throw out like five words. Like, he’ll throw out the word “board,” and maybe I might get it, you know, oh, that’s, that’s what you’re talking about! So that’s it, you know what I’m saying. He’ll throw out context, if you want a word, he’s like, oh, you mean something, something, something. You know, I’ll be like, no. You know, and then when it’s congruent, it’s with context. Galya’s kind of impatient, she’s like, okay, you don’t know the word, she’ll go to the dictionary. You know? And this just kind of impedes the progress. There is no flow and you don’t feel like you’re making any, the

62


confidence level goes down, but, like, with Volod’ya it’s like, most of the time he’s, he’ll talk to me and even though I don’t understand, he won’t stop and say “ponyatno (do you understand?).” You know. Ponyatno (do you understand?) if he, if, you know. I don’t know, it’s somewhat easier to talk to him. ’Cause, like, you know, he, he, he talks to me like I have half a brain, so, you know . . .

Her host father’s willingness to listen to her and work out misunderstandings suggests acceptance of her as a competent individual. Yet, as was seen earlier with Camille’s teacher, so often the techniques that caretakers use to ensure learning and comfort in their charges backfire. Checking comprehension, thumbing through the dictionary, and other such methods can be used with the greatest of intentions but may convey impatience or exacting expectations that are ultimately more intimidating than helpful. Whether the caretaker is a teacher or an intimate friend, such practice can emphasize an asymmetrical hierarchical relationship, with one partner clearly in a parent/teacher position and the other the child/student. Much of the success or failure of such efforts depends on the learner’s perception and the caretaker’s experience in helping learners. Just as insults can severely damage learners’ sense of self, so can compliments greatly support and elevate learners’ sense of self. For example, Reanna reports a social event with a Russian doctor who pays her a compliment: “After a little while he says ‘your Russian is very good,’ which encourages me to elaborate on my own answers and to ask more questions.” Rebeccah reports a similar event where a stranger complimented her Russian: “She asked where I had learned to speak such good Russian. I was so pleased! That boosted my ego, it freed my tongue – suddenly I felt so fluent. My accent sounded good, I was talking freely.” Other learners report similar relationships between compliments and L2 use on the program-end questionnaire. One learner wrote, “what’s most important for my language is getting excited about learning it – that can be triggered by a good conversation, by a Russian person I like, by a compliment of my Russian,” while another wrote “I like to be complimented/reassured in my lang. ability – esp. speaking.” In fact, learners overwhelmingly agreed that for most (90%; 42% strongly agree), receiving a compliment on their Russian puts them at ease and helps them to speak more. By expressing positive attitudes toward learners’ L2 skills, caretakers can raise learners’ sense of linguistic status, can validate their efforts to use and learn the target language, and can reinforce in them the feeling that they are able to exert a reasonable amount of control over their environment through use of the L2. In turn, learners report they feel encouraged to speak and even experiment in the target language, feeling less threatened with the knowledge that their skills are already appreciated.5 5

While it surely surprises no one that compliments often affect learners’ sense of self in a positive way, we must note that not all learners react the same way. Well-intentioned words of


63

With the elevated sense of self that learners can develop from a caretaker’s support can also come a greater motivation to use the language in more challenging and risky ways. The approval learners hear from their caretakers may suggest to them that the caretakers believe the learners can achieve a high ideal, that they have the skill and knowledge to do more than they thought. For example, Madeline describes a new teacher’s approach to teaching literature: For the first time I have material that I’m not ashamed of doing. I have no idea where our literature teacher gets it from, but she expects the most of us. I feel like I’m really working in her class. She gave us books to read from, actually she assigned a Nabokov [work] called “Skazka” (Fairy Tale) and we were able to finish it even though there were a lot of vocabulary words that I didn’t know. I had some help from my host mother on the last three pages, but the majority I got accomplished by myself. We discussed the piece in one class period and she handed us two new books to read – one for the whole class and then we each got independent books to read. I got Turgenev and for my independent reading I got Aleksandr Kuprin. For the first time this semester I feel like I’m really accomplishing something with the russian [sic] language other than simply surviving. It was not this way my first semester, I guess because surviving was my first priority. I didn’t worry a whole lot about challenges. I think I went through a period of low interest with the russian [sic] language. I was satisfied with surviving and satisfied with the basic understanding that I can take from television, radio and conversation. However with literature, which I love, the basic just means nothing so I break out my dictionary and go at the material with an enthusiasm that I thought was gone.

With the teacher’s trust in her students and her high expectations, Madeline’s relationship with the teacher may seem more symmetrical than the typical teacher–student roles. The teacher’s gift of Russian literature invites the students to enter her world, to converse on her intellectual level. When they are treated as mature, competent readers, the students come to see themselves as such, and the elevated status and sense of control Madeline gains from the teacher’s actions motivate her to live up to her teacher’s expectations. Like Bob’s dislike of name-games (p. 38), Madeline’s attraction to this mature assignment encouragement and support can, in fact, have a contradictory effect for some by raising the level of expectation that others seem to have for one’s “ideal” self, instead of bolstering the “real” self. For example, in my own study-abroad journal, I recorded the following entry: “When I first meet someone, I’m very comfortable ‘showing off’ that I know Russian. But the minute they compliment me, I start to feel very self-conscious and worried that I’ll make a mistake and prove them wrong. I start to measure every word and hold back, I think, even when I don’t realize that I’m doing it. This then makes me feel like I’m not making any progress, when I start to realize that I’m saying the same words over and over again, when I would be expressing things much more fully in English. I start to realize exactly how far from fluent I am, and so I get even more self-conscious. It’s when I get to know the individual well and feel accepted by the individual for who I am, regardless of my language, that I begin to loosen up and experiment with the language, trying out new words and seeing if I’ve gotten them right.” Although in the minority, several students in the present study expressed similar concerns over the paradoxical effects of compliments on their L2 use.

64


demonstrates how a caretaker’s behaviors can help learners perceive their “real” self as elevated more closely to their “ideal” self. Not all caretaker behaviors are clearly negative or positive as those illustrated here. As stated earlier, much depends on student perceptions, and caretakers’ behaviors can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Laughter, for example, may be seen as malicious or supportive – the classic question of whether one is laughing with you or at you. Rebeccah demonstrates how an interaction that potentially could have embarrassed her became quite a positive experience. She writes: I was in a grocery store today & needed to buy a box of chocolate. So I chose one & brought it to the cashier. I needed to make sure there were more than 11 pieces of candy in the box, so I said, “mozhno schitat’ skol’ko shtukov [sic] est’ v korobke?” (may I count how many pieces there are in the box?) I knew it had to be genitive plural – but I wasn’t sure how to form it. The cashier just started laughing at me! So I knew I made a mistake! Surprisingly though, this did not put me off. I began laughing too. And at the end of the transaction, we were both smiling. And I didn’t feel dumb – and I didn’t falter or stutter. It was just fun & funny. And once again I think it was her attitude that made me feel at ease. I don’t think my mood affects my speaking, for if a nice person speaks to me – I will immediately warm up & speak happily to them – regardless of my mood.

Laughter at mistakes can affect learners in different ways, as Rebeccah’s surprise at her own reaction would suggest. What factors affect students’ perceptions of interlocutor behavior? For Rebeccah, the cashier’s attitude (as she perceived it) was the key. Rebeccah later commented during an interview that “the other person, the person to whom you’re speaking affects the way you speak, I think, a lot.” When asked what about the other person affects her speaking, she responded: A: Their attitude. Q: Their attitude towards . . .? A: Towards you. If you are talking to somebody, they seem bored or impatient or, you know, any of those sorts of things, you’re not going to feel very good about it, even in English, I think.

Rebeccah acknowledged that learners must determine their interlocutors’ attitudes solely on their own perceptions and that interlocutors rarely express negative attitudes directly to learners. Oh, I think it’s rare that they overtly will come out and say something, but they’ll do small things that make it harder for you to communicate. Um, I can tell you I went to a tour agency today, and at some they’re “Oh, please sit down,” and they listen to me, they look at me, and then I can speak. But today I went to one and I just walked in and nobody offered me a seat, you know, they’re like “what do you want?” And I was like “ehw!” like, what do I say . . . and I started like stuttering around, trying to . . . and I didn’t get my, what I needed, I felt like a jerk. But in another place I already have a tour being planned and I’m calling them a lot, and . . . so . . . It makes a BIG difference there, what they do, how you perceive what they’re, what they, are they listening to you, are they looking at you . . .


65

Negative attitudes expressed in the actions of interlocutors can inhibit learners by lowering their sense of status (“I felt like a jerk”). Such attitudes also suggest to learners that their attempts to use the language are not worth interlocutors’ time and patience, essentially invalidating them. In an interview, Reanna’s observations regarding positive attitudes from her interlocutors nicely summarize the effects many learners feel: “it depends on the kind of, the feeling I get from the people I’m with, if they seem like they really couldn’t care less that I’m there, then I don’t make too much effort, but if they’re particularly nice, then I go and jump in.” When learners’ energies are freed from protecting their sense of security, they feel better able to strive toward achieving a communicative goal without damage to their self-presentation. 3.1.1.3 Excessive attention Attention from others can be a sign of acceptance and validation by one’s peers. Yet just as too little attention from caretakers may inhibit learners, too much attention may also be problematic. Remember Camille’s negative experience with her teacher after being singled out in class (p. 59). Rather than fostering better language use and supporting the learner, this special attention caused Camille to feel intellectually inadequate, which challenged her status among her peers. Excessive attention isolates learners from the social group, often pointing out that learners are unlike others, perhaps of a different social, intellectual, or linguistic status than others. Camille was isolated by such attention due to a difference in her linguistic status. Madeline reports an incident, however, in which special attention paid her was due to a different social status: My little host sister Ol’ga invited me to her vocal performance today . . . Anyway I arrived at the place and people there of course looked at me like “why are you here,” but once again I was like “just point me to the concert hall, please.” I think my Russian works a lot better when I’m cold and exhausted . . . I kind of wimped out because I was sitting all the way in the back where it was dark, and there weren’t that many people. However, when the show ended I had to come out of hiding so that I could meet up with Ol’ga and Volod’ya. When I finally did meet them at the coat check, my day just seemed to plummet. Ol’ga went an [sic] lashed onto me, and if I wasn’t on display before, I was then. It just seemed like all eyes were on me. I couldn’t say much of anything more less [sic] anything Russian. I felt like a doll. Ol’ga kept saying – moya malenkaya [sic] chernikaya [sic] i (my little black one and) other things. All of my risk-taking bravery just plummetted [sic] into the toilet, as old women stared and Ol’ga’s friends came on toward with their oh’s and ah’s. I felt like crying.

As an African-American in Russia, Madeline regularly attracted a great deal of attention and curiosity. Rather than being an interesting conversational partner for her intelligence, personality, or experience, her young host sister treats her instead as a toy, an object of curiosity, a collectable for show-and-tell. Such attention, once again, proves isolating and degrades her social status. Rather

66


than use her language to change the situation, Madeline’s lack of control and belief that nothing can be done leaves her silent and withdrawn. 3.1.1.4 Comparison to others Learners often report feeling as though they are being compared to others, either favorably or unfavorably, and as with other forms of evaluation by interlocutors, learners’ sense of security can be affected by comparative evaluation. Comparison is a natural form of social cognition. Humans instinctively experience the world and develop knowledge and memory through cognitive associations. We build relationships in our mind by comparing what we presently encounter with the extant schemata of information in our minds. In interpersonal relationships, such comparison allows us to have shortcuts to developing acquaintance and intimacy with others – if we recognize in someone a characteristic trait we’ve seen elsewhere, we try to understand the individual more quickly by presuming associated traits as well. Such cognitive economy is seen in the phenomenon of stereotyping. Stereotypes are not by nature negative; according to Larry Martin (1986), “Stereotypes are not in themselves evil or pathological but are necessary thinking devices that enable people to avoid conceptual chaos by packaging the world into a manageable number of categories” (156–57). Stereotypes, however, carry a danger in that as categorization occurs, individuals or groups may be reduced in status, identified only by some perceived inadequacy. Identification based on specific features, such as sub-proficient L2 skills, may create blinders to the positive features of the stereotyped individuals and may lead to stigmatization. Stigmas, which are “discrediting marks that are understood by others in social encounters and involve affective responses, such as avoidance, disgust, disgrace, shame, or fear,” (ibid. 147) when applied to individuals can alter individuals’ own sense of identity and beliefs, causing them to doubt their own self-worth in society. According to Martin, individuals who become stigmatized in an alien community already understand the difference between what is “normal” and what is “stigmatized” and undergo a reevaluation of themselves that typically entails an identity crisis and a loss of self-esteem (153). Loss of self-esteem has been shown to be one of the most significant effects of prejudice on stigmatized individuals.6 Damaged self-esteem is only one response to prejudicial treatment by others, however. Studies on the effects of prejudice have shown that even individuals who are artificially assigned temporarily lower status perform much more poorly than their “superior” peers on tasks that are completely unrelated to the status assigned them (Jemmott and Gonzalez 1989). Thus, individuals who are treated as if they hold a lower status or higher status than their peers will behave in ways consistent with 6

For further discussion see Aronson 1995, 295–353.


67

such status. Learners who are consistently reminded that their L2 proficiency is inferior to that of their peers may come to behave and perform at a much less proficient level than that of which they are told they are capable. As Aronson (1995) writes, “when we hold erroneous beliefs or stereotypes about other people, our responses to them often cause them to behave in ways that validate those erroneous beliefs,” creating a “self-fulfilling prophecy” (313). This may be of significant consequence for learners assigned to a particular group or particular institute because of lower levels of proficiency, as Camille, Madeline, and Bob were. Similarly, learners who are reminded of their superior status among peers, linguistically or otherwise, may come to put more effort into their L2 performance and may, in fact, perform at a higher level. Interlocutors’ expressions of expectations, therefore, may play a large role in establishing learners’ sense of status and in reducing or elevating their performance. Learners often perceive that they are being stereotyped as “good” or “bad” language learners, as “strong” or “weak” speakers of the L2 by their interlocutors. Such stereotypes may be based on interlocutors’ own experiences with other learners. For example, Bob reports that his situation with his first host family worsened after introducing them to students from a different institution who had studied Russian longer. Bob writes, “Marie likes our family, I feel that they have lost patience, especially after they met some of the students from [another institute]. I can’t help but feel compared to them, regardless of the amount of time they have spent studying.” Bob consequently perceived that his host family held expectations for his ability that were unrealistic given the differences in their situations. As a result, when he was unable to live up to their expectations, they seemed impatient with his inferiority. Madeline also feared that she would be compared by her host family to another American who had been invited to dinner. She describes an evening during which I joined her family socially for dinner: We, my host family and I hosted today, not just anybody. We hosted Val, someone who is practically fluent in the russian [sic] language. If it had been anybody else I wouldn’t have been too nervous. Sometimes I’m afraid that Galya doesn’t pay attention to me because I don’t speak fast enough. I was afraid no one talk [sic] to me at the table, and that I wouldn’t be interesting with a fluent american [sic] in the house. Jealous, a little, I was. It seemed a little strange and akward [sic] when Val spoke in Russian to me. It seemed weird to see her forming the words. I was nervous pretty much until I sat down at the table and saw the food and table set-up. I wondered if Val would appreciate everything but more and more my worries and jealousy vanished. Pride came up. I know that I am overtly proud of my home environment and Volod’ya’s cooking, and the attention they give to me. I only hoped that Val liked them. I guess, because Val knows more of the language, that I thought she [sic] have a clearer, non-naive view of my family unlike myself. I only understand maybe 55% of any given conversation and I only pay attention to my grammer [sic], which sucks, 75% of the time.

68


The night was so great. They paid attention to me, too! I got to talk and joke right along with everyone. I didn’t feel like a piece of furniture. Of course, the liquor may have helped!

Fortunately, Madeline’s fears were misplaced. Yet the anticipation of comparison between herself and me did cause her to speak very little in Russian, especially at the beginning of the evening. As the evening progressed, however, and the feared comparison did not materialize, Madeline came to regain her sense of the “ideal” to which she had to strive, an ideal that she herself set and that was not set by comparison to someone else. Whether intentional or inadvertent, the behaviors that caretakers exhibit to learners often say more than the words the caretakers speak. Through behaviors such as excessive attention, correction, and comparison interlocutors can convey opinions about learners and their L2 use. More importantly, learners perceive opinions, whether they are consistent with the interlocutors’ actual opinions or not. In this way, interlocutors’ behaviors suggest to learners how they are viewed socially in terms of status and can validate their social acceptability and worth. In turn, learners’ reevaluation of the self affects their L2 use. The interpretation of attitudes based on human behavior is a common phenomenon in human cognition. Social psychologist Edward Jones has labeled the false connection drawn between human behavior and personality traits or attitudes as “correspondent interference.” Jones and his colleague, Victor Harris, have shown that by behaving in a way that supports a particular position, individuals are assumed to believe in ideologies that support that position, even if their behavior was dictated by another and not of their own volition (Jones and Harris 1967). According to the concept of “fundamental attribution error,” as humans we have a tendency to overestimate the importance of others’ personality and dispositions in their behavior and underestimate situational or environmental factors (Aronson 1995). In other words, behavior that may be due to some factor particular to a given situation might be seen by others as indicative of some personality trait, attitude, or belief of the actor. Thus, learners may easily interpret the behaviors interlocutors display as indicative of their attitudes. A number of studies in social psychology have examined the effect of perceived attitudes on individuals’ sense of security and attitudes toward themselves. In 1934 social behaviorist George Herbert Mead wrote that: there are two general stages in the full development of the self. At the first of these stages, the individual’s self is constituted simply by an organization of the particular attitudes of other individuals toward himself and toward one another in the specific social acts in which he participates with them. But at the second stage in the full development of the individual’s self that self is constituted not only by an organization of these particular individual attitudes, but also by an organization of the social attitudes of the generalized other or the social group as a whole to which he belongs. (158)


69

Based on the ideas expressed by Mead, Brett May (1991) investigated the validity of the Symbolic Interactionist (SI) Perspective, that is, that “individuals’ self-concepts are determined through their symbolic interactions with others; as commonly phrased, people come to think of themselves as they think others see them” (483). This perspective, originally voiced by Cooley (1902) and Mead (1934), was supported in May’s study, which found that others’ actual appraisals of an individual influenced the individual’s “reflected self-perceptions,” or the individual’s perception of the other’s appraisal of him or her, and the reflected self-perceptions influenced the individual’s self-concept. No direct linkage was found, however, between the other’s actual appraisal and the individual’s selfconcept. Consequently, the other’s attitude toward the individual’s self-concept plays only an indirect role, and imposed control over the individual’s reflected self-perception may have a mediating, correcting effect on the individual’s selfconcept. In a study of interaction and self-perception, Christina Pozo and her colleagues (1991) examined differences in subjects’ perception of others’ attitudes toward the subjects based on the subjects’ degree of social anxiety. Social anxiety is defined as “a tendency to become apprehensive in social settings in which the person is motivated to make a particular impression on another person and holds serious doubts about being able to do so” (355). Those subjects who were high in social anxiety expected the interviewer’s evaluation of them to be much more negative than those who were low in social anxiety. According to Pozo et al., individuals who expect negative outcomes of their efforts may withdraw from the activity altogether or may in fact perform more poorly than they are otherwise capable of doing. Actual poor performance in turn reinforces the expectations of future poor performance, thus creating a continuous spiraling of behavior and attitudes, a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” The negative expectations of individuals with high social anxiety can also lead them to interpret their social reality as much more dreary and disheartening than it is in reality, sensing disapproval and negative attitudes from others when no such attitudes exist. The results of Pozo et al.’s study indicate that individuals who are high in social anxiety, holding strongly negative expectations, tend to perceive their interactional partners as less interested in their contributions to the interaction and less accepting of them personally than those who are low in social anxiety. Learners who hold negative attitudes toward their own L2 skills or who are unable to predict a positive outcome of their anticipated L2 use in an interaction are more likely to feel socially anxious. Learners may wish to maintain an impression of high social, intellectual, and linguistic status but may seriously doubt their own ability to do so in the L2 due to poor L2 skills, difficult goals, or social-environmental conditions. The conflict that results may create feelings of anxiety in learners. Learners who most strongly question their ability

70


to create such an impression on their interlocutors will quickly interpret their interlocutors’ reactions to them as negative, rejecting, and disapproving. Conversely, those who feel confident in their abilities to perform and maintain their security while doing so are less likely to interpret interlocutors’ reactions negatively and may even bias their interpretations positively. Negative expectations and perceived negative reactions of others have been shown to create cycles of poor performance and withdrawal, thus perpetuating a sense of failure and inadequacy. In another study of interaction and self-perception, Kennon Sheldon and Joel Johnson (1993) investigate the effect created on learners’ attitudes toward themselves by the social perspective through which they view themselves. According to Sheldon and Johnson, individuals undergo two types of experiences, covert experiences, or the experience of our own thoughts and emotions, and overt experiences, or the experience of our own behaviors and appearance. When viewed from our own perspective, we have a “privileged” view of our covert experiences, as only we can know for sure how we feel at any one time, while others can only have a “non-privileged” view of our emotions. However, only our observers can have a privileged view of our behaviors and appearance, since it is impossible for us to view ourselves externally; our own perspective of our behaviors and appearance is non-privileged. In considering the thoughts, emotions, behaviors, and appearance of ourselves and others, however, we tend to adopt both privileged and non-privileged perspectives under different conditions; thus, we may try to adopt a privileged perspective of others’ emotions, “placing ourselves in their shoes” and finding empathy for their covert experiences. Likewise, we may try to distance ourselves from our own behavior and appearance and try to see ourselves as others see us, seeking out a privileged perspective of our overt experiences, to which we are not naturally privy. The studies conducted by Sheldon and Johnson indicate that individuals who view others’ behavior and appearance from a privileged perspective regard the focus of their perspective (i.e., the individual whose behavior is being observed) more positively than when they were asked to adopt the individual’s non-privileged perspective. “We suggest that this effect may be related to a recurrent phenomenon,” write Sheldon and Johnson, “people who evaluate their own appearance from their own point of view may frequently be, and be seen by others as, quite critical of themselves . . . Adoption of the self-perspective to evaluate one’s own appearance, then, may not generally have benign consequences but instead may raise the possibility of extreme scrutiny, unrealistic standards, and strong condemnation” (1993, 327–28). Thus, learners who evaluate their own performance from their non-privileged perspective are likely to be much more critical of their L2 use than those with whom they interact would be. Sheldon and Johnson suggest that individuals may be capable of adopting privileged perspectives on overt experience depending on the goals and motives


71

they hold. People strongly concerned with their ability to present themselves to others as having high status but who fear failing at this goal may uphold their own non-privileged viewpoint and remain highly critical of their own L2 performance. Those who accept their status and security as given, that is, those who are able to perform in the L2 without experiencing threat to their sense of security, however, are able to focus more on communication, create relationships with others, and may be able to divorce themselves from their own perspective more easily and view social reality from the perspective of others. This in turn gives them a non-privileged, but empathetic, perspective on others’ covert experiences, and a privileged, removed, and more positive perspective on their own overt experiences.7 Interlocutors’ behaviors that explicitly or implicitly convey negative attitudes toward learners can impact on learners by lowering their sense of status in relation to their peers and the expectations of others. Such behaviors may also cause learners to feel that their efforts to communicate are invalid, and that they are disregarded as respected, accepted human beings among the members of the L2 society. Feelings of rejection and low self-esteem may lead learners to perform at levels inferior to their actual abilities, thus perpetuating the cycle of prejudice. 3.1.2

Persona of others

In the establishment of personal security, not only are interlocutors’ attitudes and behaviors significant but so are aspects of their persona, such as their physical features, age, gender, and other such characteristics. Andersen, Reznik, and Chen (1997) explain that the nature of the self is interpersonal, in that humans store mental representations of significant others, which they then apply to new acquaintances. These mental representations consist of schemata of traits, so that when new individuals are encountered, the existence of some traits will, by analogy, suggest the existence of others. Moreover, Andersen, Reznik, and Chen argue that this form of transference (Freud 1912/1958) leads individuals to perceive and react to new others in “old” ways, and that the self 7

Although learners’ perceptions of others’ attitudes may be mistaken, interlocutors may in fact hold biased views about individuals or groups of language learners. This bias was demonstrated in a study (Pellegrino, forthcoming) that examined ratings assigned to learners by their American resident directors on seven constructs of intelligence, language aptitude, motivation, and social adaptability. The findings suggested a bias held by RDs toward L2 learners related to students’ L2 proficiency. The study demonstrated that the resident directors tended to rate students with high levels of proficiency in Russian as having stronger natural ability to learn languages, better intellectual motivation, and greater willingness to use Russian than those learners who had lower levels of Russian proficiency, regardless of the educational background of the students being rated. Thus, those who arrived in Russia for study abroad with only two years of Russian were rated as inferior on these constructs to students who had studied longer, without consideration for the amount of progress made during the course of the semester.

72


and significant-other relationships are bi-directional, meaning that individuals perceive themselves with these new people to be as they are with the significant other. Thus, the self in the presence of new acquaintances is constructed by analogy to the self with the original person.8 This same form of cognitive economy occurs when learners encounter interlocutors in the foreign language. When learners perceive a trait or set of traits within an individual based on personality, age, gender, or physical appearance, they also access a sense of self that they have felt before with others. In other words, when a new interlocutor reminds the learner of a familiar other, their sense of self reverts to that experienced when around that familiar other. Moreover, one may argue that learners apply mental representations not only of real significant others to new individuals, but also their ideas of who their ideal interlocutor should be. Given the novelty of the foreign culture and society, learners may in fact construct mental pictures of those with whom they would like to interact, based on their beliefs about others and their sense of self with others. 3.1.2.1 Physical appearance The first examples we will explore are those of learners’ security judgments based on the physical appearance of others in their L2 use environment. In Madeline’s earlier encounter with the NS stranger on the train (p. 49), she feels her safety to be threatened by the presence of this “rude and/or creepy” individual watching the card game she and her friends are playing. She explained, “I think that his apperence [sic] had a lot to do with how I treated him, how I regarded him.” Her description of him likens him to the stereotypical Russian “mafia body guard,” and it is only after getting better acquainted with him that she overcomes her fear and begins to speak with him in Russian. Interestingly, in the next journal entry, Madeline describes a similar event in which she and a friend are again approached by a stranger on the street who is watching their card game. Again, the stranger requests to be included in the game. However, Madeline’s reaction to this individual is quite different from her reaction to the first stranger. She writes: We had been relaxing and chatting away for some time when a handsome young man approached us and asked us if he could join us. I was slightly dumbstruck because even though I understood the question, I couldn’t believe that he would have anything to do with us, the reason being russian [sic] women these days are so much deadlier in style, more chic, etc. (Another one of my assumptions) . . . Yura in his suave italian [sic] burgandy [sic] suit and raw russet loafers was quite cool, charming and odd.

Although this individual is just as unfamiliar as the stranger on the train, Madeline is much less reluctant to interact with him. She writes that she did not 8

For more on the role of transference in second language education, see Ehrman and Dörnyei (1998).


73

fear this man (as she seemed to the other) and, in fact, “asked him a lot of questions in Russian,” learned several card playing terms, and had a great time. It is possible that Madeline’s ease came in part as a result of familiarity with the scenario of being approached by strange men to play cards. However, what features prominently in her journal is the physical description of each man. Physical attractiveness acts for learners as a measurement of trustworthiness of interlocutors. Learners estimate how detrimental the interlocutor could potentially be to their sense of self based in part upon how attractive they are physically, often noting in the data the unattractive qualities of individuals with whom they have difficulty speaking and the attractive appearance of those with whom interaction is easy. Such judgment does not occur only across gender lines, but within genders as well. Rebeccah, for example, relates a visit to a local pizza restaurant that results in a positive interaction with a native speaker. Among several positive features of the interaction, Rebeccah notes that the interlocutor was a “pretty, friendly young girl.” On the earlier excursion in which Rebeccah was highly disappointed, she noted that the tourguide was “like 40ish, short as a pygmee [sic], and really unpleasant to look at.” The physical attractiveness of others seems to suggest safety and desirability. The symmetry of an attractive face suggests perfection, popularity, an ideal, while the irregular lines of the unattractive individual suggests a less-thanideal partner, one who may be less predictable or desirable. Dion, Berscheid, and Walster (1972) explored the relationship between attractiveness and personality traits. In their study, they asked subjects to rate three individuals on twenty-seven different personality traits and to predict the individuals’ future happiness. Subjects knew nothing about the three individuals and saw only photographs of them, yet they overwhelmingly rated the physically attractive people most positively on the character traits and predicted the most future happiness for them. Positive ratings and predictions were given according to the relative attractiveness of the three individuals by both men and women, regardless of the gender of the individual they were rating. Thus, based on the physical appearance of the individuals with whom learners interact, they are more likely to establish their perceptions of personality traits, coming to trust attractive interlocutors as good, caring people more than those whom they see as unattractive. Research by social psychologists Mills and Aronson (1965) and Eagly and Chaiken (1975) also demonstrated that individuals who are perceived by others to be highly physically attractive are able to persuade listeners of an argument completely unrelated to that of their beauty and that they are able to do so especially well when openly expressing a desire to persuade, a condition which usually reduces the effectiveness of a persuasive argument. Furthermore, the latter research also found that attractive individuals are even expected by their audience to give desirable arguments. Thus, the physical appearance of

74


the individual serves as an indication of the desirability of the individual’s personality and message. Also, according to Aronson’s phenomenon of “identification,” described in the previous chapter, human beings generally wish to associate themselves with individuals whom they admire and will behave in ways which make them more like that individual and which help them to gain that individual’s admiration and respect. Physical attraction is a highly culturally based matter of taste. Yet learners’ perceptions may be colored by their preconceptions, and they may make language-use decisions based on their expectations of self-construction, possibly rejecting viable opportunities to interact with less-than-attractive individuals. 3.1.2.2 Age A second set of examples comes from the role of interlocutor age in the construction of the self. Because students live with families, homestays offer learners extensive opportunities to interact with speakers of all ages. Age differences create interesting variations in the learners’ development of self. For many learners, young children come to be seen as easy interlocutors for their non-judgmental, innocent reactions. Jim reported in an interview, for example, that in teaching six-year-olds English at a local church, he was relatively unconcerned speaking Russian because “little kids are so trusting and usually decent and nice that you don’t worry about anything.” Speaking in front of the children’s parents, conversely, inhibited him due to the threat of lowered intellectual status in the eyes of the parents. He reported that he wanted the parents to trust him and was worried that he might make mistakes that would create misgivings. He remarked, “I just didn’t want to have them go and thinking ‘oh, my kids are being taught by fools.’” Mamie also notes that speaking with children is significantly easier and more comfortable for her than with adult companions. She writes, I speak easier with children. I think it’s because we’ve both known the language about the same amount of time. With Oksana it’s very easy (she’s 11) but with Maxim (he’s four) I speak like I am a Russian. When I talk to him, it’s also great that he never gets tired of talking to me. Vera and Olga said that they were amazed at the way he’s taken to me, that usually he’s very stand-offish with women. With me we talk for hours and it’s not boring. He calls me his dorogaya Mamichka (dear little Mamie) and says “let’s talk” and we do – for a whole hour in the car Sunday night about movies. It seems weird to have such a great conversation with a four-year-old but it’s so easy!!

Younger children do not generally intimidate learners’ sense of self, perhaps because learners are best able to maintain a sense of status and control when they are the elders. By virtue of the hierarchical relationship of elder to younger, the status of the language learner appears more greatly protected in adult–child relationships.


75

Conversely, while most learners report greater ease when speaking with small children, learners’ self-presentation may become even more greatly threatened if they perceive language difficulties so significant as to affect this hierarchical relationship. For example, after meeting with a young girl, Beth writes: “I thought at least I could understand a kid, but it was so difficult, it was even worse than with adults, because if a kid thinks you’re stupid, you know there’s something wrong.” She explained in a later interview: Here I am, I was, like, so frustrated in the house, because I felt they couldn’t understand me. I definitely couldn’t understand them . . . And then, this, I was like, oh great! All I need to do is meet a freakin’ kid, and I’ll [laughs] be able to understand them, and then I sat down and I couldn’t understand a word this poor girl had to say! And it was frustrating! She’s kind of shy, and she wants to kind of play with you, and I’m kind of shy, ’cause I can’t speak a word, and [laughs] I just want to like, I just wanted to be able to understand and it was just, it was awful! . . . Awful! And I felt extremely stupid, I felt, the kid is very, um, even though she’s like eight or ten, she’s very academically oriented. She’s very into her studies and . . . she met, you know, the students who had been there previously who had been more experienced and, I mean, she was kind of like, this, this girl’s an idiot, you know?!

The young girl’s apparently academic orientation, combined with her previous experience with other language learners, raises her status in Beth’s eyes. The result is a tipped balance in the social hierarchy. Beth’s perceptions of the girl’s attitudes and expectations lead her to spend approximately an hour and a half avoiding L2 use by “drawing, stuff like that . . . really not conversing that much.” When the interlocutors are older, closer to the age of the learner, some learners express even greater concern for their self-presentation, fearing to look like a fool before teenagers and young adults. Gina, for example, writes, “The 14-yr.-old daughter came into the kitchen twice during our conversation, and each time it made me very uncomfortable. I feel very at ease speaking one on one with my host mother, but the pressure goes way up with the daughter there. I feel embarrassed b-cuz I know I sound like a 6-yr.-old when I speak Russian.” In an interview, Gina explained her position further: My host family, I said about 5 words total to my, I have a 14-year-old sister with me, ’cause I feel like so incredibly uncomfortable in front of her, like, it’s not, I don’t know why, I just, I try and start conversation with her, I’m like “hmm, kak dela?” (how are you?) and she’s like “normal’no” (fine). Like, and goes off, and she just spends a lot of time, like, in her room, listening to music, so I really, like, rarely see her room . . . Q: What makes you so uncomfortable, I know you just said “I don’t know why.” But let’s think about what makes you so uncomfortable. Is it something in her, in her, even as simple as appearance, her behavior, her personality . . . the topics? A: I think, I think it’s coming from me ’cause I think, I feel like I’m older than her, you know, and, I don’t know, I, it just makes me feel like a four-year-old when I’m talking to her and I’m like “I – would – like – this,” and she’s like “um-hmm.” She just, I just

76


think she thinks I’m a very, like, just weird addition to her house, like I’m the first host student they’ve had, and it’s just like, and I think I took my host sister’s room . . . she just never talks to me, and when I come and talk to her, I get a feeling it’s just . . . It’s very . . . I think it’s my concern about not being cool, but just not being a total idiot in front of her, and I don’t know why I’m concerned about that, but I just find it very difficult . . . unless I, unless I kind of figure it out beforehand and I know that I’m kind of saying something that makes sense in Russian, I won’t talk to her, I won’t like create this kind of new sentence structures and like try and express what I mean, you know, I just stick with, like, the total basic structures. Q: Have you made mistakes in front of her? A: Yeah, but she doesn’t, she doesn’t know really how to correct me, like it hasn’t been, like my host mom is a wonderful corrector, like, she’s a wonder person to correct you because she will like give you the right word and sort of, like, help you along when you need help. My host sister kind of stares at me like “what are you saying?!” You know, and like, I think, never mind . . .

Age differentials between NSs and NNSs create an odd balance of power that can disrupt the learners’ ability to develop the self. Caretakers’ level of experience with foreigners and expectations of performance also vary with age, and these variations in turn also affect learners. With a fourteen-year-old girl, Gina’s need to present herself as close to her ideal as possible becomes even more important than with others. Barely out of her teens herself, Gina still feels the pressure of teen competition for “coolness,” that is, status as a socially desirable individual. When asked why she didn’t feel concerned about sounding like a “six-year-old” with her host mother, as she did with her host sister, Gina replied: I guess I’m not, it’s like with my own mom, like I’m, I’m not worried about being cool, I’m going to be exactly, you know, my mom really helps me when I’m like puking all over myself, it’s like the same way, like, my host mom, already here she’s like seen me sick, she’s seen me, you know, stumbling around in the morning, I just feel totally comfortable and I’m not worried about it.

As an adult in the position of caring for Gina, the host mother is seen as a safe receptacle for Gina’s self-presentation and growth. While learners generally report feeling comfortable with small children and skilled adult caretakers, but threatened by young teens, they report a slightly different problem with peers. Camille reports, “. . . I didn’t want to talk to him [Andrei] in Russian. Because he is my age, I feel bad about asking him to slow down.” The burden of turning a peer into a caretaker can make the learner reluctant to speak.9 Furthermore, Andrei’s behavior in response to her 9

Harder (1980) addresses the fact that learners are often aware of the burdensome and annoying role they play with native speakers (269). As a result, learners must make a choice between doing what is socially appropriate, that is, not annoy those with whom they interact, or do what is best for their language acquisition, that is, ignore the fact that one’s pauses, hesitations, and general strugglings are burdensome to his or her interlocutor. Ultimately, he explains, most learners will only tolerate their own pestiness so far before they will opt instead for silence, an alternative to message reduction. In the case of learners who are reluctant to speak with NSs of their own age,


77

requests is undesirable to her: “Also, usually when I do he breaks into pigeon [sic] English.” Camille’s friend’s efforts to help seem to suggest to her that she is unable to understand in Russian, and it deprives her of opportunities to practice her Russian, which is a constant concern for her as stated throughout her journal. Other students report similar experiences. For example, Jill writes that while she enjoys speaking with her host mother, interaction with her host sister is more tricky: “I like talking to Anya [host sister], but when you’re with someone your own age it’s always more like you have to perform.” Discomfort speaking in front of peers occurs with native and non-native peers. Beth explained in an interview that: It’s more of a peer thing. I know that your level is far above mine, but that’s because you’ve spent a lot of time here and have more experience, but if someone my age came in, with a slightly better level, I would be more self-conscious about my ability and more self-conscious about their, um, um, humiliating myself in class . . . [This is] because of the pressure I inflict on myself and um, because I care too much what other people think . . . And maybe because I don’t feel like I’m . . . I do feel like I still am not at the level I want to be at.

As peers, between whom status should be relatively equal, great differences in communicative performance may create an uncomfortable asymmetry of power and ultimately threaten learners’ presentation of the self. The age of the interlocutor may also impact on the learners’ sense of security due to the differences in conversational interests and the caretaking behavior of small children as opposed to adults. Madeline reports being approached by three local children when she breaks away from her tour group in Kostroma. She reports: I was interested in how they’d react to me. They approached with curiosity. I welcomed the chance to deal with children. Looking back on the whole experience, which lasted a little over an hour, it was great. They asked me all sorts of questions about television, and “Santa Barbara” [the American television show]. One little blonde boy in particular was mainly interested in talking with me as other children came and other children. [sic] We talked about nothing in particular, cars, boats, life in America, a lot about crime. It was the most carefree conversation that I had had in Russian for a while. Of course I made mistakes but with children, I didn’t dwell or worry at all. I think speaking with children is easier because for all the information in my head, I remain a child in Russian. I’m treated like one therefore it’s easier to speak with them. We discussed the difference between big shells and little shells and did that whole rock skimming thing. I have to admit listening to the excursion leader talk about the area and then having actual townskids talk to you are two entirely different things and I much more prefer the second. These kids were on a whole nother [sic] level of awareness. They told me about people who had drowned, and been shot. They equally admitted to stealing, being part gypsy, one boy’s mother was in jail for theft and narcotics dealing. It was a slight discomfort for such as Camille, learners can fear that they are unable to maintain the pace or register of their NS peers and may instead choose not to burden them, as Camille does in this interaction.

78


me in my language skills, because not only did I not what [sic] to say, I didn’t know the words to express that sympathy. Luckily the boy was apathetic about the whole matter. Roskovine Roskovshche – all though [sic] the spelling isn’t right they are words I learned for shells and life would be so much easier if spelling was phonetic. Still these kids hardly went to school or so they told me, so it was all the more a guilt-free language environment. Which stating this brings me to worry that more than anything I’m learning the dirty street Russian. After all the paranoia I often find myself repeating the dreaded “chego khochesh’.” (whad’ya want)

Compared to the sophistication of the tour, the simplicity of interacting with children helps Madeline feel right at home. As a veritable child herself in Russian, she has found peers in these children, whose background is socially and morally imperfect and whose topics of conversation are more simple. She herself has often felt like an outcast or oddity in Russian society, so she can identify strongly with these boys and finds L2 use holds little threat to her sense of self. In a later interview, Madeline expanded upon the effects that her interlocutors’ age had on her use of the L2: Well, see, I think, well, okay, it’s the whole point of when I first meet somebody. When I first meet an adult, let’s say an adult comes over to my house to have dinner or something. I will not talk to the adult. I mean, I’ll talk, but I won’t be talking freely, like, oh, what’s your favorite sport, oh, this, and this, ’cause like, I don’t know, I mean, like usually, you know, I don’t know, I don’t know why I do that. But like, if kids come over to the house, it’s like, oh, you know, I can, I can, I feel pretty much like the star of the conversation with them, but like with an adult, you know, [I’m] just like baggage right there, you know. I mean, you can’t be like, I don’t think you can be like, like you. Like, I don’t know, I haven’t met any Russian teenagers, either. What is a Russian teenager, you know, as soon as they hit thirteen their lives are already more serious than, you know, I can, you know, you can’t, you know, when you ask someone kak dela (how are you), you know, you gotta watch out what they’re gonna, that’s just something you don’t ask. So, you know, the kids you can ask all the questions you learned in school, you know, and like, I have to really, like, know an adult, you know . . . I have to know enough about them before I go out and converse freely.

When in the company of children, Madeline can feel admired and successful. She can use the language skills she acquired in school without having to go beyond them to be accepted. Thus, conversation with children presents much less of a threat to Madeline’s status, little if any threat to her safety, ensures validation, and even provides a degree of control over her L2 use environment. Just as Madeline noted, learners frequently characterize themselves as small children when interacting in the target language. Thus, Susan, quoted at the opening of this chapter, wrote, “I get uncomfortable . . . because she really thinks I’m a child with no thoughts and no intelligence.” Similarly, Mamie notes, “I have been so frustrated with [Tatiana] and the way she talks to me like I’m a


79

small child or something.” After misunderstanding prices in a bookstore and causing minor confusion, Julie explains, “When the prodavshchitsa (saleslady) was leading me around the store I felt like I was five years old and just wanted to hide.” In a later entry, she writes, “I know I speak Russian like a two-year-old.” This continual self-identification as a young child suggests that relationships with peers or teens may be threatening toward the learners’ ability to maintain a sense of status during interaction. Older adults and small children, however, with whom status is relatively well established by virtue of age and caretaking relationship, may pose less of a threat to the learners’ self-presentation. 3.1.2.3 Gender As with physical appearance and age, learners tend to develop ideas about how interactions with men or with women affect their sense of security during L2 interactions.10 Based on experiences and gender stereotypes, learners often articulate a belief that they are better able to interact and protect their self-image with one sex than with the other. Through the development of these gender-based stereotypes, learners may essentially reduce their pool of potential interlocutors by half. Questionnaire data (based on 71 respondents) reveal that most of the study-abroad program participants indeed expressed such preferences, especially when nationality of the interlocutor was also taken into account. When asked about gender preferences for speaking Russian with other Americans, the majority (79%, n = 56) responded that they had no preference, while 12.7% (n = 9) preferred speaking Russian with women, and only 8.5% (n = 6) preferred speaking with men. When asked the same question concerning Russian interlocutors, however, only a third of the respondents reported having no preference (33.8%, n = 24), while of those who did report a preference, 86.5% (n = 40, 56.3% of the total) preferred speaking Russian with women as opposed to men. Furthermore, some respondents may have had a preference for both American and Russian women or had no gender preference at all in either nationality, yet none of the respondents showed a general preference for speaking with men, that is, no one who responded that they preferred speaking with American males also preferred speaking with Russian males, thus indicating that nationality also played a substantial role in their gender choices. Program-end results concerning the effects of the interlocutor’s gender on the student’s comfort level did not differ greatly from the pre-program results, suggesting perhaps that students’ expectations and attitudes toward speaking with men as opposed to women were either confirmed throughout the course of the semester or halted them from speaking with men and women equally, thus preventing any change in their preconceived ideas. 10

Research in second language acquisition has focused on gender issues primarily in terms of the differences in L2 acquisition between male and female learners (see Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991, and Ellis 1995, for overview). This work looks instead at learners’ reactions to interlocutors based on the gender of the interlocutor.

80

Study Abroad and Second Language Use Female learners’ preferences (n = 51)

Male learners’ preferences (n = 20)

Russian Female: 59.3% Russian Male: 8.5% No Preference: 32.2%

Russian Female: 47.6% Russian Male: 9.5% No Preference: 42.9%

Figure 3.1 Learners’ preferences for gender of interlocutor

Although not great, there did seem to be a slight difference in the gender choices of men as opposed to women. While neither men nor women seemed to prefer speaking to men in Russian, women seemed slightly more likely to prefer speaking to women, while men were more likely than women to express no preference (see Figure 3.1). While the differences were slight, they indicate that American women studying abroad in Russia may be more likely than American men to limit their pool of potential interlocutors by avoiding interactions with Russian men.11 According to the learners’ explanations, one of the possible reasons for this gender preference, especially among female learners, may be the uncertainty of the relationships established between genders based on cross-cultural gender role differences. Traditional gender roles are much less challenged in contemporary Russian society than in American society, holding true to masculine, dominant males and feminine, passive females. Feminists are considered suspect, even by most women, which surprises many Americans. Learners often report encountering these gender stereotypes in their daily interactions. Camille, for example, is preparing to attend a meeting with a former Yale professor and Japanese businessman at a Western hotel in Moscow. While preparing to attend the luncheon, Camille’s host mother advises her on how to make a good impression: Olga told me in Russian that when I meet these big wigs at the Metropol for lunch I should act shy and open to their words of wisdom. This sickened me. I didn’t want to here [sic] how I should act like a blank slate, young, sweet and impressionable, opinionless, and kiss-ass, because these people are smart.

Olga later compares Camille unfavorably to an American male friend based on gender differences: “She started talking about how I think about prestige and getting far in the world whereas Ben doesn’t care, precisely because I am a woman.” Bob also reports that his host family treats his wife and him differently according to traditional gender roles: “In the end, [the host mother] did most of 11

This preference may in part provide explanation for gender differences discovered in a study conducted by the American Council of Teachers of Russian (ACTR) and the National Foreign Language Center (NFLC) in the early 1990s on the acquisition of listening and speaking skills during study abroad, showing men gain more than women in these areas (Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsberg 1993).


81

her communicating thru [sic] Marie. Most of which were orders to clean this or that, wash this, cook that and it didn’t pertain to me.” These traditional gender roles, based on cultural values and norms, thus tend to influence intercultural relationships by shaping the expectations of the participants in the relationships. The cultural differences between American and Russian gender roles often make it difficult for American women to feel comfortable in male–female relationships, especially if they wish the relationship to remain strictly platonic. The unpredictability of male interlocutors’ intentions when speaking with female learners creates a risk to learners’ sense of security, especially in terms of their physical safety. As one female student reported at the end of the program, she found it difficult to meet Russians outside of family situations, “especially men who I feel carry unreasonable expectations.” Many women report an intentional avoidance of male strangers due to insecurity about the men’s motives for interactions. Tammy, for example, states, “I stay away from the guys because I have a boyfriend and I know things are different here and you can’t really be friends with them because they think you want to have sex with them or something.” Jill adds, “I haven’t met any Russians I could really talk to or feel comfortable with. Mostly just guys who try to hit on me – I’ve avoided talking to Russian men in general. I’m not interested, and I have a hard time telling who’s nice and who isn’t.” Gina also explains, “I find speaking with guys more difficult, and to Russian guys in Russian extremely difficult. It’s not that I’m shy, it’s just that I feel I have to be so careful around them – don’t want to give them the wrong idea about me. (You know us loose American women!).”12 The unpredictability of interactions with male natives brings the learner’s safety into question, thus threatening the presentation of a secure self. While women more frequently express concern in this area, it is not only women who are affected by interactions with NS males. Jim also experienced an episode of concern that drove him to reject an opportunity to use his language skills. After missing a late trolley home, he’s approached by a stranger interested in helping him: So finally I decided, well, I’ll get a cab. But one, one Russian my age came up to me and was talking to me, it wasn’t very comfort-, I just, it being midnight, and I wasn’t quite sure what his motives were. I mean, it probably, I’m sure he was friendly, but I wasn’t quite willing at that point to [chance it] . . . and he was, he was trying to get me a chastnik (a private car), you know [laughs]. It was like, well, yes, I’ll, I’ll take care of myself fine, and then this um, this old woman came up out of the blue and kind of told the guy 12

During the 1980s and 1990s, the vast majority of Russians had had no interaction with foreigners but were starting to be exposed to Western culture through film and television. Many of the American films being shown depicted women in less-than-favorable characterizations, and often the films were low budget and had not been released in the US. As a result, a common impression of American women was based on the characters from these films, and many American female students experienced the unpleasant results of this.

82


to get lost . . . and then she just started chatting with me, and we chatted about fifteen minutes on the sidewalk, just about where I was from, and what I was doing there, and, you know, and . . . And after about two minutes, I, I realized she, you know, kind of like you and your grandmother on the street, kind of felt inside, I felt very comfortable, and I, as soon as I did that, I noticed all of sudden, Russian just kind of started spilling out, and uh, which was, was good. I love having conversations when I’m not thinking about every sentence. And I wasn’t doing that, so . . . And then she, I mean, she got a chastnik (a private car) with both of us . . . we got, we got her to her building and gotten her off, and that was it. She disappeared.

When asked why speaking with the older woman was so different than with the younger man, Jim explained: I think it was mostly . . . I was fairly certain what her motive was, and I had no idea what his motive was. And that was, and even now, I mean, I would probably do actually even less than I did . . . I don’t know, it, it was actually a man who said, who came up to me and started talking like that. Especially at that time of night. If a woman came up to me and she . . . I’d be much more comfortable. ’Cause I, I would assume knowing, just stories . . . I would assume that a woman who would be walking up to a man on the street in the middle of the night would have pretty honest, good-hearted motives.

In fact, Jim was no more certain of the woman’s motives than the man’s. Crimes of poisoning and robbery against foreign men by women were not uncommon in Russia at this time. Yet, thanks to gender stereotyping, Jim felt better able to predict his safety in the latter interaction, and consequently Jim chose the older woman as a trusted interlocutor, rather than the young man. Often concern over NS males comes from the threats learners perceive, be they rational or irrational. Occasionally, however, some interactions do in fact put learners in danger. Rebeccah, for example, reports the following event: Today I was on the tram coming home. It was very crowded, and there was a drunk stinky old man pressed up against me. It felt like the situation was wrong, but I couldn’t prove anything – that is until he began to squeeze me from behind. I immediately pushed him in the chest & loudly said, “ne nado trogat’ (don’t touch).” He looked at me innocently, then another male passenger yelled at me saying, “there isn’t room for him to even touch you.” I said, “O, vy pravy – eto ne vozmozhno [sic], chto on trogal mne [sic] (Oh, you’re right! It’s impossible for him to have touched me),” in a loud sarcastic voice. Then the drunk man leaned into my face & asked why he’d bother to touch me – then grabbed me down there again. I pushed him very hard – he fell back. I was shaking. Then we reached a stop & the doors opened. As he went down the stairs he touched me again – and I shoved him down the stairs. I was so scared. He was angry and looking around for me in the exiting crowd. Finally after an eternity the tram doors closed & I escaped. I was shaking horribly & was frightened. (I also cursed him out in English, I forgot to mention.) Anyway, I felt so unable to defend myself today which really sucked. My feeble attempts to put him off did absolutely nothing and I even got reprimanded for trying to protect myself. I would’ve slammed him in english, [sic] actually I did but I may as well have been speaking Martian. He surely didn’t understand.


83

Rebeccah’s experience on the tram left her feeling vulnerable, unsafe, and helpless to defend herself. In addition, such incidents of physical violation reduce the status of the victim greatly. Her only recourse for regaining a modicum of control was to shout at him in English and physically escape the situation. However, such incidents contribute to learners’ development of stereotypes based on gender roles. Similarly, Madeline is often treated poorly by NS male strangers based on the combination of her gender and her race. She reports that she was concerned about her interaction with the strange man on the train in part because in a previous event “an old man had tried to kiss my hand.” Additionally, while walking with Madeline in a local market, I was actually offered $100 by a Georgian merchant to allow him to kiss Madeline. While African-American male learners also report incidents of undue attention due to racial differences, the intimacy of the propositions made toward Madeline was most certainly enhanced by her gender. Unpredictability in male–female relationships does not always result in threats to learners’ safety. As learners previously expressed, miscommunications and traditional mixed gender roles create uncertainty about the interlocutors’ intentions. Such uncertainty may leave learners feeling less in control of their L2 use environment and also may reduce the learners’ interest in pursuing social networking goals with potentially amorous interlocutors. Camille relates such a situation: We got out of the metro car, and to my surprise Marlene and Andrei were there to meet us. I can’t describe my disappointment when I saw Andrei. First of all, things are awkward because he kissed me the other day and he knows I have a boyfriend. I asked Olga about it and she laughed. She explained that he knows I have a boyfriend who lives across the planet so it doesn’t mean much. She also told me not to worry and if he does it again to say “ne nado (don’t)” and explain myself. So it’s not a big deal but it made me feel awkward and uncomfortable.

In Camille’s narrative journal, she frequently reported early on about her interactions with Andrei in positive terms. However, this changed after his overtures toward her, and she is left reluctant to interact with Andrei. Conversely, Reanna reports that she feels comfortable interacting with a basketball teammate: Confident mood set by Lyusen’s initial comment on seeing me “You look good, Reanna.” . . . Lyusen’ was quite open and also supportive of [female] athletes. Surprised and encouraged me. Asked very direct questions about why he was friends with me. Felt I could ask since he also seems quite friendly towards me – energetic, talkative, smiles. Also felt the invitation to do something outside of bball showed a greater interest and gave me more confidence. No worries about a possible [female/male] interest/relationship since I had mentioned a few times that Brian (my friend) was soon to show up. Entirely non-threatening situation.

84


Despite the compliment to her looks, Reanna believes this man’s intentions are purely platonic, which allows her to relax with him. Although learners often express concerns over males’ motives in conversation, they also address other factors that make male speech more complicated for them as learners. Jim, for example, notes that his host father uses more slang expressions than his host mother, making him more difficult to comprehend. A number of students remark that male pronunciation is often difficult to understand. Mamie explained: I have a hard time talking with men – especially if they are from another region. On Sunday, because I said I was upset that I hadn’t made any Russian friends yet, Olga introduced me to a friend of hers who took us all out to his dacha for shashlik (shishkabob). The dacha is now being built and the men working on it live out there and so it was me, Olga, Oksana and 7 men. Some of these guys were from places like Tajikistan and the Ukraine and, even though they were fluent in Russian, their accents threw me off and I had difficulty understanding. I think that it was compounded by the fact that they were also men because I notice I have a problem understanding when men speak. I think that it has to do with the pitch and tone of their voices compared to women. I’m not really sure but I think that it is an interesting phenomenon.

Differences in pronunciation between men and women are quite common and can also affect learners’ comprehension of a second language (Pellegrino 1998). Such differences can also lead to a greater number of communication breakdowns with NS males than females. The overwhelming preference of both male and female learners for female NS interlocutors may cause learners to limit their interactions with male interlocutors, thus reducing their opportunities for speaking in the L2. In a qualitative study of the ACTR/NFLC investigations of study abroad, Livia Polanyi (1995) considered the experience of American women interacting with target language (TL) men while studying in Russia in an effort to find an explanation for gender differences in L2 acquisition. After reviewing the diaries of participants, Polanyi found that American women’s reports of interactions with TL men differed significantly from those of American men, with young female students reporting “unpleasant gender related incidents – in which they feel acutely distressed by the behavior of TL men seeking, expecting, or demanding sexual ‘favors’ often as a precondition of continuing the relationship” (272). Conversely, the experiences reported by young men are often “pleasant, romantic, fun time in sexual or potentially sexual encounters, [but] for the young women, these encounters . . . are almost universally unpleasant and lead to self-doubt, social awkwardness, and worry” (280). The result of distasteful interactions such as these is ultimately negative: “Instead of a pleasant evening and increased fluency, an unpleasant claustrophobic encounter and silence. Even the most accomplished speaker becomes uncertain, mute, when language fails because no one is listening” (281). The situations that Polanyi reports are


85

characterized by her as “degrading and humiliating” (283). Thus, Polanyi indicates that the negative interactions female learners tend to experience with TL males leads to a loss of sense of status (“self-doubt,” “degrading and humiliating”), safety (“worry”), and validation (“no one is listening”), resulting in reduced or curtailed L2 use. Although research in SLA has generally overlooked the role of the interlocutor’s gender on learners’ use of L2, social-psychological examinations into the phenomenon of stereotyping and prejudice may clarify some of the issues involved. Based on the narrative journals presented, learners appear to dismiss potential interactions with NS males before even having the opportunity to meet and interact with them. As was stated earlier in this chapter, although both men and women work outside the home equally, gender roles in Russian society, as in many world cultures, remain highly “traditional” in terms of females as affectionate caretakers and males as emotionally distant breadwinners. Learners exposed to this fairly visible distinction may be quick to employ “judgment heuristics” concerning the behavior and attitudes of TL males and females (Aronson 1995, 135); that is, individuals tend to base judgments of one item or individual on the features of a similar item or individual. If learners experience an interaction with one TL male who is aloof or highly judgmental, they may decide that TL men behave in such a way in general, especially if the TL male’s behavior is so unlike that of American males with whom the individual has interacted. The more dissimilar the TL individual is from Americans, the more likely learners are to assume that the differences arise from culturally defined gender roles. In addition to the constraints of traditional gender roles in society, males and females also differ in the ways in which they use language. Although her work focuses on Western culture, Deborah Tannen’s research on the differences in the language use of men and women suggests that women tend to use language as a way of establishing intimacy, equality, and community with their interlocutors, while men tend to use language to establish hierarchy, status, and independence (Tannen 1990). For learners of a second language, who must both perform to achieve communication goals and maintain a sense of status, control, safety, and validation, interaction with males who may naturally use language to achieve their own status and gain their own control would certainly threaten that of the learners, whether male or female. Interaction with females, however, who naturally use language to validate and maintain the status of their interlocutor as an equal, would provide learners with an L2 use environment much more amenable to achieving both the communication goal and the maintenance of security. In fact, Pica (1987) acknowledges that equality of status is one of the most important factors in ensuring negotiation of meaning between the interlocutors, a phenomenon that helps prolong communication and promotes mutual understanding between parties. Learners interacting

86


with fellow learners in the TL would have the opportunity to establish status and feel validated and otherwise secure based on other interactions in English and may not be as seriously affected by the linguistic behaviors of American males vs. American females. However, gender differences in language use may affect how learners view interaction with TL males, causing them to prefer TL females. 3.2

Learner-internal cues

Interlocutors’ gender, age, appearance, behavior, and attitudes all impact on learners’ development and presentation of the self and ultimate use of the second language. While these social-environmental factors are clearly identifiable in the learners’ diaries, they are certainly not an exhaustive list. Other factors, such as interlocutors’ own use of the L2 (e.g., speed, intonation, pronunciation, register, etc.), extraneous noise, and social setting, may equally impact upon learners’ ability to use the second language spontaneously. Likewise, learnerinternal cues, such as learners’ own attitudes toward the self, comparison of themselves with others, and their ability to predict the success or failure of their L2 use through familiarity and commonality, also affect learners’ sense of their self-presentation and their subsequent use of the L2. In many ways, it is impossible to divide social-environmental cues from learner-internal ones, given their interlacing and mutual influence on one another. However, we will continue our exploration of the construction of the self by shifting our attention inward, within the learner. 3.2.1

Attitudes toward the self

All learners enter into language-use situations with well-formed attitudes toward themselves, their communicative abilities in the L2, and their abilities to achieve communication goals placed before them. Based on the narrative data, learners feel their attitudes significantly affect how, when, where, and why they use the L2 in social environments. Initially, many learners profess negative attitudes toward their speaking ability, due perhaps to high levels of self-doubt, modesty, or learners’ own pragmatic assessment of their real abilities. For example, having studied Russian for six and a half years, Camille discovers in her first days of living in Russia that she has not acquired actual communication skills in the classroom, and, blaming herself, she becomes insecure. Complicating the matter is Camille’s strong fear of making mistakes. In her very first diary entry, she writes: “my next few month [sic] of Russian training are filled w/baggage from the past. I have tons of insecurities about speaking and fear mistakes like the plague.” Mistakes in L2 use reflect the


87

learner’s experimentation with her developing linguistics system and invite crucial feedback.13 Yet despite the importance of making mistakes in the language learning process, Camille fears that mistakes may suggest to others that her language skills are indeed poor, lowering her linguistic and intellectual status. Bob also reports in his first entry his negative feelings about his Russian skills: “I don’t feel anxious or nervous speaking in front of the class, reading I do. My speed and pronunciation, especially of words I don’t know or haven’t seen, really stinks. I have to do it, can’t find another way around it, I know I suck so I’m nervous which complicates things.” His belief that his L2 abilities are substandard increases his anxiety about performing a task where he may be evaluated by others. This lowered sense of security, therefore, makes L2 use more threatening for him as his fear of further lowered status by negative evaluation increases. Once learners amass experience communicating in the L2, they begin to gain a better sense of exactly what they can and can’t perform with relative ease, and their attitudes and self-evaluation become more defined. Camille writes: “I am understand [sic] more but mostly I am learning how much I don’t know.” Reanna also reports upon meeting her host family for the first time: “Experience definitely pointed out my poor comprehension level and non-knowledge of slang.” These initial interactions with native speakers in actual communicative contexts demonstrate to learners that real L2 use consists of more than the textbook drills and role-play experiences they may be accustomed to in their domestic classrooms. Based on the initial success or failure of such interactions, learners assess their abilities and further confirm or adjust their attitudes toward their own L2 abilities. As learners gain more experience, they continue to evaluate their selfpresentation based on the consequences of each interaction, which leads in turn to a daily reevaluation of learners’ attitudes toward themselves. Jim, for example, demonstrates how a successful interaction with his classmates improves his own attitude toward his language skills, writing: I used a verb I had learned in a previous year (and promptly “forgotten”) and I constructed a noun from a verb and took a chance that it was right – and it was right. The 13

Mistakes are generated by various sources, including L2 interference, random responses, or overgeneralization of rules. The process of language acquisition requires learners to construct hypotheses about the second language and then test these hypotheses in order to build their own knowledge base of the second language, the “interlanguage.” The result of this hypothesis testing is often mistakes in the language. These mistakes invite feedback, which helps learners revise their interlanguage system to approximate better the L2 system. Errors are also valuable in that they help caretakers understand the progress that learners are making in the language (Corder 1967). Learners who avoid taking risks in the L2 in order to avoid making mistakes, may not receive adequate language practice or opportunity to test hypotheses to progress in L2 acquisition.

88


verb – vozglavlyat’ (to head) and the verb/noun – upotreblyat’ – upotrebleniye (to use – use). Both usages worked. I felt very good about my Russian then, and received a boost of confidence that, yes, I am learning and perhaps acquiring, this language.

The successful word-coinage14 Jim performs by extrapolating and testing his own rules about word structure in Russian gives him evidence that his L2 skills and his abilities to communicate are strong, thus improving his own attitudes toward his L2 abilities. Rebeccah, on the other hand, exhibits a negative attitude in the following entry. Although she mentions no individual event that may have confirmed her pessimistic perception, it clearly demonstrates the effects of learners’ convictions of their own performance on their attitudes and, subsequently, on their use of the L2. I haven’t been satisfied for quite a few days. And today I even contemplated “just giving up” – quitting Russian altogether! I’ve never felt that before. I don’t feel that my Russian is a language. A language is communication between people. In my eyes, my utterances are like ghost towns. They’re just sounds, with no color or meaning. People use language to express their unique characteristics & personality. When I use Russian, there is no substance to my sentences. There’s no “ME” in my Russian. I’m surprised that people even understand me at all here. And I used to feel that I had a gift for languages. Am I being unfair to myself? Perhaps I can rationalize, thinking I’ve had only 3 years of Russian. But then I see how people like Al, or Reanna absolutely shine. I’m starting to think that my gift for languages is like an empty gas tank – without self-confidence you go nowhere. To me, their personalities shone through. Probably: You can study 10 years, & still suck – if you don’t believe in yourself (& [probably] take risks).

Lost behind the veil of her language, Rebeccah finds the prospect of achieving her goals fading, and her grim outlook brings her to the brink of quitting. As Rebeccah and others demonstrate in these narratives, positive attitudes toward oneself aid learners’ L2 development by helping them feel secure, while negative attitudes threaten learners’ sense of status, create doubt in their ability to control their environment and maintain their safety, and cause them to question the validity of their efforts to communicate in the L2. The attitudes of language learners include both their belief in their own ability to perform tasks successfully, that is, self-efficacy, and their perception of themselves as worthy individuals of status and intelligence, that is, self-esteem. Learners with a strong, positive sense of self-esteem are likely to perceive their self-image as positive during social interaction. If their sense of self-efficacy is also highly positive, they are unlikely to fear failure in the communicative 14

“Word-coinage” (Færch and Kasper 1983) refers to the invention of new words in a language based on the learners’ knowledge of the second language as well as the first. This strategy is often used to compensate for linguistic deficiency or to create social bonds through a word only known to members of the group.


89

interaction, or, at the very least, will not perceive their self-image to be threatened by communication breakdown. Thus, such learners are likely to amass many more hours of communicative interaction than those who feel the need to protect their self-image from the damaging effects of failed language use. In fact, studies in SLA suggest that learners who maintain positive attitudes toward themselves are better able to produce the L2 in a variety of situations. Phillips (1992) reports on a study by Horwitz and Sadow that found that high language anxiety results from students’ “negative concepts of themselves as language learners, and negative expectations for language learning” (15). Heyde (1979) also examined the effects of three levels of self-esteem (global, specificcontextual, and specific-task self-esteem) on learners’ performance on a French oral production test.15 His findings indicate a positive correlation between students’ oral production and their self-esteem, especially for specific-task self-esteem. Psychologist and SLA researcher Madeline Ehrman (1996) notes the close relationship of self-esteem to self-efficacy. She explains that for learners to maintain a positive sense of self-esteem, they also need to feel capable of performing adequately, successfully, remaining in control of their environment and feeling that their efforts to use the language are valid and valuable. Research concerning the effect of self-efficacy on learners’ production of L2 also indicates that L2 production tends to increase in learners who maintain positive attitudes toward their own ability to use the L2. Foss and Reitzel (1988) write, “some second language learners may choose not to communicate in a situation because they judge their capabilities in the new language to be so poor that not communicating is perceived as more rewarding than doing so . . . The motivation to learn and use the second language, then, depends on students’ perceptions of their abilities in the second language” (442–43). Ehrman (1996) also notes the importance of self-efficacy to learners’ sense of motivation, writing “enhanced self-efficacy – that is, more expectation of good results – tends to increase motivation. It also increases willingness to take risks.” Learners who believe they are capable of achieving success in using the L2 will feel their security less threatened by the scorn of others. Those who feel they are unable to perform a task in the L2 adequately, however, may judge interaction in the L2 as a poor risk to take; in calculating the value of the goal, learners with a poor sense of self-efficacy may judge the probability of success as low and the probability of failure as high, making the overall value of speaking a bad risk to take. Furthermore, fearing inevitable failure due to the perception of weak 15

Self-esteem is defined here in three different categories: global, specific-contextual, and specifictask. Global self-esteem is the level of respect one generally has for the self; specific-contextual refers to the level of respect one has for the self in various environments (in social interactions of various types); and specific-task self-esteem is the level of respect one has for the self when performing certain acts (test taking, using math, etc.).

90


skills, learners may believe that to speak inadequately in the L2 would reduce their status among their peers and lower their worth in the eyes of others, thus invalidating their efforts to interact. It is important to note that self-efficacy and self-esteem both depend upon learners’ perceptions of their abilities, not on their actual abilities. SLA researchers Foss and Reitzel note this distinction, explaining “students’ perceptions may or may not be consistent with their actual skill levels: their actual performances may be adequate or even extremely fluent according to the perceptions of others, but they themselves may not evaluate them positively” (444). Peirce, Swain, and Hart (1993) also found that self-assessment measures of learners’ L2 proficiency correlate with objective measures of L2 proficiency only very weakly. Learners’ level of satisfaction with their L2 use varies with the conditions of the interaction – the topics of conversation, the purpose of the interaction, the behavior and persona of others, and so forth. Learners’ perceptions may in fact remain unchanged by the compliments of others. Kathleen Bailey (1983) notes in her own diary analysis that at times her attitudes toward her L2 use were so strong that even the actions of others were insufficient to change them: “My perceived inability to compete with the other students was so strong that I either didn’t heed or didn’t believe the teacher’s encouraging comments” (76). Thus, negative attitudes may become staunchly unchangeable as they intensify. According to Aronson (1995), individuals with low self-esteem may assess their self-image as inadequate, and consequently they may also behave in ways that are consistent with that image. For example, learners who determine that they are poor language learners may in fact come to act as poor language learners, rejecting appropriate opportunities to interact and improve their L2 skills. Learners who perceive themselves in a positive light and who believe they are presenting a self-image that is close to their ideal in social interaction will be more likely to act in ways consistent with good language learners, seeking out opportunities to interact and receive feedback. In fact, individuals who have high self-esteem will feel uncomfortable performing acts they know to be wrong because they will experience the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, that is, the conflict of wishing to think of themselves as good people, but realizing that their behavior shows that they are not good people. Individuals with low self-esteem, however, may feel less cognitive dissonance when performing acts they know to be bad, since their behavior is not inconsistent with their attitudes toward themselves (Aronson 1995, 226). While on a study-abroad program some learners may feel obligated by the terms or goals of the program to use the TL extensively or exclusively. Those learners with high levels of self-esteem may feel greater discomfort if they speak English (since it violates the model of successful language study they’ve been given) than individuals with low levels of self-esteem.


91

Self-esteem and positive self-presentation play critical roles in social interactions, particularly those that involve L2 use, where the very act of performing threatens the sense of security itself. Thus, individuals faced with the need to speak in a second language will do so only if their sense of self is simultaneously or subsequently elevated or preserved. In his review of literature on politeness and the linguistic construction of personhood, anthropological linguist William Foley (1997) notes that “it is the goal of interactants in a social encounter to protect the fragile self-esteem they have of themselves; at the very least, to minimize damage to this esteem, at best, to increase it” (270). It is, in fact, this mutual agreement to preserve each other’s sense of self-esteem or “face” upon which human behaviors of politeness are based (Brown and Levinson 1987). Regarding L2 acquisition, Madeline Ehrman (1996) writes, “self-esteem is precious to all of us, and we often go to considerable lengths to defend it” (146). As Jim, Rebeccah, and others in this chapter demonstrate, L2 learners must be prepared to defend their sense of status from the aggressive, insulting behaviors of others. 3.2.2

Self-comparison

When learners join a study-abroad program, they enter into a unique relationship with their program peers: a microcosm develops in which a relatively small group of learners attend the same classes, travel on the same excursions, and amass experiences that unite them and make them different from their friends and family back home. At the same time, because these students are so closely connected, they come to compete with one another in their ability to adapt, perform, and grow. Others’ performances become a yardstick of success or failure, and the thought “if they can do it, why can’t I?” colors self-evaluations, regardless of the objective conditions of performance (e.g., experience, proficiency, etc.). Remembering Rebeccah’s experience of feeling ready to quit the study of Russian, she wrote: “When I use Russian, there is no substance to my sentences. There’s no ‘ME’ in my Russian . . . Perhaps I can rationalize, thinking I’ve had only 3 years of Russian. But then I see how people like Al, or Reanna absolutely shine . . . To me, their personalities shone through.” Not only does she fail to convey her self-image in the L2, but she does so while other non-native speakers succeed. Thus, whether consciously or subconsciously, learners tend to reflect upon themselves by staring into the pool of others. The use of self-comparison as a means of self-evaluation is one of the most common themes throughout the narrative journals. The same is true of language learning. Learners set expectations for their own performance based on the presentations of others and look to other students who seem to perform better or worse than they and shift their attitudes toward themselves accordingly. For example, Bob writes: “I saw other Americans at the market and feel that at

92


least I’m ahead of them, that helps my confidence.” Camille also compares herself to others, writing, “I think I pick up the meaning of words slower than most (at least slower than Marlene, but I think I am unique, not she).” Camille’s “uniqueness” suggests a sense of inferiority and isolation among her peers. Bob’s and Camille’s self-comparison plays a substantial role in their self-perception. Learners use self-comparison as a way of determining how secure their selfimage is in terms of relative status, efficacy to control the environment, and validity of their efforts to communicate in the L2. As their attitudes toward themselves worsen in relation to others, their drive to use the L2 in the interaction also lessens. For example, Rebeccah reports on an encounter she had that illustrates this point well. She writes: I had free time on Monday before our train left for Kiev, so I decided to go & try to find Mendeelev [sic] U. (where I studied 4 years ago on a summer program). I was a bit nervous to do this alone. Anyway, I found it & remembered how to get to the Russian dept. And once there, I found all my old teachers & they remembered me. It was nice to see them & to realize they all remembered me! They complimented me on my Russian & said I had improved. But then another student from [my school] (who studies at Mendeelev [sic]) came into the office & her Russian was so excellent. And after that I didn’t want to speak Russian in the office, in front of her. And this affected me so much that Russian began to suck and I just stopped talking & sat there smiling like an idiot.

Following the euphoria of compliments, Rebeccah’s perception of herself collapses under the weight of self-comparison, and her subsequent language use withers and dies. Speaking in the L2 in the presence of stronger students is a phenomenon that students frequently report in their narrative journals. Having compared themselves to the other students and having sensed the disparity of their abilities, learners often curtail further L2 use in the presence of these students for fear that others will also recognize the inequality and change their perception of the individual. Julie, for instance, writes that during an excursion she refrained from asking questions about the building we were seeing because I was afraid my question would be about something she [the tour guide] had already described. I basically felt like a) I was giving up and b) I knew absolutely no Russian. This feeling was strengthened by the fact that others in the group seemed to be understanding everything. In fact EVERYONE seemed to understand it all. In the end, I realized many people had trouble understanding and then I was angry at myself for crawling into my shell and not asking the tour guide any questions. But at the time I felt really stupid and it all actually put me in a really bad mood.

Madeline also explains in two different interviews how speaking in front of other Americans affects her L2 use:


93

Um, I feel a lot better about making mistakes when other people make mistakes. When everybody is on and I’m not on, then we have a problem . . . it’s just like, if, if they can do it, you know, then I should be able to do it too . . . I mean we all tend to mess up and if somebody is like really on, and I’m like, you know, sometimes [they do better than you and you think] “well you had your Wheaties today,” you know, it’s like, a little bit of jealousy, you know. But, I mean . . . it’s fine if I mess up, I know I’m gonna mess up, but it seems to me that, well, . . . It’s just like, I’ve been studying Russian for a long time, I should actually know how to form these verbs. You know, it’s like, discouraging.

The performance of others becomes a metric of achievement for Madeline; whatever tasks others are able to perform, she too should be capable of performing, especially considering the amount of time she’s been studying. In a second interview, Madeline explained: I’m not the ambitious one to go ahead and try first, [but] if [other learners] need an extra word usually they just trek in here and I tell them the word. But, most of the time I’m not anxious to speak . . . I think I’m just lazy. That could be the case. That could be the case. Like sometimes I worry that people in the group might think oh, well, you know, they might hear you make a mistake, and they’ll be like, well, Madeline was here longer, and Madeline has studied Russian longer so she should know. And I don’t like having that pressure on me, like, oh, I should know how to do all that. So I’m like, I don’t want them to think that I’m like hogging any opportunities of theirs. So normally I just take the back seat.

When learners detect the mistakes of other learners, the dynamic of the relationship may go from that of social equals to one of caretaker and student. Learners whose L2 skills are more advanced may approximate the “ideal self” more closely than the less advanced learner and may occupy a position of relatively greater linguistic status on the hierarchical scale. As a result, the less advanced student perceives the self to be denigrated, and L2 use is halted to prevent further damage. While it seems natural for language learners to compare themselves to others of their own culture who have similar experiences and education, many learners in fact tend to compare themselves to language learners in general, as Reanna demonstrates in the following situation: Abe’s host dad is a doctor and I have heard that he is fun. I asked Abe to introduce me to him, Igor’, and explain that I am going to med. school in the fall . . . After a little while Igor’ says “your Russian is very good,” which encourages me to elaborate on my own answers and to ask more questions. As a person of my own profession I feel the need to present myself professionally and feel the attempt was successful . . . also I know that my Russian is most likely better than Abe’s so I was not afraid to start up the conversation with Igor’. Also I noticed that he (Igor’) has a strange accent – sounds like Norwegian – which makes me less nervous since his Russian also appears to be imperfect.

94


Reanna not only compares herself to the other American interlocutor, but further compares her L2 skills to those of Igor’ as a professional and potentially nonnative speaker of Russian. Rebeccah also describes such self-comparison in a meeting with her former Russian tutor in Moscow: Here’s a general observation: I’ve been in Moscow for the past 4 days visiting my friend Sergey. (He studied at [my college] for a year.) So, he was my tutor in America, & whenever I see him he insists that I speak only in Russian. And it was a real effort this time. I felt like I was giving birth to tiny cows with every sentence! He even noticed my hesitation & difficulty. The thing is that he speaks English so well that I get lazy & revert to English (since I know he’ll understand anyway). Well . . . He also did compliment my Russian, he said that my accent is good, and that everything I say is clear & understandable. So, I am so confused and annoyed at myself for not trying harder in Russian. Here’s the catch-22: I don’t want to make mistakes when I speak – yet the only way to improve is to speak. What’s a girl to do?

Initially, Rebeccah suggests that her reluctance to speak Russian with Sergey comes only from laziness on her part, yet her wording reveals a fear of lowering her status by making mistakes in front of another individual who is a strong language learner himself. A follow-up interview confirms that her reluctance is caused, at least in part, by self-comparison: Q: . . . what about his ability to speak English made you pull back from speaking Russian? Why did you decide to speak English instead of in Russian? A: I don’t know. I felt shy, like I felt like, kind of embarrassed to speak . . . I, you know, he goes to [my school] for a year, and like I’m here for a year, and I feel like I should be at his level with English, how he speaks English I should be able to do it in Russian . . . Q: Do you feel he speaks a lot better than you do in English? A: Oh, God yeah, yeah, totally . . .

Once again, Rebeccah’s self-imposed expectations are generated by the perceived accomplishments and experiences of others. The fact that he knows English so well intimidates her by placing her at a lower status in comparison to him intellectually and linguistically; she seems to evaluate his languagelearning experiences as comparable to hers, but believes her progress to be far below his. His English skills also give her an escape mechanism, since there is less need to use the L2 to achieve the communication goal and, thus, L2 use is unnecessary if she wants to avoid it. The combination of poor attitude toward her own language skills (based on self-comparison with another language learner) and the lack of need for the L2 to achieve the communicative goal gives Rebeccah a way to achieve the goal while preserving security. Self-comparisons often lead students to select “leaders” within a group, with one student, often the one who possesses the greatest degree of proficiency, taking the central role in interactions with native speakers. In turn, the others


95

fall back and allow the “leader” to take responsibility for the interaction, thus using less L2 than the lead individual and than they might if they were alone with the NS interlocutor. In other words, “follower” students abdicate personal responsibility for achieving the communicative goal, while “leader” students assume greater responsibility. In this study, 54 percent of the participants polled at the end of the trip agreed that if they are playing a less central role in a conversation, they are likely to tune out or not try to speak in the target language. Some learners explained on the questionnaire that, “I’ve noticed that I speak Russian better and become more involved in Russian conversations when I am the only native English speaker in the conversation – otherwise I tend to let the other Americans carry on most of the conversation,” and, “I need to be important in the conversation and/or interested or I tune out.” Learners who self-select or who are chosen by their peers to lead a group may be considered by others to be of higher linguistic status and more capable of controlling the L2 use environment. Also, those learners may feel more centrally important in the interaction, thus validating their abilities and self-worth. Students who assume leadership positions tend to excel in task or social leadership, according to Ehrman and Dörnyei (1998), although their position may be either long-term or momentary, as leadership tends to be shifted among members in response to circumstances. When learners act as communication leaders, their sense of security may rise in comparison to their peers, and they may be encouraged to use the L2 more. For instance, Rebeccah describes the following activity, which was organized by several of the resident directors and myself: We did a scavenger hunt today. And there were some crazy things we had to ask for (in russian [sic]) from complete strangers on the street! Some of my teammates were reluctant to ask people for things, and their fear gave me strength & made me so brave & it made my Russian more fluent. When there is something to be done & you can’t count on others to speak for you, it really increases your language abilities & forces you to take risks. I am quite satisfied with my russian [sic] today and I enjoyed the scavenger hunt.

We designed the scavenger hunt to encourage the students to use their Russian to obtain objects (without purchasing or stealing them), such as expired bus passes or brochures, or discover information, like a stranger’s middle name or patronymic. Yet Rebeccah discovered something much more important – not only that she was capable of taking a leadership role, but that her teammates relied upon her to do so. Self-comparison takes place not only between learners and other individuals, but also between learners and their own expectations, that is, how close they believe they should be to achieving their “ideal” self. Learners enter language programs with expectations for their ultimate progress, for what their day-to-day

96


linguistic development will be, and for what the quality of their social interactions will be like. Learners constantly monitor the extent of their linguistic progress and often compare their present abilities to their expectations of what their abilities “should be.” This is frequently seen in comments such as Bob’s statement on his inability to direct theatergoers when approached on the street for directions: “It’s frustrating because I should know all the words they use.” After only two years of Russian, however, Bob’s belief that he should understand all the words being used by the strangers approaching him is unrealistic: they are speaking quickly and unexpectedly and do not know that Bob is a foreigner. Rebeccah reported a similar scenario in the last month of her year abroad: At the Hermitage I agreed to have my portrait drawn by one of those guys. The guy was trying to talk to me – and my Russian stank! Absolutely horrible! So I just mumbled my answers and lowered my voice. He said, “Oh your Russian is so good” – but I know that’s a lie, ’cause when I told him I’ve been here since Sept. he couldn’t understand me! Seriously. And then I became ashamed to talk. I kept thinking of things I could say – but decided not to even try. I felt like a mute. So, I’m very unhappy with my Russian tonight & I hate the portrait. I just hope I don’t really look like that.

By what standard has Rebeccah determined that her Russian “stank”? Even the compliment of the artist cannot change her attitude toward her own linguistic abilities. To hide her language, she mumbles and lowers her voice. She is convinced that his compliment is a lie, not acknowledging that his inability to understand her may have come from her own mumbling and quiet speech. Rebeccah believes that her proficiency is substandard for anyone who has lived in-country as long as she and, thus, she compares her abilities unfavorably to her own expectations, causing her sense of status to be lowered and her L2 use to be curtailed. Self-comparison to others in seemingly similar situations gives learners a yardstick by which to measure their own progress and evaluate their own ability and their sense of self among their peers. This comparative evaluation of the self may be viewed as an internal competition with other learners. Kathleen Bailey’s introspective diary study (1983) concentrates on learners’ competitiveness and reveals trends similar to those uncovered here. Bailey’s findings suggest “that Language Classroom Anxiety can be caused and/or aggravated by the learner’s competitiveness when he sees himself as less proficient than the object of comparison” (96). Bailey defines competitiveness as: the desire to excel in comparison to others. The others [emphasis in original] are typically the learner’s classmates, but as these diaries have shown, a learner may compete with an idealized self-image or with other learners not directly involved in the language classroom (a spouse, a friend, a sibling, etc.). Competitiveness arises when the comparison is


97

emotive rather than objective. If the comparison is invidious (i.e., if the learner perceives himself as lacking), such competitiveness can lead to anxiety. It may also lead to active competition [emphasis added], either through increased personal efforts to master the language or through striving to out-do other students. (96)

Bailey’s focus on “competitiveness” reflects learners’ need to maintain a relative sense of status. Her recognition that competitiveness occurs not only among students but also between students and their idealized self is similarly seen throughout this study in cases where students feel they have not met their own expectations for linguistic performance. Bailey reviews several diary studies, including her own, of learners’ competitiveness in the foreign language classroom in which diarists report comparing themselves to other students in the classroom, “sizing up” the other students (74), evaluating relative rank in the classroom as to linguistic ability (“I had become the lowest person in the rankings of French fluency” [75]), and judging themselves to be “inferior” (79) and “inadequate” (75) in comparison to the other students, and even refers to one researcher’s “status [emphasis added] as a member of the less advanced group” (88). Through her description of competitive behavior, Bailey essentially is describing comparison of the learners’ self with other learners. According to Bailey, such “competitiveness” or self-comparison among learners, when resulting in learners’ perception of themselves as inferior to others, leads to feelings of anxiety. As previously defined here, anxiety is a series of physical and emotional responses to the conflict created between the need to perform and the threat to the learners’ sense of security brought on by having to perform. It is this relationship of competition to anxiety that Bailey notes as significant for the study of SLA. Bailey reviews several researchers who believe that competition creates a negative effect on the language-learning process (85). Ehrman (1993) also indicates the potentially negative effects of competition among learners, noting that “concern with competition and the envy of classmates . . . may cause a learner to limit his or her cognitive capacity or to build insurmountable barriers to input” (339). It is important, however, to recognize that competition, that is, self-comparison, does not in and of itself create feelings of anxiety. When status is perceived by learners to be lower than that of others due to the learners’ inability to perform as well as others or as well as is expected, this creates a need to protect the status by reducing the amount of L2 speech. It also creates feelings of great discomfort and “anxiety” due to the cognitive dissonance of having to perform while having to protect security. Bailey theorizes that learners cease to be “competitive” when they are confident in their own abilities, since they have no need to compete as they are already at the top of their class, and anxiety and L2 avoidance do not occur as a result (93). The present study contends, however, that learners who express confidence in their own linguistic

98


abilities do not cease to be competitive, as Bailey suggests, but continue to be competitive, continue to compare themselves to others. The difference is that these students do not experience feelings of anxiety since no conflict is engendered by their need to speak: confident learners hold positive attitudes toward their L2 abilities, that is, perceive their L2 abilities to be strong enough to perform in the L2 without creating a threat to their own sense of security. It is for this reason that learners may feel inferior, experience anxiety, and avoid L2 use in the presence of some peers, but may feel superior to others in rapid succession and may use their L2 skills freely with no sense of anxiety (e.g., see Rebeccah’s journal entries, presented in Chapter 2, comparing herself to her resident director and to other students).16 3.2.3

Predictability of consequences

As was noted in section 3.2.2 on attitudes toward the self, learners often rely on the consequences of previous interactions to determine how they feel about themselves and their language skills, depending on how successful they were in achieving their communication goals and in maintaining their sense of security. The success or failure of their efforts in preceding interactions give learners insight into how certain interlocutors react to their L2 use, what caretaking behaviors certain interlocutors use, and how receptive they are to accepting learners as worthy friends. As learners interact more and more with the interlocutors in their immediate environment, they become increasingly familiar with each individual’s typical behaviors and persona, allowing learners to make more informed predictions about how successful they might be in achieving their communication goals and in preserving their sense of security. Thus, the ability to predict the potential outcome and circumstances of an interaction in the L2 becomes an important source of learner-internal cues for security by helping learners manage their interactions in a more informed manner. There are two main methods by which learners improve their predictive capability, termed here familiarity and commonality. 3.2.3.1 Familiarity As learners come to know and befriend native speakers, they are able to develop “familiarity” with their chosen interlocutors. Familiarity may be defined as a state of intimacy with and knowledge 16

In addition to Bailey’s insight into the connection of competitiveness and anxiety and L2 avoidance, she also investigates an alternative response to competitiveness, that is, growth in learners’ drive to compete actively with others, to outdo them linguistically and academically, and to master the language when competition reveals inadequacies in their L2 skills. This phenomenon was also witnessed in the case studies of the present project and will be addressed in the following chapter in more depth in considering the effects of what field research has termed “debilitating” vs. “facilitating” anxiety.


99

about another individual. Although SLA researchers have devoted very little formal attention to the role of familiarity between native and non-native speakers, teachers and students intuitively and experientially understand the importance of familiarity in L2 use during study abroad. By building familiarity with native speakers through friendships and regular interaction, students amass a body of experiences with those individuals and begin to feel capable of predicting those individuals’ reactions to the students’ developing language abilities. An individual’s style of speech, pronunciation patterns, and typical phrases or communication behaviors also become familiar and predictable to the learner. This predictability helps to minimize the amount of social and linguistic ambiguity in the interaction, which helps the learner maintain a manageable level of novel input (cultural, social, and linguistic) for comprehension and acquisition. Familiarity also becomes the basis of trust between individuals, helping students to relax, lower inhibitions, and take risks in the language to test new linguistic features in their speaking. In fact, the concept of building familiarity is one of the underlying rationales for incorporating a homestay component into a study-abroad program. In addition to providing room and board and acting as a cultural window into the target society, the homestay family members quickly become a network of familiar native speakers in the learners’ language-use environment. By placing learners in homestays, programs can offer the chance for learners to interact and ultimately become familiar with native speakers and representatives of the target culture, something that cannot be guaranteed in a hotel or dormitory for foreigners. According to the program-end questionnaire, students in this study vastly preferred using the target language with familiar native speakers, with 96 percent reporting that they enjoy speaking the TL with their host family or NS friends, while only 66 percent enjoy speaking the TL with NS strangers. Adding a component of risk, such as using difficult constructions or expressing complicated ideas in the TL, makes the familiarity distinction even more clear, as only 4 percent dislike taking such risks with familiar native speakers, while 53 percent dislike taking such risks with NS strangers. Students also explained in narrative responses that interpersonal relations with familiar native speakers are one of the major factors helping them use their TL. Like many others, the following student anonymously reported that established relationships help her use the target language more by freeing her to take risks and test hypotheses; she writes, “I feel more restrained when trying to speak to new acquaintances or people I don’t know well. When I know someone well, I can speak freely with little fear of making mistakes and trying new words and constructions.” Familiarity with the interlocutor creates a sense of comfort and trust that allows for experimentation and free speech without the fear of ridicule or harsh judgment (which could lower learners’ sense of status). Jim, for example,

100


describes the evening when he introduced his American fiancée to his host family. He explains: As I look back, those few hours were probably some of the most comfortable hours of my time in Russia. I was at “home,” with my “family,” and Ann. It was a wonderful experience. What really makes it wonderful is that I now realize that I was not only conversing in Russian, I was thinking in Russian. I was not translating, I was not “trying.” I was sitting at the supper table chatting. That is so cool!!! . . . I did use some new stuff in the conversation – I can’t remember what, but the results varied. However, Igor and Natasha seemed pleased to hear me try different things.

Jim’s “home,” “family,” “fiancée,” all symbols of a high degree of familiarity, provide for a highly satisfying experience. Jim can predict that he will not be harmed by these individuals, physically or psychologically, based on his knowledge of their past behavior. He accepts and trusts them and, thus, is comfortable with them. For Jim, this “comfort” allows him simply to focus on the topic and goals of communication without paying any attention to the vehicle, that is, the L2 structure. Familiarity may be developed with other aspects of social interaction besides interlocutors, including particular environments, socially marked transactions, or other conditions. By learning the customs and register required in culturally specific social interactions, such as the pragmatic transactions of shopping for food or purchasing tickets, learners develop familiarity with particular communicative events and the physical environments that become metonymic representations of the event. By predicting how successfully they can perform the required communication tasks and how the individuals involved will respond to their attempts, learners may then estimate how well they will be able to preserve their sense of security during the course of the interaction. For example, Bob records: It was a third trip to the souvenir market. I have become somewhat successful at bartering. Not just getting a lower price, but speaking in Russian. Several things I consider successful, or drastic improvements anyway. First, I have gotten a better ear for numbers, I have never formally learned the numbers, other than here they are, learn them. I needed to actively use them. Second, with so many shops carrying what I wanted, if I screwed up, I could just go to the next shop. I actually resent the sellers talking in English, because that meant they knew or suspected I spoke english [sic] and couldn’t understand them if they spoke Russian. Another reason for feeling comfortable speaking is, being the third time there, I have developed the words I need to function, and a few variations on these functions. Mostly though I’m not intimidated by failure there as I am in class. This is life, it’s not graded. I actually had a good time, and I hate to shop at home.

With Bob’s developed knowledge of numbers and other necessary lexicon, as well as his security in the fact that failure would have minor consequences, Bob


101

can feel sure of his self-presentation as he learns to play with the language in the market environment. His resentment toward sellers perceiving him to be an English-speaker indicates that he has not yet managed to project his “ideal” self to others. However, he’s not intimidated or resentful enough to give up, because a fresh audience is only as far as the next kiosk. Often students and teachers intuitively equate familiarity with comfort, thus leading to positive L2 use experiences. However, learners’ journals suggest otherwise. As learners build experience of others’ behaviors and attitudes, their L2 use may actually be inhibited rather than facilitated if they anticipate negative reactions from their interlocutors. Consider those students’ relationships with native speakers where the student’s motivation, willingness, and desire to speak in the TL decrease, rather than increase, as familiarity builds. Recall Camille’s relationship with her host mother, Ol’ga Nikolayevna (pp. 43–45); as Camille became increasingly familiar with Ol’ga’s controlling behavior, manipulating her time and dominating conversations, Camille began to avoid her more and more, opting to ski and read by herself rather than interact. Similarly, after spending several weeks interacting with his first host family and becoming familiar with their negative treatment of him, Bob writes the following entry in his narrative journal: At home I am finding out I don’t like mother so I don’t talk to her, or avoid her as much as possible. She responds to my questions by rolling her eyes or exhaling deeply. It seems like it’s a real chore to talk to me, so to hell with her. She has no patience for me even when I know I’m saying things correctly.

In these cases, it is, in fact, the very familiarity, not the lack of it, that becomes the inhibiting factor. Familiarity does not in and of itself give learners a feeling of comfort. Rather, it gives learners the opportunity to build a rubric, an information base concerning those with whom they interact. As Goffman (1959) notes, humans tend to gather information about new acquaintances because “information about the individual helps to define the situation, enabling others to know in advance what he will expect of them and what they may expect of him. Informed in these ways, the others will know how best to act in order to call forth a desired response from him” (1). Sociologist Mark Leary and his colleagues (1994) examined the effects that familiarity and gender of a target companion have on people’s self-presentation during interaction. Rating the degree to which study participants desired to make themselves appear more likable, competent, ethical, and attractive, Leary et al. found that familiarity played a significant role in participants’ self-presentational motives. Participants were less motivated to maintain strongly positive self-presentation in interactions with highly familiar members of their own sex than they were with less familiar members of their own sex or with members of the opposite sex, regardless of the degree of

102


familiarity. Leary et al. hypothesize that the effects of familiarity on selfpresentation motives may be explained in several ways: (a) Others’ perceptions of a person are less likely to change the better they know him or her, making any particular self-presentational possibility less important; (b) as others learn more about a person, their knowledge constrains the range of impressions the person can convey, thereby lowering his or her motivation to try . . . ; and (c) others who interact most frequently with a person tend to be friends, family, and others who already accept him or her, rendering concerns with social approval, and thus self-presentation, less salient. (1994, 670)

As the case studies show, familiarity affects the concern individuals show for their self-presentation. When learners are familiar with their interlocutors, they may feel more secure that the interlocutors have already accepted them and that they will not change their attitudes toward them easily. As the diaries also suggest, however, familiarity with an aggressive or abusive interlocutor can inhibit learners from speaking. Familiarity is associated with important and valued relationships because such relationships are usually maintained for those qualities, whereas unsatisfying, unpleasant relationships are typically discontinued.17 During study abroad, however, learners’ social options are limited; learners must maintain relationships with host-family members and teachers with whom they become familiar, but who may treat them in an aggressive or abusive manner. Therefore, familiarity operates not because familiar relationships are “more important and valued than less frequent interactions,” as Leary et al. suggest (670), but because people learn the attitudes and behaviors of their familiar companions. As Leary et al. explain, individuals are able to feel more certain of familiar others’ attitudes toward them than of those of unfamiliar others and, thus, are able to predict responses to their own L2 use. Although both experience and data indicate that familiar relationships are often desirable, there are in fact times when learners note the value of the stranger. Speaking with strangers who will never see you again can hold virtually no negative consequences, unlike speaking with a host-family member, with whom you are very familiar and will continue to have a relationship with. Beth, for example, explains: On the street, I love it because that’s why I’m here, like, I just love interacting on the street, meeting new people and just, I just love it! I don’t know why, I just, just the confidence I have, even if I feel like an idiot, I mean, there’s a couple of incidences where they’ve [strangers] made me feel like a damn idiot, but that’s, it pisses me off, but I don’t have to live with them, I don’t have to live with them.

Melinda also explains, “Well . . . speaking with him I was able to just kinda speak freely ’cause I didn’t know who he was so it was like, eh, I don’t care if I 17

McCroskey and Beatty (1998) note this same function of familiarity, writing, “it is not so much that close friends produce less apprehension as it is that people who produce less apprehension are allowed to become close friends whereas more threatening individuals are avoided” (221).


103

make a mistake, you know. I’m never gonna see this person again, kind of thing. So it’s easier to talk to people on the street . . .” This attitude is reminiscent of Bob’s explanation that the market was more comfortable than class since “with so many shops carrying what I wanted, if I screwed up, I could just go to the next shop.” Thus, although familiarity grants predictive ability, it can also mean a public memory of a learner’s performance, including mistakes and self-damaging consequences. Familiarity benefits learners in another way as well. Studies show an inverse relationship between familiarity and prejudice (Aronson 1995, 301). As the relationship between learner and interlocutor deepens, each may soften their negative preconceptions of the other. As interlocutors become familiar with students, they also become better caretakers. 3.2.3.2 Commonality In addition to familiarity, learners find predictive capability in “commonality,” that is, the establishment of a bond between two individuals based upon a common feature, such as an experience or attitude. Discovering a commonality may produce a sense of mutual understanding between learners and their interlocutors. Commonality may benefit learners’ sense of security by creating in them the belief that they understand those interlocutors with common experiences and attitudes better than those with nothing in common. Thus, learners may feel better able to predict those interlocutors’ potential behavior or persona. In addition, learners often feel better understood and appreciated by interlocutors who have experiences and attitudes in common with them and, thus, may trust that such individuals will not threaten their security with negative behaviors, such as insults or poor caretaking. The students’ narratives demonstrate that the discovery of a commonality between themselves and the interlocutor can promote target language use, often regardless of the level of familiarity already established. In the following passage, for example, Madeline talks about the confusing situation created by living with a woman about whom she knows absolutely nothing. She first addresses how the lack of familiarity with this woman stifled her language use: Alla lives with my host family and I, for the longest time, I had no clue who exactly she was, and therefore we never got the chance to talk soberly together. It was kind of weird. I didn’t know whether she was a relative or not. I knew, however, that she and my host mother work together. Basically, I felt a little like I was imposing on her space not only in the kitchen but in front of the television. I avoided her, because for the most part I figured that she didn’t really like me or that she wouldn’t have any patience with my speaking. The extent of the majority of our conversation was “hello” or “goodnight” or “good morning.”

As Madeline later discusses in her journal, these two areas, the kitchen and the television, are the two that create the greatest feeling of comfort and help her to increase her Russian language use by providing a personal and safe window

104


into Russian culture, a place where she is accepted unconditionally by her host family. She explains at length that both the television and the kitchen actually motivate her to use her Russian more. Yet, being unfamiliar with Alla’s rights in relation to her own, Madeline reports in a later passage physically attempting to avoid one of those areas in order to limit her contact with Alla. She explains the situation during an interview: Q: Who’s Alla? A: I actually don’t know. [laughs] I really don’t know. I know that she works with Galya, but I don’t, I have no clue. She stays in her room all the day. I don’t know if she’s in, I don’t know when she’s not there. So, it’s really odd. I don’t know. I have no clue. Q: How old is she, do you think? A: She’s about 23. She looks about anywhere from 23 to 27. She’s not 30. I know she’s not 30. She could be 22, but I know she’s not 30. And she has her own room, so I think she’s bringing in some money. But like I said, I have no clue. I have no clue . . . Q: Have you ever approached her to have a conversation with her? A: No. Q: How come? A: ’Cause, she’s, she’s like, um, she’s a young, professional woman and it’s like, it just, I don’t know. It’s not that she’s mean, it’s not that, I mean, it’s not that I even get bad vibes from her. It’s just like, you know, well, no, it’s like . . . I don’t know, I really don’t, it’s a thing. It’s kind of, I guess it’s kind of intimidating because I know that she’s like, you know, she, they say that she can speak English, you know. Every once in a while she’ll try to translate for me and everything. But most of the time, I think I avoid her ’cause I don’t know who she is. I don’t know who, I think that’s the reason why basically, you know, I, I mean, I don’t know. Q: Could you, do you think you could approach her and ask her? A: No! [laughs] No! I mean, I don’t have any Russian friends but I, I don’t know, I’m not, I don’t know that, I don’t know, she could be somebody’s daughter, aah, I don’t know. I have no clue.

Without knowing anything about this individual, Madeline fears what interaction with this person may do to her sense of status, both socially (fearing that “she could be somebody’s daughter,” suggesting that she may in fact be one of high social status who would potentially look down on Madeline) and linguistically (knowing that Alla “can speak English, you know,” suggesting that her knowledge of English may surpass Madeline’s knowledge of Russian, thus lowering her status via self-comparison). Without knowing Alla’s potential reactions to Madeline or her speaking, Madeline actually avoids interacting with Alla altogether. An interesting twist occurs in this unfamiliar relationship, however, when a commonality is discovered by Madeline which causes a change in her target language use. She writes: Well, today we had to eat dinner early, because Olya my host sister had classes. I’m a slow eater, so Galya and Olya finished before me. Alla was cooking her own dinner, so


105

when Galya and Olya left it was only Alla and me. I’ll admitt [sic]. I did try to sneak out of the kitchen. It was on my mind, but then she spoke. The conversation was odd at first. I tried to keep my answers and questions wrapped up to short contained phrases, nothing fancy and no complex sentences. Eventually though this cracked up as I forgot the word for something or other. That was when Alla told me that she had the same problems speaking english [sic] and that she understood how difficult it can be. Well, needless to say, we talked for 2 whole hours or so, we were still at the table when Galya and Olya returned from classes. I still have no clue whether Alla just lives here, or if she rents the room or if she is related to my host family, but at least now I don’t feel like I have to run, or hide when she comes around.

What led to this two-hour conversation? Madeline was no more familiar with Alla than she had been before, yet the sense of acceptance and understanding that she found in Alla’s common experience allowed her to feel confident that her self-image was not being overly scrutinized. In a similar situation, Gina experienced the same breakthrough with an interlocutor that she had previously found to be threatening to her self-presentation. As was discussed earlier, Gina feared being perceived by her fourteen-year-old host sister as inferior or immature. In an interview, she explains, But things have changed this past week ’cause my host sister is starting to learn English, like, she’s taking it in school . . . So she’s like “dog,” “cat,” “me,” “my,” and I’m like, okay, now we’re on the same level here, you understand, so . . . And she’s been asking me for help with like English pronunciation, so I’m hoping that that will be sort of like a way into feeling more comfortable in front of her because I’ll know that she also . . . I mean, she sounds like a total, you know, idiot, saying these English words, because she just has no idea how to pronounce them, so it makes me feel better, like, okay, I can do this, you won’t laugh at me and I won’t laugh at you.

Not only does the common situation of learning and communicating in a foreign language help Gina feel of more equal status with the young girl, but in fact at times it allows her to be of higher or caretaker status as the expert in English. Consequently, she is more comfortable and interacts more with the young girl. Thus, common experiences and features between learners and their interlocutors may aid learners by giving them a rubric by which they can predict the interlocutors’ reactions to their L2 use. Finding one common feature, learners may presume their interlocutors have personality traits or experiences similar to their own and that, therefore, they will behave and react in common ways. Social psychological research, however, suggests another possible explanation. An extensive series of studies by Byrne and associates (1969) later reported by Aronson (1995, 337), found that people are more apt to like strangers with whom they share opinions on one or more issues. Aronson (1995) offers two possible explanations for this phenomenon. One reason is that finding others who share our beliefs lets us know that we are “right” in our beliefs and

106


provides “social validation for our beliefs,” thus preserving our sense of security. A second possible explanation is that we evaluate the quality of the individual with whom we interact based on their expressed opinions. If we find their opinions to be bad, we may assume other features of them are equally bad. Thus, we may fear the other to be a potential threat to our sense of security if we perceive them to be potentially unkind, immoral, or unpleasant. Whether “commonality” aids learners by helping them predict their interlocutors’ behaviors, validate their own opinions, or judge the quality of the interlocutor as a person, the learners’ experiences and the research of social psychologists suggest that learners may feel a greater sense of security with those interlocutors with whom they find common opinions, experiences, or other features than with those with whom no commonality is established.18 It is important to note that, while commonality adds an element of predictability for learners in social interactions, it can also be problematic for learners. If a common feature between two individuals threatens, rather than supports, students’ status, safety, and validation, students report speaking much less and sticking to safe linguistic structures. For example, when learners compare themselves to other learners in order to establish a sense of their linguistic and social status, they do so on the basis of the commonality they share of learning a second language. Rather than calming learners by showing mutual understanding, commonality in this case may create feelings of competition and self-doubt as learners come to believe that they should perform as well as their peers. Tanaka (1982) in fact found that in his study of variables affecting ease of communication in a second language, learners tended to feel uncomfortable interacting with those of the same ethnic and language background as their own, explaining that speaking in the L2 felt unnatural and could lead to competition and embarrassment. In such instances, as was discussed previously, commonality may in fact threaten learners’ security through self-comparison. 18

Andersen, Reznik, and Chen (1997) report on the concept of transference, which may offer a different explanation for the role of commonality. Transference refers to an individual’s propensity to perceive himself or herself according to a relational schema of self when with a significant other. In the presence of a new acquaintance who is similar to a significant other that the individual already knows, the individual will perceive the self to have the same qualities with the new acquaintance as it does with the significant other. In other words, if someone considers himself to be outgoing and funny when with his sister, he will consider himself to be the same when he meets someone who reminds him of his sister. Likewise, if a student feels comfortable and gregarious around her best friend at home, she is more likely to feel such when with a NS who reminds her of that individual. Transference is driven by a basic need for the individual to attach to a caretaker in order to feel connected and near, as a child to a parent. Thus, transference consists of a commonality not between the self and the other, but between a significant other and new other. In relation to transference, Andersen et al. also refer to projection, which is the recognition of a common feature between the self and the new other, otherwise known as commonality in this text.


3.3

107

The whole picture: interactivity of cues

This chapter has examined a series of factors that affect learners’ presentation of the self and their subsequent language use. As this section has demonstrated, learners’ sense of security may be affected not only by the behavior and persona of those with whom they interact, but also by certain learner-internal cues such as attitudes and predictive abilities. It must here be restated, however, that none of these factors, neither social-environmental cues nor learner-internal cues, affects learners’ sense of social psychological security in pure isolation. At all times myriad factors work in concert to affect language learners’ L2 use decisions. Moreover, social-environmental factors and learner-internal factors mutually affect one another. Learners interpret the behaviors and attitudes of others depending on their own level of self-esteem, and learners’ attitudes toward themselves are strongly influenced by the behaviors and attitudes of others. This interrelationship has been discussed in both SLA and socialpsychological research. Fox, Luszki, and Schmuck (1966) note that “selfconcepts . . . develop to a great extent through the perception and evaluations of others: we come to see ourselves as we think others see us. These self-concepts unfortunately often bear only slight resemblance to a person’s actual characteristics” (90). Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) also point out that not only are strongly positive attitudes toward the self important for L2 production, but language caretakers may also affect learners’ self-esteem. In addition, the need to maintain a relatively strong sense of social and intellectual status stimulates learners to avoid using the L2 in instances in which their sense of status and self-esteem are in jeopardy. This is particularly true of evaluative situations (Phillips 1992). Ehrman (1996) notes that the threat of evaluation by others may lead to feelings of anxiety and avoidance of L2 use. Describing how a student expresses concerns about public performance in the L2, Ehrman explains that the student “suffers from inhibition about performing that is a result of feeling in the spotlight and judged by others” (150). Finally, approval from others is a valuable commodity. Learners may feel validated that their efforts have been successful when their L2 use is praised or positively acknowledged by others. They may also feel that their status has been maintained or elevated when others acknowledge their L2 use as successful. Through her language diary study, Bailey (1983) notes that in using her L2 she was primarily looking for approval from her teacher that she was performing well (77). The approval of others is instrumental in gaining a sense of self-efficacy. According to Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) the perception of ability created by both learners and their caretakers is crucial in L2 performance. Furthermore, Foss and Reitzel (1988) write, “If competence is assumed

108


to be an interpersonal impression that depends on the individuals involved, their relationship, and the nature of the particular encounter, the perceptions of those involved must take priority. [Spitzberg and Cupach] suggest that a communicator is competent if perceived so by self and/or others” (441). Approval by others indicates that learners’ L2 use has been successful. When learners experience successful L2 use, they become more inclined to continue using the L2, especially if the conditions under which they were successful re-occur. Thus, subsequent meetings with the same interlocutors, repeated discussions of the same topics, and so forth may all stimulate continued L2 use. Ehrman (1996) noted the importance of successful L2 use on subsequent speech, writing, “If one succeeds at a task, he or she is usually energized to do it some more. On the other hand, failure may lead to avoidance of the challenge” (141). However, although others’ approval plays a significant role in learners’ use of the L2, another, possibly more significant factor affects learners’ sense of status and L2 use as well, that is, learners’ reliance on self-comparison. Students’ frequent reliance on self-comparison with other language learners and with the expectations of others figured strongly in the diaries presented here. Bailey (1983) also notes how, for her, the role of self-comparison, or “competition” as she called it, was notable in her language-learning experience. She wrote, “this fear of public failure seems to have been caused or at least aggravated by comparing myself with the other students (or with an idealized self-image), rather than by any fear of rebuke from the teacher” (74). As we have witnessed, the interrelation of social-environmental cues and learner-internal cues figures prominently throughout learners’ narratives. As learners gain experience through social interaction, they evaluate themselves and cast and recast their own attitudes toward themselves. Concurrently, learners’ self-esteem and feelings of self-efficacy serve as a filter through which they assess the attitudes of those around them and evaluate others’ behaviors. What results is a spiral that can deflate students in their language use or elevate them to levels of continuous L2 interaction. The following set of examples serves as a display of the interactive working of the factors discussed in this chapter. Rebeccah had several interactions with an American male named Al who was living and working in Russia. She writes about a series of interactions with him and the effect her relationship with him and her host family had on her sense of security and her use of Russian. She begins her academic-year length journal with the following entry: Sept. 23, 1995 My host family invited “Al” over for dinner one night. He is a junior studying on another program, he is friends with my host family. I decided beforehand that I would speak to him in Russian only so that everyone present could participate in the conversation (besides I didn’t want to be rude). My host family had informed me of his


109

coming, ranting on and on about Al’s awesome Russian abilities and his interests in all intellectual themes. So he arrived, we were introduced. Right off the bat he began talking to me in English. I felt uncomfortable. We were called to the table. It was Bela, babushka (grandmother), Al and I. Bela gazed lovingly at him and “completely” ignored me. Men are truly doted upon in Russian society. Al began discussing some articles he read in a Russ. newspaper (which I had never read). His Russian was pretty good and he was able to jump around from topic to topic. I just sat there listening to Bela & Al’s private conversation. Then suddenly, Bela turned to me & asked me something. I didn’t understand, felt dumb & just shrugged my shoulders. Later in the conversation, Al said in Russian that Bela’s sister studies english [sic] a lot. Then he turned to me & translated that sentence into English. I answered coldly, “I know.” He kept speaking to me in English. Oh! I was just angry & felt so dumb! I usually feel like my Russian is pretty good. But this situation reduced me & my ego to a lump of poop. Then Bela joked that Al spoke better than me & that w/out hand gestures she’d never understand me. After that, I stopped listening all together [sic]. I felt like a prisoner at the dining room table. I couldn’t wait to get out of there. Al & Bela just kept talking in Russian, making jokes etc. Later in the evening, after Al had left I avoided everyone by staying in my room. When Bela asked me a question I answered in English, “okay” or “No.” She was oblivious to my anger. Obviously, this situation sucked. It really made me doubt my Russian abilities & feel bad. If Al comes over for dinner again I will try to force my way into their conversation. I think what bothered me most was that they decided I couldn’t keep up w/ the conversation so they talked around me.

In spite of her social networking goals, Rebeccah finds herself in the end reluctant to speak or interact in the L2 at all. Compared to Al, who speaks to her in English (as if she wouldn’t otherwise understand), she quickly perceives those around her to see her as dumb and linguistically inferior. Her gender also seems to hinder her acceptance, and her attempts to break through and project her “ideal” self seem to fail one behind the other. Feeling ignored and powerless, Rebeccah withdraws but carries the experience with her into the future. Despite her determination to include herself in future interactions, however, the next interaction with Al proved just as difficult: 10/25/95 This evening, Al (remember him?) came to dinner again w/ his parents. His Dad is a member of the house of reps in Illinois – a big time honored guest. So my host family went all out, what a spread there was for dinner! This is how we sat at the table. Irina Al Babushka Al’s Dad Bela Al’s Mom Me They spaced Al & I [sic] out expressly for perevodchik (translator) purposes. So we ate, and inevitably the conversation turned to politics. Al did all the translating, I just sat there. It was so loud and confusing, 2 languages going at once – (Al’s parents of course

110


don’t speak a word of Russian) Al’s mom talked to me as a side conversation since we weren’t interested in the politics. (English) At one point, Irina was talking about businessmen in Russia, and I piped in a few words about the mafia (in Russian). She curtly cut me off & said the mafia had nothing to do with what she was talking about. Oh Goll, I felt so dumb, but at least Al’s parents didn’t understand. Then Al excused himself to the bathroom & I was left as the only perevodchitsa (translator). And Bela said, “Oh we’ll just have to wait till Al returns to communicate.” Valerie, my heart just broke into little pieces – I couldn’t believe my ears! Why does she have to belittle me like that? So, Al’s mom wanted me to express some things to the Russians. And I tried, I was very nervous. I basically got the point across – but it was not all calm, cool & self-assured like when Al had been translating. It was very broken Russian. I kept hoping that Al would not come back to the room & hear me stumbling. Irina wanted me to translate something, but I didn’t understand what she said. Finally Al returned, and reassumed his glavnyy (head) position as head perevodchik. (translator)

As Rebeccah compares herself to Al linguistically, she also compares herself to Al in non-linguistic ways, stating in an interview: well, he’s younger than me, he’s also a junior, and he’s, he is smart, he is, he acts very, whatever, he’s kinda wealthy and, you know, I just feel like, it’s an inferiority complex. Q: Do you feel that way regardless of the Russian in front of him? A: Yeah, I mean, I almost feel like I have to, you know, kind of, he’s like “well, I write for the Chicago Tribune, and I’m going to Prague,” and, you know, he has a, like, I don’t know, I just feel like a loser sometimes around him, you know . . . It sounds stupid . . .

Both her linguistic and personal self-comparison creates in Rebeccah a strong feeling of inferior status. It is for this reason, Rebeccah explains, that it is more difficult for her to speak in Russian when Al is around. Al’s wealth and status are underscored by the presence of his politically powerful parents. The praise and attention that Al gains only cause Rebeccah’s job as translator to be all the more difficult. Her lack of control and respect are accentuated by the negative comparisons of her host family, who once again fawn over their guests. Once more, Rebeccah retreats. Rebeccah gives additional insight in a later interview as to why it was difficult for her to speak during the interaction: I was a little nervous, because I was listening also to Al’s translations and they were really good, I mean I was just like, wow, you know, he was just, I have a lot of the time “uh, uh,” trouble understanding Irina. She’s very insensitive when she speaks to foreigners, she’s like [loud quick “burburburburb” sound], like a machine gun, and she slurs her words, and he understood everything, I didn’t understand everything she said and he put it into English really nicely and the conversation was going with him translating.

As this second interaction indicates, Rebeccah’s host family also blatantly compares Al’s skills to Rebeccah’s, placing her at a much lower status. She explains in the interview:


111

Bella and Irina have enforced this fear because they praise him, he can do nothing wrong, he’s so knowledgeable, and he reads the papers, and he watches the news and he asks about all different literature and culture, and, you know, he, they talk to him about all different . . . they won’t even talk to me about literature or politics . . . Q: Have you tried to open conversations with them about stuff? A: Yeah. Q: And they won’t talk to you? A: They won’t talk to me about it. But they love talking with him, and I hate watching the news and they’re always like “Oh, you have to watch the news, you have to watch the news,” and Al loves to watch the news. You know, it’s that kind of thing: Al does this, I don’t. You know. So they’ve already said it, before I even met him, they set it up, of what a great guy he was.

Intellectually degraded, powerless, rejected, and emotionally vulnerable, Rebeccah can only stay quiet to prevent further damage to her self-image. Rebeccah has a third, and final, experience with Al, made all the worse by her two prior experiences with how he and her host family interact. As Rebeccah writes: 12/5/95 Al came to dinner again tonight. I just got back from Riga [Latvia] this morning – was completely stewed in the brain – and they dropped this bomb on me [cartoon drawing of a bomb]! Anyway, he arrived & sat with Irina in the living room, talking in Russian. They completely excluded me so I felt dumb & began wandering the apartment pretending to be busy. Then we were called to the table. Once again, Al spoke Russian with them, about Politics, Elections, Shostakovich, etc. They gazed at him with complete adoration. I listened some – just because every once in a while someone would say something to me, and I didn’t want them to think I wasn’t paying attention or didn’t understand. During tea, I spoke a little Russian – but let me tell you – I sucked! Since my confidence was blown – my Russian followed suit. Just like the Domino theory. A few times Bela asked me something, and I smiled & said “Da” (yes) – even though I hadn’t understood the question. Luckily “Da” (yes) was an appropriate answer – although now I’m worried about what I affirmed! I think Al is a bad luck charm for my Russian. I’m never brilliant when he’s around. INFERNAL!

This surprise interaction leaves Rebeccah lacking the confidence needed to present her real self effectively in Al’s presence. Unlike the first interaction where she vowed to make more of an effort the next time to be included, she has now physically disengaged from the interaction by walking and feigning distraction. With Al as a “bad luck charm,” she no longer feels she has any control over her environment. She has now become so familiar with the damage that interactions with Al do to her sense of security that she is willing to give up communicating in Russian in his presence more quickly and has lost the determination she had at the end of the first entry. For Rebeccah, her interactions with Al resolved themselves in a most passive way:

112


Q: Has Al come by recently? A: He is in Prague, he’s never coming back so . . . [laughter]

By his final physical removal from her social environment, Rebeccah is finally able to resolve the threat his presence has created to her sense of security in interacting with others and in using her L2 skills. The three entries given by Rebeccah concerning interactions with Al provide a comprehensive picture of the progressive effects interaction with others can create on learners’ sense of security. Rebeccah initially approached this relationship with enthusiasm and interest, resolving to speak only Russian in order for all participants to feel included and respected. As she became increasingly familiar with Al’s unwelcome, although supposedly well-meaning, condescension to Rebeccah’s skills, her host family’s fawning over Al and disregard of her, and the apparent comparison and subsequent competition established between herself and Al, Rebeccah’s willingness to use her Russian skills in Al’s presence steadily dwindled in an effort to preserve her sense of status among her host family and their guests. By her final meeting with Al, she had disavowed any control or responsibility, associating his very presence with poor linguistic performance on her part and embarrassing, hurtful insults and comparisons by others. Thus, the very invitation of Al aroused in Rebeccah feelings of threat and a need to protect herself, regardless of how the actual events played out. Rebeccah’s experiences illustrate the interrelationship between her learnerinternal and social-environmental factors and their effect on her L2 use and her self-presentation. A number of questions remain, however: is Rebeccah, as well as thousands of other students, doomed to struggle along at the mercy of factors that seem beyond her control? Is there a way for learners to ensure the protection of their “real self” during L2 interactions? Or must learners simply endure the erosion of their self-esteem if they are to develop second language proficiency? The fourth and final chapter of this work examines how learners immersed in the language-learning experience come to address issues of selfpresentation and self-preservation during L2 interaction. The lessons learned through the experiences of real language learners may help us understand better how to assist learners in overcoming such hurdles in the future.

4

Coming into our own: the convergence of real self and ideal self

Indeed, many argue that the essence of one’s personality (i.e., self-conception) emerges from and is refined through communicative interactions with others in society. James B. Weaver III, “Personality and Self-Perceptions about Communication”

Like just talk, talk, talk, and after a while it will get more comfortable . . . Kathy, Spring Semester

Kathy has learned a lot: “I’ve had an amazing time here.” After spending several months living, learning, communicating in a new language, she has undergone many changes. She has made friends, has learned about the culture, and is already making plans to come back to Russia soon. Scared and inhibited at the beginning of her language-learning journey, Kathy transformed herself into a confident language learner. She explains: Well, I’m nowhere near fluency, of course, I mean, nowhere near. But I think, considering where I started, my progress has been amazing. Like, I can’t even, I mean, remember how bad I was in the beginning, like, I know I must have been pretty bad, because some of the stuff I can say now, I, there’s no way I could’ve said it in the beginning, like . . . So, yeah, it’s like, I can’t wait to go back and talk to some of my old professors and be like, this is what I can do now. I mean . . . I’m pleased . . . with the progress that I’ve made in the language, but it’s always kind of hard seeing how much everybody else is progressing. I always feel like I’m, I’m still trying to catch up to my group . . . Just, I’m not afraid anymore to open my mouth, I’m not afraid of people looking at me like I’m crazy, or, or of screwing up, or stuff like that . . . and it’s nice, because that’s the kind of person I really am, and I missed that part of me, first here, like, it’s like, all of a sudden I was the shy person who was afraid to talk, and it’s like, that’s not my personality, that’s not my personality. I feel like I can finally express my personality in Russian, you know, like finally my host family is really getting to know who I am, and I can make them laugh with funny stories and jokes, and that sort of thing.

Kathy still has a lot of growing to do. She’s not fluent yet, and she’s still trying to “catch up.” But as she nears the end of her program, she has developed a mature and reasonable view of what she has accomplished and what she has left to do. More importantly, she has already made the most significant 113

114


improvement she must make as a language learner – she has established a more balanced relationship between her self-presentation and L2 use. As learners gain experience interacting in the target language, they undergo changes in their attitudes and practices. Those who are able to overcome concerns of self-presentation in the second language generally become more successful language users and language learners. Those who fail to make such changes often become “demotivated” in their language learning, blaming the circumstances of their learning environment or themselves for their inadequacies. With time and experience, most learners do eventually discover how to become better language learners. In fact, the majority of the students responded that they improved their self-concept during the course of the semester, felt less concerned with making mistakes by the end of their programs, and were more willing to use riskier L2 communication strategies than they were before participating in the program.1 This chapter first examines how learners struggle with the interaction of learner-internal and social-environmental factors during communicative interactions. Next, the focus turns to ways that learners minimize threatening aspects of L2 interaction. Finally, we look specifically at the strategies learners use to become more communicative while still developing and protecting a positive self-image in society. 4.1

Balancing learner-internal cues and social-environmental stimuli

How did Kathy undergo such a transformation? At the start of the program, she was sure she would fail and had set her expectations “very low.” I was terrified. All I wanted to be able to do was to overcome my shyness about talking to people, to be able to carry on a conversation. What I wanted to do was to be able to go into any situation and feel comfortable talking. And I feel like I reached that point a month ago. More than that.

By the end of the program, her attitudes toward her language abilities had greatly changed, as had her beliefs about language learning and her goals for the future. To understand these developments, we must first look at how learners manage individual language-use events. One of the ways in which the field of psychology has addressed an organism’s varied response to threatening stimuli is the concept of “fight” vs. “flight” behavior.2 Individuals who face the risk of harm typically react in one of two 1 2

These findings were supported in both questionnaire data and qualitative resources (including narrative journals, interviews, and observations). For a more in-depth review of the psychology of defensive behavior and defense mechanisms from the viewpoints of various schools of psychological thought and the role of such behaviors in the foreign language classroom, the reader is advised to see Ehrman and Dörnyei (1998).

The convergence of real self and ideal self

115

ways: by either directly attacking the threatening element (“fight”) or by fleeing the harmful agent (“flight”). As we have seen, language learners often use “flight” tactics (e.g., physically or verbally avoiding interaction with other speakers, mumbling or masking their voice, reducing the message they wish to convey, etc.) when their social environment threatens their sense of security, in order to prevent further injury to their status, validation, control, or safety. This is especially true when learners’ attitudes toward themselves and their ability to predict the consequences of their L2 use are low, that is, their internal sense of security is negative or uncertain. In the fields of communication and SLA, researchers have recognized “flight” strategies as “reduction” strategies, in which the message or language production is reduced in order to avoid the risk of misusing the L2 (McCroskey and Beatty 1998; Ellis 1985, 184). A number of the diaries presented here suggest that learners also employ “fight” tactics by using more aggressive L2 use behaviors in security-threatening situations. Fight tactics, also called “achievement” strategies in SLA research, are those by which learners strive to meet their communication goal while making the necessary adjustments to overcome their fears of failure (Ellis 1985, 184). Fight tactics may include pursuing L2 use to convey an important message in the face of rejection, risky language use (such as joke-telling, swearing, or using new lexicon or grammar), and other behaviors in which learners continue to use the language despite fear of failure or rejection. Many of the diary entries presented thus far have illustrated the “flight” or “avoidance” tactics described above. Examples of fight tactics, however, are not frequent in the case-study journals. Several learners did provide very clear instances of aggressive L2 use under conditions of rejection by others, poor caretaking, or a high risk of failure in the communicative goal. For example, Rebeccah writes about an interaction with her host mother, who is often judgmental of Rebeccah’s intellect and language skills and frequently rejects her advances to build a friendly relationship: Today an occassion [sic] came up where I wanted to explain to Bela (my khozyayka [host]) how to make chicken pot pie. And when I attempted to explain it to her, I discovered that I don’t know the words for: dough, flour, baking pan, filling, cover, etc. Therefore, I was completely unable to communicate! There was no way to go around the words either. So Bela said, “Nu ladno, eto ne vazhno (Well, that’s okay, it’s not important)” and she went to the kitchen. I just stood there a second in total frustration, then ran to my bag, grabbed my dictionary, ran to the kitchen & declared, “yes, it is important! I must explain it to you!” Then I proceeded to tell her in broken Russian, flipping madly through the dictionary – it was like giving birth! So finally, she understood. But what a scene I made! Sometimes, when I come against a language obstacle, I surrender. I just couldn’t this time. It is important to try. Because now I do know the words for dough & baking tin, etc. & probably will never forget them. Why did I try? Maybe because Bela said it wasn’t important – which made me mad –> I had to do it to not back down.

116


For Rebeccah, the goal of this communication is inextricable from the presentation of the self – if her message is “not important” to Bela, then neither are Rebeccah’s attempts to connect, nor possibly is Rebeccah herself. Only by “fighting,” that is, unrelenting, aggressive language use, can she show that she is, in fact, what she wants others to see: intelligent, mature, and worthy of attention. Reanna also uses a fight tactic while buying tickets to the ballet: Wanted to buy tickets to Sleeping Beauty for the group. Went to the teatralnaya kassa (theater ticket office), waited in line and was told the schedule had been changed. One [female] in our group said they could be lying so they don’t have to sell tickets to foreigners. Made me pretty upset. Went to Gostinii [sic] Dvor [a local department store] to buy tickets there but they said the same thing, so I figured the theater people don’t really enjoy just insulting foreigners. Definitely made me much more aggressive in my speaking and asking??s. Don’t like and refuse to be made a fool of.

In order to restore and maintain her intellectual status, Reanna pushes ahead with her language use, demanding equal treatment and pursuing her goal until she is satisfied there is no discrimination against her. Employing fight tactics can help learners convince themselves and others simultaneously of their own improvement in the L2, a self-affirming step in projecting one’s identity in the L2. Following a month-long winter break, Rebeccah hopes to gain notice from a teacher who typically treats her poorly: Today in yazyk pressy (language of the press) I was highly annoyed. It was our 1st class of the [spring] semester. This may sound crazy, but my Russian has really [circled] improved since last December – at least by 40%. Does that make sense? [arrow drawn to “improved”] More precisely: in December when the teacher saw me last my russian [sic] was not very good. But now I can speak much better. It is very evident that I’ve improved (to me at least ). But she seemed not to notice. I understood absolutely everything today and was talking a lot & voicing my opinions. And yet she persisted to talk to me like I’m an idiot (like she talked to me 1st semester). I didn’t mind so much back then because I really didn’t understand very much and had a much harder time expressing myself. But today I felt like I really shone. I was even explaining words to the others! I didn’t tell the teacher verbally how displeased I was, I thought my facial expressions would suffice. They did not. I’m really really sure that my Russian has improved since December, but I need someone else to notice/validate it (to be really, really, really sure, you know?). I’m in a bad mood. Excuse me.

Rebeccah’s own recognition that she needs someone else to validate her perception of self-improvement speaks volumes about the importance of the social mirror of the self. It is also fascinating to note that while Rebeccah typically accepts her own negative self-impressions willingly, even in the face of others’ compliments, she is unable to admit any positive self-perceptions fully without


117

external evidence. Such a sad paradox seems, in fact, quite common among many learners. For learners to choose flight over fight tactics suggests that such a choice is in fact an option. At times, however, learners face situations in which their security is threatened, yet they are required by the importance of the communication goal to continue using the L2 in spite of further threats. Camille, for example, relates how a classmate, Marlene, complains that Camille is not proficient enough in Russian to be part of the class and should be moved to the less advanced group. Camille wishes to prevent this action in order to avoid the humiliation she believes she would feel by being moved; her six and a half years of study should assure a place for her in the higher level. Camille often reports that speaking in front of other Americans, especially those who are linguistically more proficient than she, intimidates her and threatens her sense of status. However, in order to prevent the resident director’s decision to place her in the lower group, Camille must be aggressive in her speaking while being observed by the RD: So on Monday, after dealing w/ Olga all weekend, I was determined to participate actively in class so as to stay in my same group . . . Moving is no big deal – it’s the principle. Monday I woke up at 6:30, ran, ate, and hurried to class. I was tired but managed to speak fairly well. We had a newspaper reading class that Erin sat in on. This particularly stressed me out b/c I felt like it was a test. I feel like I am slow. I read slowly, I understand only after mulling over my work, and I am not quick to think up words or correct endings. It was a long and tiring day, but no major mishaps.

Feeling insecure and knowing that using Russian for a task at which she is poor could further damage her security, Camille does in fact speak during the class in an effort to prove herself to others sufficiently to remain in the group. Ultimately, Camille’s attempt is unsuccessful, and she agrees to move to the lower section, noting: . . . I sat in class today and watched Marlene say next to nothing. Maybe the teacher is talking down specifically for me and if so, that’s bad for the rest of the group. But if it’s not so then not only has Marlene succeeded in pouring lemon juice on an open wound of mine (b/c I am so insecure about having studied Russian for 6 yrs. and still struggling to understand the basics) and now I am switching to group B, which I hope will still be challenging. I think it will be okay, it’s more the principle that bothers me. So I went home Friday feeling really frustrated and lacking self-confidence.

Camille’s failed bid reduced her internal sense of security by further harming her attitudes toward herself and her language abilities. However, at the time of the classroom interaction, the importance of Camille’s goal took precedence over her need to preserve her sense of security. The avoidance or use of the second language has been noted in SLA literature in studies on the effects of anxiety in the language-learning process. Ganschow

118


and Sparks (1996) have noted that there exist two types of language anxiety that differently affect language learners’ motivation to speak. One type, facilitating anxiety, is anxiety that creates in learners a natural fight response to the anxiety-producing agent. Learners experiencing facilitating anxiety may exert greater effort to use the L2 and achieve the learning goal than they would if they were not anxious. The other type, debilitating anxiety, produces the flight response in learners and leads them to avoid the anxiety-producing agent (Scovel 1978; Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991; Young 1991; Ellis 1995). SLA research offers little explanation for the various conditions that create facilitating or debilitating anxiety, noting primarily the effects of these anxiety forms instead. Ellis (1995) notes that facilitating anxiety may be more likely to occur in relatively simple learning tasks. Ellis offers a second possible explanation in that the degree of anxiety may cause such effects: low levels of anxiety may produce a facilitating effect, while high levels of anxiety may push learners into a debilitated state (482–83). The case studies presented in this book, however, offer yet another explanation. Anxiety, as it has been defined in Chapter 2, is learners’ affective response to the conflict caused by their compulsion to protect their sense of self while creating their self in the target language. This conflict creates feelings of dissonance in the learner, which lead to discomfort until such time as the conflict is resolved. To resolve the conflict, the learner must either use the language to create or protect the “self” they wish to present, or reject L2 use to maintain or preserve their self-image. Thus, what has been identified as “debilitating” and “facilitating” anxiety is, in fact, not the motivating factor behind learners’ acceptance or rejection of L2 use opportunities, but instead simply a symptom of the actual causal factor – the unresolved conflict between L2 performance and self-presentation. In reviewing these learners’ experiences, how can we categorize what factors affect whether learners “fight” or “fly” in adverse situations? Based on the narrative data, within the realm of L2 use and security protection there are three such situations in which learners appear to use “fight” strategies rather than “flight”: (1) when their learner-internal cues are positive, that is, their internal sense of security is strong, and they believe in their own ability to ameliorate or eliminate the offending element in their environment; (2) when they wish to elevate their internal sense of security, that is, their learner-internal cues are questionable and they wish to evaluate their L2 abilities or prove their ability to perform a communication task; or (3) when the importance of their communication goal outweighs their need to maintain their security. The determination of these situations is based on the balance of socialenvironmental and learner-internal factors, which can be represented via two continua. As discussed in the previous chapter, learners may react to socialenvironmental and learner-internal cues positively (resulting in a sense of


119

Social-environmental stimuli: "threatening"

"non-threatening"

- + Learner-internal stimuli: "uncertain"

"self-assured"

- + Figure 4.1 Balance of social-environmental and learner-internal cues

positive self-presentation) or negatively (leaving the learner insecure in the “self”). Negative social-environmental cues (such as insults and harsh or poor caretaking techniques) may be considered “threatening” to learners’ sense of self, while positive social-environmental cues (such as compliments and supportive, helpful feedback and correction) are, conversely, “non-threatening” to learners’ security. Similarly, positive learner-internal cues (such as encouraging attitudes toward the self, including high self-esteem, confidence, and a sense of self-efficacy, as well as the ability to predict the outcome of learners’ L2 use) may leave learners feeling “self-assured.” Negative learner-internal cues (poor self-esteem, doubt in one’s abilities, inability to predict results of L2 use), however, may leave learners feeling “uncertain.” The degree to which these cues may affect learners varies from mild to extreme. Thus, for the purposes of analysis, the positive and negative effects of the social-environmental and the learner-internal cues can be placed along dimensional ranges: learners’ perceptions of social-environmental cues may range from extremely threatening (−) to extremely non-threatening (+), and learner-internal cues can range from extremely uncertain (−) to extremely self-assured (+) (see Figure 4.1). As Rebeccah’s experiences with Al and her host family showed, learners at all times experience cues from both their social environment and from within themselves regarding their self-presentation. For example, in one situation, learners may feel strongly “uncertain” about their linguistic abilities to perform a communicative act, but feel “non-threatened,” that is, supported and appreciated, by their interlocutors; in another situation, those same learners may feel “selfassured” in their L2 proficiency for the task at hand, but “threatened” by the behaviors and persona of others in their social environment. Each of these continua represents an endless range of possible combinations based on the relative strength of each. For the purposes of analysis, however, we can categorize learners’ experiences into four possible types of conditions,

120


Social-environmental → Learner-internal

"threatening"

"uncertain"

-,-

-,+

threatening, uncertain

uncertain, non-threatening

+,-

+,+

self-assured, threatening

self-assured, non-

(-)

"self-assured" (+)

(-)

"non-threatening" (+)

threatening

Figure 4.2 Matrix of learners’ security evalution

as illustrated in Figure 4.2: interactions in which learners feel both “uncertain” and “threatened” (−,−), “uncertain” but “non-threatened” (−,+), “selfassured” but “threatened” (+,−), or “self-assured” and “non-threatened” (+,+). Students’ narrative descriptions suggest that in situations where learners feel both “uncertain” of their own abilities and “threatened” by their social environment (−,−), such as Rebeccah’s final interaction with Al (see p. 111), they are most likely to reject using the L2 in order to protect their sense of security from further damage. In situations where learners feel both “certain” of their abilities and “non-threatened” by their social environment (+,+), such as in Bob’s experience on the souvenir market, learners are most likely to accept and even seek out opportunities to use their L2 since they are most able to preserve their sense of self while pursuing their communication goals. In situations where learners’ cues are mixed from the two sources, that is, they feel “uncertain” but “non-threatened” (−,+) or “self-assured” but “threatened” (+,−), learners’ L2 production tends to vary depending on the relative strength or weakness of the perceived social threat and the learners’ certainty. Looking at the experiences of these students, there emerges an apparent pattern in L2 use in events where the cues are mixed from the two sources (i.e., uncertain but non-threatened [−,+], and self-assured but threatened [+,−]). The data suggest that when learners are able to maintain a sense of security based on their internal cues, they are more likely to speak in the L2 in both non-threatening and threatening L2 use opportunities than those students who rely more heavily on social-environmental cues for constructing the self. Learners who rely on the behavior and persona of others to maintain their sense of security during communicative events in the L2 may be encouraged to participate in situations in which they feel “uncertain” internally but “non-threatened”


121

socially. Yet by relying on their social environment, they have no way of ensuring their own security should their interlocutors’ behaviors change in the course of the interaction, that is, should the learners become “uncertain” internally and “threatened” socially, as did Rebeccah over time in her interactions with Al. Whereas, initially, Rebeccah felt she could control the social interaction through her language use, with repeated failure she came to see her own efforts as ineffectual, ultimately seeing Al as a “bad luck charm” for her language use. Thus, she was internally uncertain and reduced L2 use in the face of external threats. Learners who are able to maintain a positive sense of their self-presentation without heavy reliance on social response, however, are more likely to use their L2 skills even in situations where they feel “self-assured” internally but “threatened” socially. This was illustrated in Reanna’s drive to purchase ballet tickets, despite what she saw as a potentially security-threatening offensive from the ticket agents. To Reanna, the threat of failure came not from her own abilities, about which she had no doubt, but from others’ resistance to her request. She was internally secure in her communicative capacity and consequently was able to pursue her goal despite external threats. When learners’ sense of security is established from within, the actions of others impact less on the learners’ security. Therefore, the learners’ security remains stable, despite the behavior and persona of others, and learners may use their L2 to achieve their communication goals with the knowledge that their security will be maintained throughout.3 Research in psychology indicates that individuals who maintain strong positive attitudes toward their own abilities and toward themselves are less likely to feel their sense of security to be affected by social-environmental factors. Leventhal (1970) considered the effects of the environment on individuals of varying self-esteem. One study demonstrated that individuals with low selfesteem were more likely to feel fatigued and experience difficulty thinking 3

The emotional effects of social-environmental cues on communication in the construct of “affective orientation” (AO) has also been addressed in research on communication and personality by Booth-Butterfield and Booth-Butterfield (1998). Those communicators who are highly affectively oriented are especially sensitive to their social environment, particularly non-verbal communication, and their own emotional state during communicative interactions. Emotions of such individuals become a weighty force in their decision-making and subsequent behavior. Conversely, those who possess relatively low AO are less inclined to consider their own emotions and their emotions are less affected by their social environment. According to BoothButterfield and Booth-Butterfield, high AO has been associated with conversational sensitivity and femininity (suggesting greater emotional responsiveness and sensitivity), but also with greater self-consciousness. “What emerges,” the authors write, “is a pattern of responding where high AOs sense and respond to affective cues, whether their own or among people around them. They then consider those affect cues and allow them to guide their reactions and communicative behavior” (174). As a trait feature, thus, their research suggests that some individuals are naturally more or less inclined to react affectively to their social environment and to rely on those emotions for further behavioral choices. However, they also recognize what has been suggested here, that learners’ affective orientation to their social environment may fluctuate with changes in the environment, as well as other personal factors.

122


when watching films of serious automobile accidents on large screens than those of moderate or high self-esteem, who were more likely to take action in such cases. The study found that individuals with low self-esteem were unable to respond immediately and appropriately when faced with fear-inducing events and communications due to apparent feelings of overwhelming fright, although after a lag of time, if action was required, they would take the same action as their high self-esteem counterparts. Aronson (1995) explains that “people who have a low opinion of themselves may have a great deal of difficulty coping with threats to themselves” (88), that when faced with low-fear situations, individuals with low self-esteem may take action, but that high-fear scenarios make them wish to withdraw from the situation. Furthermore, as with externally controlled individuals, those who have low self-esteem are more easily influenced than those with high self-esteem. In other words, individuals who are capable of maintaining their sense of security from within based on their positive attitudes toward themselves will be more likely to dismiss the negative implications of others’ behaviors and expressed opinions and will be more likely to uphold positive attitudes toward themselves when threatened in such a way. Those with poor attitudes toward themselves, however, are much more readily persuaded by others, wittingly or unwittingly, that they are either inadequate as learners and unacceptable as individuals or that they are good, acceptable people as evaluated by others. Thus, when learners hold poor opinions of themselves as learners or as individuals, they are more likely to resist taking action when feeling overwhelmed by an interaction that is personally threatening or that requires an immediate, spontaneous response. They are also more likely to believe the expressed or perceived opinions of others toward them than those students who believe in themselves and feel positively toward themselves. This supports the proposition that those learners with poor ability to support their security from within are more reliant on cues from their social environment and, consequently, less able to control their own security themselves. Such findings have strong implications for understanding the balance of security maintained by learners and the effect this security has on their L2 use. Learners’ need for internal security in the use and acquisition of a second language may be explained through the construct of locus of control. Rotter’s (1966) Social Learning Theory explains that an individual’s behavior will be modified in response to reinforcement (i.e., reward or punishment) depending upon the individual’s perception of the degree to which the reinforcement is contingent on his or her own behavior. If individuals perceive that the reinforcement relates directly to their own behavior (i.e., if the locus of control is internal to the individual), they will be more likely to increase or decrease the frequency of that behavior with reward or punishment, respectively. However, if individuals perceive the reinforcement to be independent of their own


123

behavior, that is, based on luck, chance, the control of an authoritarian, or as random and unpredictable (i.e., if the locus of control is external to the individual), then they are less likely to adjust their behavior following reinforcement. Based on the reinforcement that is delivered and on whether the individual’s control is internal or external, he or she will develop an expectancy for future success or failure. Expectancies are subsequently generalized from specific events to related or similar events. In terms of L2 use behavior, when learners believe that they have little or no control over the success or failure of their communication in the L2, they are more likely to abandon communication when faced with threats to security. However, when learners feel better able to control the communication based on their own language skills and world knowledge, they are more likely to attempt L2 use, regardless of the social or environmental conditions. Further research on locus of control has shown that internally controlled individuals tend to seek less social distance from unfamiliar others than externally controlled individuals, suggesting that internally controlled individuals are less likely to avoid interacting with strangers (Heckel and Hiers 1977). Moreover, externally controlled individuals are more easily influenced by others’ opinions than internally controlled individuals (McGinnies and Ward 1974). Peirce, Swain, and Hart (1993) also found that activities that afforded learners a greater internal locus of control (such as independent reading and writing) were seen by learners as easier than those that seemed less “controllable” by learners, such as lectures and other fast-paced oral interactions. Concomitantly, learners also saw their own ability as higher when their locus of control was more internal, despite objective measures of L2 proficiency. Thus, learners who are able to rely on internal sources of security are better able to use the L2 in security-threatening interactions than those who rely on social-environmental cues for their security. However, the data also suggest learners’ sense of security is not static over time, but rather develops both within particular interaction environments (such as that of Bob at the souvenir market [p. 100]) and more globally (as Kathy expressed her satisfaction with her overall progress in the chapter opening [p. 113]). Although some learners may make no change or may even come to rely more on social-environmental cues, it appears that the majority of learners come to construct the self increasingly on learner-internal cues over time rather than social-environmental cues as they amass experience in L2 interactions. This notion finds support in Cynthia White’s (1999) study of self-instructed language learners, in which the majority of study participants exhibited a shift from external locus of control to internal as they gained language-learning experience, “know-how,” and confidence. Only one small group of participants did not demonstrate this shift, suggesting that individual differences may predispose some learners to be less flexible in non-traditional learning environments.

124


While the shift is not quantifiable in the cohort of the present study, many of the learners did indeed indicate in their words a shift from external to internal locus of control, from social-environmental cues for security to learner-internal cues. The following section explores the causes and consequences of this progression. 4.2

Progressive development of internal security

As learners grow through their study-abroad experience, they generally mature in their second language use as well. That growth in L2 use is often paralleled by an increasing ability to present their real self and feel either that it is closer to their ideal self or that the gap between the two is not as important personally or socially as they had once thought. This continual improvement in self-presentation occurs as learners start to shift their attention from socialenvironmental cues for their sense of security to more learner-internal cues. In other words, instead of looking toward others for the approval of self that they seek, they find that they can look to themselves for that approval and can assign less value to seemingly negative attitudes and behaviors of others. This transition takes place in three ways: through (a) actual or perceived improvement of L2 proficiency, (b) the devaluing of potentially negative consequences, and (c) the development of strategies for coping with situations that threaten security. In the following sections, we will explore these three forms of transition. By making this shift, learners gradually come to feel in better control of their self-image because they are less sensitive to environmental changes and can maintain a steady sense of their self, despite encountering less than favorable social conditions. 4.2.1

Improvement of actual or perceived L2 proficiency

The most obvious form of growth learners undergo on study abroad is improvement in their L2 proficiency. As learners’ proficiency in the second language grows, their ability to perform various tasks in the language improves. Through the experience of successful communication, their attitudes toward their language abilities also improve, and they gain confidence that they are able to achieve a wider variety of communication goals. Kathy, for example, discusses how her language use and, subsequently, her self-presentation have developed during the course of her three and a half months abroad: Well, [in the beginning] I couldn’t really say anything expressive, I felt like I had no personality when I spoke Russian, like I could say sentences as exciting as, “I think it’s going to rain today,” and “That’s a nice red shirt you’re wearing!” Stuff like that that was just so, like, textbook kindergarten. Like now, I can use funny expressions, like, “Ox! Bog s nim!” (Oh, forget about it!) and stuff like that and . . . just tell funny stories that


125

include, like, more complicated vocabulary, because I think I can be pretty humorous in the English language, because I have a big vocabulary and I can always choose the right word to use, and it’s getting to that point in Russian now, especially when I’m with my family, so . . . So it’s like what I really want to do with Russian is be able to express myself, my personality.

Kathy’s words illustrate that as learners’ attitudes toward their language skills improve, so does their sense of security in their self-presentation from within. This allows them to use their L2 skills to present their personality in ways that may be more risky, such as through jokes and slang. Bob, for example, explains how the improvement in his L2 skills has affected his L2 use: Classes are going alright [sic]. It seems that I am getting better and that encourages me to participate more, with confidence my boldness increases (daring, I know). I actually began to instigate problems like I do in English. For example we were working with poetomu (therefore) & potomu chto (because); the question was why didn’t you call me yesterday (asked by [my wife]). I answered because I was with my girlfriend.

Accumulation of positive experience allows Bob greater experimentation through joking and expression of personality in the L2. Jim similarly reports that he has become more reliant on his own sense of security, regardless of security given him by his social environment: [The event: an] evening gathering at Hannah’s. About 8 students . . . (major players in this, myself and another student – Faith), yourself [the researcher], Hannah, and Rita (Hannah’s friendly Armenian neighbor). As you probably remember, throughout the evening we were all chit-chatting (in English) and every once in a while in Russian with Rita. Faith and I, at one point, were talking about a choir tour I had taken, and then Rita asked, “Jim, why not in Russian?” I know it wasn’t a challenge, but I responded to it as such. So, I paused for a second, and then Faith and I completed the last few sections of the convo in Russian, w/o hesitation. It was satisfying to know that I could switch like that in front of my peers and in front of Rita. I know I was comfortable around all, but I also felt a confidence that I know I didn’t have at the beginning of the semester. It was (and is) a confidence that tells me I don’t need purely comfortable situations in order to use my Russian language capabilities. Along with that comes the confidence which will allow me to ask that things be repeated or said more slowly, without being ashamed. There is much to be learned, but much has also been learned.

Jim believes not only that he can perform adequately to convey the information, but also that his performance in the L2 would not compromise his own sense of security, since he could display lack of comprehension without shame. He has managed to separate his L2 skills from the representation of who he is as a person; he is not defined by his abilities. As these excerpts illustrate, the development of L2 use habits during study abroad relies heavily on the fostering of learners’ positive attitudes toward themselves and a sense of self-efficacy in using the L2. Bailey (1983) similarly

126


recognizes the importance of improving reliance on internal security cues, noting that, “as the learner becomes, or perceives himself as becoming, more competent (that is, better able to compete), his anxiety will decrease . . . as anxiety decreases, the quality and quantity of performance increases and vice versa” (96). Ely (1986) similarly reports on a study done by Lalonde (1982) that showed that “self perception of proficiency mediated the effect of situational anxiety on L2 achievement,” showing that individuals who more strongly supported their security from within their own thoughts are better able to stave off anxiety-producing threats from the social environment (Ely 1986, 3). 4.2.2

Devaluing potentially negative consequences

Learners who feel insecure internally and whose sense of self-presentation is easily affected by the behaviors and personae of others seem more likely to fear that their own L2 use will result in condemnation and ridicule by others. Such learners tend to be more cautious while interacting in the L2, especially with unfamiliar interlocutors. Consider, for example, Madeline’s avoidance of her unfamiliar house-mate, Alla. Despite her lack of actual experience, Madeline anticipated only negative consequences with this stranger and did not consider the possibility of a positive outcome. When learners who doubt their own linguistic abilities experience negative consequences in interactions due to difficulties in communication, those bad experiences may further engender learners’ fear of potential consequences and their ability to communicate successfully. Rebeccah reports an incident of this type: At the bus stop the other day a random young woman asked me where a certain bus went (along which street). I should have answered with the dative case (po [along]) – but I didn’t. I answered in the nominative case. She just looked at me. Then went & asked someone else. And they of course told her the same street, only in the proper case. So I’m wondering: was my answer “really” that non-understandable? This just is an unfortunate situation because it’s always a big risk for me to talk to strangers on the street – but that woman’s reaction makes me not want to talk to anyone!

When situations that learners perceive as socially “risky” are confirmed, such as this, learners become more acutely sensitive to the social environment. This resultant fear can continue to be played out when similar situations are encountered. Rebeccah describes several subsequent incidents in which she avoids interaction with strangers: Yesterday I sat on a tram just to see where it went. (Yes I have lots of free time.) A woman asked for the time, I told her, “u menya net chasov (I don’t have a watch)” which is a total lie. I can’t live w/out my watch . . . Well, afterwards I felt bad. Then another


127

woman asked me 2 questions which I listened to & was able to answer (simply) with DA (YES). But I also felt bad after this situation too. I normally answer people very politely (at home). I usually don’t just give yes or no answers. And I always smile. But my neurotic side won’t let me elaborate when I speak with strangers here. I feel that they won’t take my advice/answer seriously (like in the last entry). And that damages my ego. There’s no reason they shouldn’t believe my reply – if I didn’t know I’d say so!

The underlying cause of the fear of strangers – that she will not be taken seriously and that her ego, that is, image of the self, will be harmed – is now revealed. Thus, she cannot conquer others’ rejection with her own confidence. Rebeccah’s resulting behavior consists of flight or avoidance tactics. Although learners may become more cautious in their L2 use after experiencing negative consequences, they generally gain a stronger sense of internal security as they come to realize that the negative consequences of their socialenvironmental cues may not be as momentous as they initially feared. By gaining experience with native speakers, learners can see that the potentially negative consequences of their L2 use are generally not as harmful or frequent as they once feared. For example, Bob comes to appreciate interactions in Russian at the souvenir market in part because he realizes that his failure to communicate there does not produce the threatening consequences that it may in the classroom setting. Because Bob visited the souvenir park twice before, he learned that failure to communicate does not mean that he has failed as a learner. Instead, he knows that “this is life, it’s not graded.” Therefore, the consequences of poor L2 use are minimized by the setting; if miscommunication occurs, he merely moves to the next salesperson without negative consequence and does not feel intimidated or threatened by his social environment. In another stranger interaction, Rebeccah also demonstrates that by consciously remembering her own capacity to understand strangers, she can engage in an interaction she might otherwise have rejected: Here’s a sort of language risk I took. I went to my favorite corner store today to buy water. I took the bottle and placed it in my little basket. There was a salesgirl standing there, she started talking to me. Usually in these situations, I panic, and don’t really listen to what the person says to me. But today I paid careful attention and understood. Usually I wimp out and say, “izvinite, ya inostranka” (excuse me, I’m a foreigner) – I don’t know why this sentence comes so automatically. If I would just try, I’d probably understand 90% of what strangers say to me. So I took a risk – listened, responded . . . and was suckered into buying 2 bottles of water to get a free Cindy Crawford poster! What am I going to do with that?

Like Bob and Rebeccah, Madeline also finds that her worst fears are not met in interactions with her host family and others. This realization allows her to participate more in interactions without the threat of negative consequences to the self from her social environment. Recalling Madeline’s entry concerning

128


my visit to her host family’s home, Madeline wrote, “I was afraid no one talk [sic] to me at the table, and that I wouldn’t be interesting with a fluent american [sic] in the house.” However, in retrospect she wrote, “The night was so great. They paid attention to me, too! I got to talk and joke right along with everyone. I didn’t feel like a piece of furniture.” Following this interaction, Madeline begins to look forward to interactions with her host family and other Americans. She invites her resident directors and other students and comes to realize that her host family accepts her regardless of the strengths of other guests. Using the kitchen as a metonym for her host family’s acceptance of her and involvement in her learning, she writes: I love bringing conversation topics to the “kukhnya” (kitchen). I love going out and finding new things. The kitchen motivates me. I like inviting over [sic] to experience it. So far it’s been Val, Linda, and Jane. I intend to invite Beth too. I find that my host family likes to try out my friends, and give some hospitality to them, but that doesn’t mean they’re ready to break out the vodka or anything. I do know why it’s different with Val, she can joke and drink and talk for long periods. She knows the secret of the Russian table and can participate in it where as [sic] my other friends can just look on, I’m sooo lucky!!!!

Madeline and her host family continued to invite me to their home throughout the remainder of the year, and she participated with steadily increasing frequency and enthusiasm throughout the year. By the middle of the second semester, when she invited her resident director to her home, Madeline not only was comfortable with this type of interaction, but enjoyed playing hostess to her guests with no fear of negative consequences: I was somewhat cocky and proud because I already knew one-fourth of the repitore [sic] . . . We all spoke in Russian except for a few words that I asked Connie for direct translations for. Mostly slang that I had vauge [sic] ideas about and used but couldn’t give a good definition for, but for the most part we spoke Russian even with each other. I participated about equal with Connie . . . I got to hear my voice loud and clear along with natives, singing in Russian. Boy was I on a confidence high. Since I was the first to start requesting songs, I got to hear the major percent of my favorites. Eventually from all the food, liquor and merry-making I became tired and sat back quietly and had my tea. By then Connie had the lone spotlight. Volod’ya had broken out the “synthesizer” and the two of them were playing together. Something I absolutely am not able to do, but I was not in the least jealous, because I had been able to keep some harmony and hear my voice singing Russian folk songs with what I consider the best of them. That was enough for me. I was so proud of myself.

Madeline expresses vastly different attitudes toward hosting her RD, Connie, than she had toward her first hosting experience. She no longer fears being shunned by others because she has successful experiences in hosting and interacting and trusts that her host family accepts her.


129

As the experiences of Rebeccah, Bob, and Madeline demonstrate, the consequences of learners’ interactions in the L2 can affect learners’ sense of security by creating expectations for future interactions in similar settings. Outcomes that damage learners’ security can make them more cautious before engaging in similar interactions, while positive interactions with others help show learners that they are capable of performing in the L2 with minimal threat from their social environment. Often learners with poor attitudes toward themselves and little ability to predict the outcomes of their L2 use overestimate the negative consequences of interactions with native speakers. Actual experience often contradicts these expectations by demonstrating to learners that they are able to perform adequately in the L2 without being rejected, ridiculed, or punished for their mistakes. Humans have a natural propensity to act in accordance with their own expectations of the future. For example, in a study by Baron (1970), subjects were led to believe that pain was being inflicted on another individual (a confederate of the study). Those participants who believed that their assistance would create a positive result were found more likely to intercede than those who believed their actions would be ineffectual. Furthermore, studies suggest that those who expect their actions not only to be ineffectual but also to result in punishment are more likely to avoid performing the act (Aronson 1995). Studies in Behavior Modification Therapy (see Aronson 1995 for overview), in which punishment techniques are used to reduce or eliminate maladaptive behavior in participants by associating the punishment with the behavior, have shown that such therapy is very successful in laboratory conditions, where the punishment is consistently administered. Through conditioning, participants learn to avoid the offending behavior even at the mere suggestion that punishment might be administered or through the simple association of the behavior with a painful consequence (e.g., the administration of an electrical shock each time a cigarette is lit will make smoking seem an unpleasant experience overall). Generally, however, studies have also shown that such therapy eventually fails when participants are returned to real-life settings. Although participants continue to avoid the behavior for a considerable time after the therapy due to the cognitive association of negative consequences with the behavior, eventually, when the negative consequences are not consistently forthcoming, the individuals re-engage in the behavior, having lost their fear of the consequences (Aronson 1995, 40). L2 learners who fear the negative consequences of their attempts to use the L2 may, in fact, undergo a process similar to that of the reinstatement of behavior following Behavior Modification Therapy. Associating negative consequences with L2 use behavior, due to either actual experiences or unfounded fears, learners may avoid using the L2, but upon the gradual discovery that punishment is not forthcoming may increase L2 use.

130


4.2.3

Development of security-protecting strategies

In addition to shifting learners’ construction of the self from reliance on socialenvironmental cues to learner-internal cues, extended stay in the L2 culture also helps learners develop a body of strategies for maintaining their sense of security during interactions that may appear threatening. By developing conscious and subconscious methods for strengthening their attitudes toward themselves while lessening the effects of negative behaviors and threatening personae of others, learners can take more responsibility for managing their L2 use regardless of the type of interaction presented. Furthermore, accumulation of experience helps learners better interpret the behaviors of others through the development of cultural awareness and empathy toward others. The narrative journals offer numerous examples of several types of strategies, some mentioned frequently, others sporadically. While not an exhaustive list, the following section discusses strategies learners presented in the data and how those strategies aided their use of the L2 during interactions. 4.2.3.1 Self-talk and rationalization One of the most frequently used strategies learners reported for managing one’s sense of security is that of self-talk – the coaching and encouragement learners give themselves in order to convince themselves that they possess the ability to perform a communication goal adequately in the L2 without suffering significant damage to their sense of security.4 Self-talk techniques range from simple metacognitive recognition of a barrier to active self-encouragement. Learners often use self-talk to identify negative attitudes and to understand that these attitudes are unjustified and destructive to their learning. Rebeccah, for example, demonstrates this strategy in the following journal entry: I’ve had an epiphany! (Does that [arrow to epiphany] make sense?) I’ve realized what prevents me from speaking more w/ strangers & makes me nervous. It’s that I have an obsession with not being recognized as a foreigner! I’ve always been really interested in people’s perceptions and how they react to foreigners. I often play little games to amuse myself, pretending to be Azerbaijani or Italian, etc. (I even do it in America sometimes.) And it seems kind of important to me not to stick out – especially here in Russia. So I try to dress Russian and put on a Russian face, wear make-up and talk as little as possible to keep my cover. And it works – people always think I’m from here and are surprised at my foreign accent & mistakes. And therin [sic] lies the problem! I’m so worried about keeping my cover that I don’t speak at all, getting by with da, net i (yes, no, and) please, feeling a nervous tightness when somebody asks me a question on the street or bus, 4

O’Malley and Chamot (1990) use the term “self-talk,” defining it as “using mental redirection of thinking to assure oneself that a learning activity will be successful or to reduce anxiety about a task” (46). As a social/affective strategy, self-talk is thus used by learners in order both to bolster their sense of security from within and to reduce the threat of security from negative consequences of L2 use.


131

afraid that I won’t understand or that my answer will be met by unfriendly stares, etc. So after my epiphany today, I tried not to be obsessed. And I answered people with sentences. And I tried not to worry about keeping my cover. The following speech acts occured [sic] (how linguistic!): An old man asked me for the time An old lady asked what number tram was approaching (she couldn’t see) A 30ish yr old woman asked if a certain bus went to the metro I know it seems like a lot – but I swear it’s all true! And my answers were jumbled & in broken Russian, but I persevered & tried to answer & understand as best I could. And judging by the # of people who spoke to me, you too can tell that my physical cover works very well – therefore illustrating just how obsessed & good at it I am. Anyway, if I could kick this obsession, it would be good as it would give me more language practice.

Having recognized her fear, Rebeccah ultimately finds a way of confronting her fear head on, writing in an entry two months later: I don’t remember how much I wrote about the subject of my trying to hide my foreignness → therefore not speaking a lot. Anyway, today I went to the pochta (post office). You must speak to the woman (as usual) through a glass plate, thereby speaking loudly so everyone can hear your order (and accent!). Well, today was a crazy, stressed out day and I was feeling really wired and in the mood to cackle. So I got on line, and when my turn came I spoke loud and self assuredly. I even asked a few questions that I’ve wanted to ask but never did. And nobody looked at me funny – (while I was talking), although they did look when I cackled from glee at my small accomplishment. If I could always feel so daring I would get farther in Russian.

Rebeccah came to name this “mood” her “Rambo-ness” – a ready drive to use her L2 and fight aggressively for her own sense of self. In fact, as she explains in an interview, this newly discovered approach becomes a strategy for interaction in risky or stressful interactions: A: I’m planning it for Sunday. Q: You’re planning it? A: Yeah, I need to be Rambo on Sunday. Q: What’s Sunday? A: A blind date . . .

A common form of self-talk reported by learners in their narrative journals is that of rationalization. Learners may occasionally use self-talk as a means of rationalizing the quality of their own L2 performance in order to prevent generating negative attitudes toward themselves. Jim, for example, in describing an interaction with his fiancée and her host mother, characterizes his L2 use as rather poor but rationalizes that his goal was still achieved: “I was satisfied with this exchange – I know my grammar was ugly, but I strive for understanding rather than perfection.” Many learners use rationalization as a means of devaluing the potentially negative consequences of their L2 use. By convincing themselves that negative behaviors and aggressive personae of others need

132


not disrupt their language use and learning, learners are able to employ their L2 skills more frequently in potentially threatening interactions. Some learners make a conscious policy decision to ignore others’ influence on their L2 use. Jim, for example, describes his use of this strategy: After deciding last week to take risks, and “damn the consequences” I have been much more satisfied with my participation level – in class, on the street (not nearly as much – but still some improvement). Now that I think about it, I should stop worrying about it when I am on the street – if they think I’m an idiot – too bad for them. It is up to me to charge in as much as possible. I have never had problems jumping in to things before, why start now.

The results of Jim’s decision to disregard his own fears of negative consequences were noticed not only by Jim, but by Jim’s teacher as well. Field notes reveal that during an interview, Jim’s teacher made the following observations on his progress: Jim – [for the] first 3 weeks [the teacher] thought he was very weak and then [he] opened up and [now] always tries to find something new, [a new] point of view, & [stays] connected. Main problem [is] that he talks very long – wants to find the exact word – if he couldn’t get it during the first 2 weeks he’d just give up. Now he tries to paraphrase more – he stimulates the group to get away from just women’s issues [he is the only male in the group]. [He] tries to support his classmates. [The teacher] thinks he will make great progress.

Jim reported using self-talk three weeks into the program, which corresponds in time with his teacher’s observations. Thus, not only did Jim notice a difference in his L2 use, but so did his caretaker, whose attitudes toward him changed as his L2 use changed. Since learners often note that they perceive others’ attitudes as a reflection of their L2 abilities, this change in the caretaker’s attitudes based on a change in the learner’s L2 use is particularly important. Jim went from being perceived as linguistically weak to having great potential and drive to use new linguistic constructions merely because he made the conscious decision to disregard the negative reactions of others to his L2 use, deciding to rely instead more on himself for maintaining his sense of security than on the actions and attitudes of others. Although Jim used rationalizing self-talk as a means of setting a personal policy for dealing with negative social-environmental consequences of his own L2 use, learners frequently employ self-talk in order to understand and rationalize events as they occur. Consider, for example, the following two contrasting examples by Rebeccah, who fails to use rationalizing self-talk, and Bob, who does so successfully. Rebeccah writes: Well, my student Elena kept translating for me everything said in Russian. The 1st 10 x or so, I smiled and said, “ya znayu, ya ponimayu (I know, I understand).” But she didn’t get the hint! And my blood began to boil! So something would be said in Russian, then


133

she’d lean over & repeat it in her broken English, and I would grow fangs and claws. I didn’t know what to do, since I love my students & don’t want to be rude . . . My students know very well that I study Russian, that all of my classes are in Russian, that I live in a host family that only speaks Russian! I’ve spoken in front of them. For heaven’s sake! The translating made me feel so stupid . . . I’m still so annoyed, even as I write this. (Oh! and then they doubted that I could find my way home after the party from Nevsky! Have I not lived here since September?) So, they effectively killed my confidence. They apparently think I’m very stupid.

Instead of seeing her students’ efforts as well-intentioned and as practicing the English Rebeccah is herself teaching them (after all, good students find opportunities to practice), she chooses instead to take their translations as condescension. As a result, Rebeccah lets her confidence be “killed.” Bob, in contrast, rationalizes similar caretaking behavior by his new host family as neutral and non-judgmental. He writes: [At home] I have noticed that they slow down for me which I welcome. I notice when they speak to each other they speak alot [sic] faster. I appreciate the effort and don’t think it hurts. If I understand, I talk more, the more I talk the more mistakes I make, the more corrections are made and I will speak better.

Of course, Bob’s language training is shorter than Rebeccah’s and the family is not translating, so the threat is perceptually less for Bob than for Rebeccah. However, Reanna also demonstrates this usage frequently in her journal entries, often showing empathy for the difficulty she believes her language caretakers encounter in helping her learn: Luda [my host sister] told [my host mom] not to talk loudly to me as I could understand and hear her but just had trouble with some of the words. She responded by saying that she was speaking loudly because I was. I hadn’t realized that and made sure to speak much more softly after that. Felt a little dumb at that point and that Tatyana probably thought the same, but shrugged it off figuring that my reputation or level of apparent intelligence would improve with my Russian. Definitely makes me upset if I feel that my intelligence is being questioned. This instance just increased my determination to be able to express myself cleanly and coherently.

Reanna often uses self-talk as a way of rationalizing others’ behavior and empathizing with them in order to understand better the difficulty they may experience in being a caretaker and friend to her. In this way, she avoids becoming offended at behaviors that could potentially make her feel insecure in her interactions with them. In another instance, Reanna also rationalizes her host brother’s apparent disinterest in her. She writes, “Vova came home. I hadn’t said more than ‘hi’ to him really until this point and figured he probably didn’t know what to do with me (my brothers sure wouldn’t).” Refusing to feel invalidated, Reanna

134


empathizes and remains open to further opportunities to speak with him. As a result, she later finds that he is indeed willing to speak with her: But he came into the kitchen and sat down and started talking to me while I was cooking. I cooked the potatoes with the skin on which started the questioning. I was both surprised and happy to see that he was willing to sit and talk to me. We talked about the neighborhood, running places, his childhood, his work and general questions and observations I had about Russia. He didn’t adjust his Russian much and mumbled the ends of words. So I enjoyed listening – a challenge but understandable. Eventually he showed me his money/bill collection and gave me a few of the older ones. About 2 hrs. of conversation. Interesting and very comfortable to talk, mostly because I felt that he was really interested in what I was saying and he also knew that I was happy to listen to him. Luda came home and somewhat scared Vova off – seems to be a territorial question going on which means I am Luda’s whenever she’s around.

By not shutting herself off to the possibility of further interaction with Vova, Reanna not only allows an interaction in which she is indeed validated but also discovers yet another reason why Vova may avoid interacting with her: his sister’s possessive protection of Reanna against her brother. Thus, Reanna has even less reason to fear that Vova’s lack of interaction with her is due to some personal disdain or dislike of her. Reanna uses similar tactics of empathizing with her caretakers’ difficulties in other interactions. Regarding an interaction with her host sister’s friends, she rationalizes that the friends probably had difficulty interacting with her not because they were uninterested in her, but because she was unfamiliar to them: “[I] felt like they didn’t know what to do with me. They all knew each other so well – I was the outsider. It was great to see them this time though.” Concerning another interaction with her host sister, she rationalizes that the host sister’s slower speech was not an indication of poor attitudes toward her as a language learner, but rather an unnecessary effort to help her advance: “Didn’t really want her to speak at a lower level, but felt that would probably change as she was better able to guage [sic] my comprehension level.” Reanna’s ability to see herself from her interlocutor’s perspective, that is, to adopt a privileged perspective of the other’s covert knowledge, as described by Sheldon and Johnson (1993), creates in her an empathy5 that allows her to put the reaction in proper perspective. SLA research on strategy use by second language learners focuses primarily on two types of strategies: language-learning strategies, designed to aid the learning process (O’Malley and Chamot 1990; Oxford 1990), and communication strategies, used by L2 learners to overcome barriers in communication between learners and their interlocutors (Tarone 1977; Corder 1981; Færch and 5

For more information regarding the role of empathy in the construction of the self, see Byram (1995), Jensen (1995), Andersen, Reznik, and Chen (1997), Booth-Butterfield and BoothButterfield (1998), as well as the Conclusion of this volume.


135

Kasper 1983).6 Within the realm of learning strategies, affective strategies have been identified resembling those discussed here, such as ways in which learners may lower their anxiety, encourage themselves, and take their “emotional temperature” in order to maintain awareness of their attitudes toward themselves and the learning environment (Oxford 1990, 21). Rebecca Oxford notes that self-encouragement strategies bear special importance for learners in that they provide a sense of security from within themselves. She writes: This set of three strategies is often forgotten by language learners, especially those who expect encouragement mainly from other people and do not realize they can provide their own. However, the most potent encouragement – and the only available encouragement in many independent language learning situations – may come from inside the learner. (1990, 143)

By finding means of support from within themselves, Oxford notes that learners are able to perform despite the security threats they may feel from external sources. Self-encouragement strategies include conveying positive messages to oneself, through speaking or writing about one’s L2 abilities and taking risks wisely, that is, to push oneself to use the language even when there is a possibility of unpleasant consequences. 6

Research into language-learning strategies includes not only the above-mentioned social/affective strategies, but cognitive, metacognitive, memory-enhancing, compensation (strategies designed for “using the language despite knowledge gaps” [Oxford 1990, 14–15]), and social strategies. Social strategies, as addressed by SLA researchers, consist of techniques for using others as language resources for input and practice, such as asking for clarification or correction and cooperating with peers and native speakers (O’Malley and Chamot 120; Oxford 1990, 21). Researchers also note that social strategies may be used to gain insight into the culture and the thoughts and feelings of interlocutors (Oxford 1990, 21). These strategies do not, however, address ways of preserving security by dealing with threats from uncooperative or aggressive interlocutors, as discussed in the present study. However, other strategies discussed in the present study, such as reduction of apparent L2 skills and preparing others for interaction by reducing expectations, are never addressed by Oxford or O’Malley and Chamot. A second focus of SLA strategy research is that of communication strategies, that is, procedural strategies used by learners to overcome inadequacies in their L2 skills in order to maintain communication between learners and other speakers of the L2. Similar in nature to Oxford’s “compensation strategies” (Oxford 1990, 48), strategies considered to be communicative in nature could jointly be considered language-learning strategies as well, since increased communication and L2 use has been shown to improve L2 proficiency. Færch and Kasper (1983) classify communication strategies as either achievement strategies, by which learners find alternative means for reaching the communication goal, or reduction strategies, by which learners redefine their communication goal, typically reducing either the message conveyed or the language they use to convey it. Similar to language-learning strategy typologies, however, typologies of communication strategies do not adequately address strategies by learners in the present study. The empirical data of the present study indicate that learners may naturally search for ways to minimize security threats from their social environment and bolster their sense of security from within themselves during interactions in the L2. Although the strategy of self-talk has been addressed by several SLA researchers, security-enhancing strategies such as these have generally received little or no attention in SLA strategy research, which has focused on strategies that learners use to organize their learning or to compensate for insufficient L2 skills.

136


SLA research into anxiety has also focused on self-talk as a technique language learners apply to manage their affective state during L2 learning and use. Young (1991) notes that “to help reduce personal and interpersonal anxieties further, learners may need to . . . practice self-talk,” which she illustrates as a conscious, mental negation of negative thoughts by learners, such as “I can handle this . . . Just relax . . . take a deep slow breath and I’ll start as I rehearsed it” (431). The techniques of self-talk are also similar to Foss and Reitzel’s (1988) anxiety management techniques through “Rational Emotive Therapy.” This teacher-guided exercise involves presenting learners with irrational thoughts, such as, “I must speak the language perfectly in order to be liked by those with whom I converse” (446), and then consciously working through any possible evidence for the validity of this statement and discussing the irrationality of such a belief. This therapeutic technique, while a prescribed, teacher-managed approach, closely resembles the organic self-talk strategy evidenced in the narrative journals. 4.2.3.2 Interaction preparation Although self-talk and rationalization are the strategies most commonly noted in the case-study journals, there are several other methods that learners report using that help them gain security by improving their internal security cues and/or reducing the threat of social-environmental cues. One such strategy is interaction preparation. Such preparation can take two forms: preparing oneself for interaction with other speakers in order to improve one’s prediction of success in the interaction, thus elevating one’s internal sense of security; and preparing others for the interaction in order to lower their expectations of the learners’ performance, thus reducing the risk of condemnation for inadequate performance. Preparing oneself is a common and useful strategy for language learners. Classroom culture, where homework and studying outside of class are standard, structures students’ self-preparation. Spontaneous language use, of course, does not generally lend itself to the same advance preparation. Learners living incountry, however, at times report that preparing to interact can make them more confident in their ability to participate fully in the event. By practicing vocabulary and structures prior to an anticipated interaction, learners can calculate how successfully they will be able to project their desired self-image. Madeline, for example, discusses how she learns songs before her resident director comes to visit her host family in order to be able to enjoy the interaction fully: “I had been practising [sic] three songs in particular which I wanted to sing together with Galya, Olya and Volod’ya.” As we’ve seen, Madeline’s advance preparation allowed her to sing along with the host family, secure that she would be able to achieve her communication goal of social networking adequately without threat to her sense of security. Learners also report practicing numbers in anticipation of going to the market and similar advance preparation.


137

Preparing others for the interaction can also help learners feel more confident in their self-presentation. Rebeccah reports using this strategy in her journal. She writes: Today I began French lessons w/ a nice, talented 25 yr old Russian girl who teaches at LGU. After our lesson we walked together to the bus stop. We naturally were speaking Russian (I just started French after all). I (as usual) put down my Russian as I explained to her that I’d like to be a translator – but didn’t think I was good enough. She disagreed. We had a nice conversation, and I was pleased w/ my Russian after that. I’ve figured out that I probably put down my Russian as to not dissapoint [sic] my listener. Also b/c I don’t want people to ever accuse me of being a liar. I knew a girl who bragged about her Russian and then couldn’t perform. And Russian speakers at my college began to talk very nastily about her. “She thinks she’s so good, but she sucks.” That made a very strong impression on me . . . Anyway – after I let her know not to expect too much, I could relax & speak more easily.

Rebeccah’s self-deprecation achieved two things: it elicited supportive feedback from the listener and gave her performance relative finesse. After all, if the listener doesn’t expect too much, even a poor performance can appear outstanding. In a similar event, Rebeccah prepares her host family for a story she wishes to tell them: Today I ate dinner together w/ my host family. They were asking me questions about my day and were being quite congenial. I decided to try to tell them an event that had happened that day, was difficult to explain (and was something I normally wouldn’t even attempt to tell – due to its complexity). So I began with the preamble, “I’d like to tell you something & it’s complicated to tell, I’ll try.” They were really psyched and egged me on w/ encouragement. I felt so good and confident – took a deep breath & ran with it. And it worked! They completely understood (sided with me about the situation – which is so rare!), and were complimenting me. I still feel happy & proud when I think of it.

By letting her family know how difficult the L2 communication goal (information exchange) was for her, her ultimate success becomes all the more impressive. Moreover, by choosing a time when the host family appeared to be in a pleasant mood and forewarning them of the complexity of her task, she was able to prepare them to be patient and encouraging, thus reducing both the real and perceived negative consequences of her L2 use. Thus, by letting interlocutors know to lower their expectations of learners linguistically, learners are able to reduce their own fear of condemnation and ridicule for L2 use that may not meet high expectations. Consequently, the “ideal self,” as set by others’ expectations, is lowered and made more accessible to the learner. 4.2.3.3 Minimization of ability and knowledge Another insightful strategy, though mentioned only occasionally in the journals, is that of minimizing one’s ability and knowledge. Similar to interlocutor preparation, learners use this strategy to manage the image they convey and the potential response to it. Through this strategy learners minimize their apparent L2 ability

138


in order to communicate the impression of L2 proficiency that is significantly lower than it is in reality. This strategy is a bit enigmatic in that learners who employ it run the risk of lowering their sense of linguistic, social, or intellectual status in comparison to other learners or the expectations of interlocutors. Yet that appearance of reduced ability also lowers the expectations of others and gives users a feeling of control over the impression they are creating, over the language they are using, and over the behaviors of the interlocutors. For example, Rebeccah reports the following encounter: I had to buy some fruit today for my trip to Finland. (I’ve never done this before.) So I went into a local shop, & found the fruit section. And I felt a bit nervous to attempt the buy, as the counter was very crowded. So I got the girl’s attention, and “purposely” making a very foreign accent like “Apple, me want – how much”! (Actually no, that’s exaggerated – but I made sure it was foreign.) And she was so nice, she helped me & spoke so slowly & kindly. And the other customers helped me too! The girl said, “stoit 4 t. (it costs 4 thousand)” and a woman to my side held up 4 fingers and was like “CHE-TI-RI (FO-UR).” What a hoot! So my observation is this: When I go into a store & try my (Russian) best – the people are usually mean. But when I act helpless & dim they’re totally benevolent. I pretended to know less russian [sic] & put myself at their mercy. Well, this is not a good practice to get into the habit of, but it can sometimes be useful.

Rebeccah in numerous passages has discussed her need to conceal her “foreignness,” so her deliberate use of her foreigner status is a surprising tactic for her. By doing so, she reduces her interlocutors’ expectations of her abilities far below what her abilities actually are. In this way, she is guaranteed to meet her interlocutors’ expectations successfully. While risking lower social status, she actually gains control over her environment by manipulating the impressions of her interlocutors. Thus, there are times when risking reduced status can actually be a productive strategy, especially when learners are aware that their status is actually greater than that which they are portraying. Another student similarly reports using such a strategy in the program-end questionnaire. Roslyn writes: I’ve learned that although I love to be around Russians & that I’ve learned a tremendous amount while here, I tend to revert to a childishness when conversing in Russian. That is, I use such tactics as sweetness & naiveté to cover for the fact that I don’t understand. This displeases me because I don’t want to present myself as such to anyone (God forbid I appear sweet!). But I know I use it to help protect my ego. Otherwise, I like taking an active part in Russian speaking but sometimes I use the language barrier to my advantage by keeping heavier issues at bay – not always, however.

Roslyn’s “childishness” prevents greater challenges, since one who is “childish” cannot be expected to know or understand mature topics of conversation. Thus, others perceive her inability to understand as a product of her world knowledge, not one of linguistic inability.


139

In her diary study of language learning, Bailey (1983) also recognized one learner’s behavior that closely resembled minimization of ability and knowledge. In reviewing the diary study of Deborah Plummer (1976), Bailey notes that Plummer “adopted a childlike persona, which (she felt) enabled her to learn more easily” (90). Bailey quotes Plummer as writing: during class I was an adult who struggled to talk about elementary concrete objects in the most simple, childlike speech. Instead of being frustrated by such a dichotomy, I found it much easier to adopt a childlike identity in the new language. I consider this a major factor in promoting the learning of the target language. Because of the threats a second or foreign language class often poses, this new identity helped preserve my adult ego and self-confidence. (1983, 90)

Thus, by altering the social perception of her own persona, she allowed herself to feel less pressure to perform as a native-speaking adult, but rather as a child, who is expected to make mistakes in the learning process. In a related strategy, learners may attempt to minimize their apparent knowledge of information that is requested of them in order to conceal their lack of linguistic knowledge. Rebeccah reports that her common reaction to strangers asking her for the time on the street is to tell them she has no watch rather than actually try to form the words. Bob also reports using this strategy while waiting outside of a theater: Standing outside waiting, three different groups of people asked me for directions (it’s because I’m so friendly). I didn’t know where I was going let alone was I able to direct someone where to go. My standard reply is I don’t know. I just hope they don’t see me at the same place. It’s frustrating because I should know all the words they use, but I never understand where they want to go. Instead of asking them to repeat I just chicken out and say I don’t know. I’ve done it on the metro also. Someone will ask me if I’m getting off next stop and I’ll say No before I remember yes I am getting off. It may have to do with my personality, I don’t want to be obtrusive or stand out, in America or Russia.

Even without understanding the question, Bob produces the same answer each time: I don’t know. Questions in such situations – asking directions or needing to get off the metro – are quick-paced and unexpected, giving no time for processing the L2 or formulating a comprehensible answer. Time lags may suggest some sort of social, mental, or intellectual deficiency in the speaker. These questions also don’t allow for repetition and can be high stress due to time pressures. Such events, as described earlier, inherently place the locus of control external to the learner, as the nature of the interaction is out of the learner’s control. Although Bob believes somewhat unrealistically that he should understand everything said to him, he resolves the conflict by feigning ignorance; he would rather reveal a lack of informational knowledge (directions) than a lack of linguistic knowledge, since any NS might not know where something is

140


located, but at least they would understand the question. There is one ironic note here, though. Since he was standing outside of a theater, chances are very good that people weren’t asking Bob directions but rather if he was selling tickets, as is fairly standard practice before a performance in Russian theaters. If this is the case, his answer of “I don’t know” defeated the purpose of the strategy. 4.2.3.4 Choice of L2 use environments Another strategy commonly used is choosing L2 use environments. The L2 use environment consists of numerous factors, including interlocutors, physical location, and mode of communication (face-to-face verbal communication, remote verbal or written communication, input via visual or print media, etc.). As was discussed previously, learners may accept and strengthen relationships with interlocutors who use gentle and beneficial caretaking methods, while rejecting those who employ aggressive or abrasive methods. Many learners, however, also find ways of managing their own L2 use and sense of security by searching out and identifying L2 use environments on the basis of the mode of communication or the physical environment that present minimal social-environmental threats to security while maximizing the learners’ sense of status, validation, control, and safety. A preferred L2 use environment may benefit learners in a number of ways. It may be familiar to the learners, with common rituals and routines which learners may come to identify with and understand, thus improving the learners’ ability to predict how interactions may be managed. The use environment may have features that relax learners, help them to feel more in control of their L2 use and their own communication behaviors, thus improving their attitudes toward themselves. The favorite environment may be a typical meeting place for learners’ preferred interlocutors, where threats from the learners’ social environment are minimized, or it may be the site of many previous, successful interactions, giving learners a sense of accomplishment. The combination of these features may cause learners to associate a particular setting with positive L2 use interactions. Learners, therefore, may name the location as a metonym for positive and desirable communication experiences in the L2. For example, as was noted earlier, Madeline feels a special affinity for her host family’s kitchen. While recovering from the chickenpox, she writes: I was really feeling good just when my Sidney Sheldon movie was getting good I got called into the Kukhnyu (kitchen). It was just like old times, if I ever I [sic] had any. Me and Volod’ya and Galya sat at the table with coffee, bread, candy from the factory. The conversation was good-funny. We laughed and talked about Russian politics – Zhirinovsky and Yeltsin and “Nash Dom Rossiya” (“Our Home Russia” [a political party]). Volod’ya said that there are as many parties as there are people. Volod’ya said every time three people get together there’s a new party being formed. Galya said “Dayte nam mikrofon (give us the microphone)” talking about me, Volod’ya and her forming


141

our own party called “Tea Lovers.” I learn so much in front of the television and at the kukhnyu (kitchen), cultural information, how to laugh, real conversation. I love our kitchen. When I was sick earlier I ignored it, didn’t want to sit in the kitchen and talk, didn’t want to eat in it or anything. Today I rediscovered the kitchen. There was no alcohol or anything involved. I love just sitting and joking and talking about serious stuff like communism. Volod’ya does most of the really broad talking such as fine points, examples, theory. I haven’t been able to explain to him my full views but that’s because I’m not sure of them “tochno (exactly),” but I know that no matter the subject I can bring it to the kukhnyu (kitchen). I’m culturally aware at least more than a lot of my group but that because [sic] I can’t afford the theater. So when I invited friends over who aren’t in with the lingo then I have an edge. I’m thoroughly prepared when it comes to the Russian kitchen and when I go visiting I have things to talk about ’cause I watch more television than most folks in my group. I love bringing conversation topics to the “kukhnya (kitchen).” I love going out and finding new things. The kitchen motivates me. I like inviting over to experience it.

For Madeline, the effect of the kitchen doesn’t come from the four walls and the appliances, but rather the kitchen represents the personal connection and outlet she has into Russian culture as a temporary member of a Russian family, giving her a sense of belonging and opportunity that she doesn’t perceive other students as having. She doesn’t describe her skills negatively in this entry, and in fact, the only difficulties she has communicating come not from lack of skill but from the same problem she might have in her own language – the uncertainty of her own views. This contrasts strongly with other entries in which she describes her L2 abilities quite negatively. The kitchen plays a significant role in Madeline’s L2 use, both in creating a willingness and desire to use L2, but also in her own motivation to create L2 use opportunities. This is very similar to Bob’s preference for language use at the souvenir market. At the market, Bob is stimulated to experiment in Russian and take greater risks than he would in the classroom or at his homestay due to the lowered threat from the social environment. Choice of L2 use environment may also depend on learners’ preference for one mode of communication over another. Some students may choose a mode of L2 interaction that provides minimal evaluation from others, even at the cost of rejecting personal interaction, which may be more beneficial to language development. As Bob explains: At home I try to watch the news – it usually doesn’t work. We only get to watch the TV on top of the refrigerator in the kitchen. Most of the time someone is in the kitchen talking to someone else. I’m not an active participant so usually everything gets blocked out, its just droning background noise. Heaven help me if they ask me a question, because I’m not paying attention. Then if I ask them to say it again they ask Marie because they assume I don’t know what they said.

It is interesting to note Bob’s choice of television over live conversation for listening practice. The small, poorly placed, black and white TV set does not make

142


for easy comprehension, given its mediocre visual cues and unmodified speech. Yet the live conversation, which to Bob is distracting, is more threatening and leaves him more marginalized, even as a passive listener. As was noted earlier, Madeline has a similar preference for television as a learning tool. A fan of television and movies in the United States, Madeline already finds the television a pleasant form of entertainment and enjoys watching TV for relaxation in Russia as well. However, for Madeline, it is more than mere entertainment. She writes about her recovery from chickenpox: I had just gotten used to being stuck in the apartment, honestly. I knew exactly when my favorite shows were on, me and the television guide had become good friends . . . The soap operas were getting really good, too . . . After everyone left a really good Sidney Sheldon movie came on. I can’t go into detail about how attached I’ve become to Russian television . . . I’m thoroughly prepared when it comes to the Russian kitchen and when I go visiting I have things to talk about ’cause I watch more television than most folks in my group . . . I prefer television or musical performance which are in general quite short time-wise . . . I prefer television to the theater, mainly due to the fact that I can turn the channel or do another action while I watch television.

The control television gives her and the love she has for it as a source of cultural and linguistic knowledge ultimately allow Madeline to become an expert among her peers and to participate in interactions more effectively when visiting other people. The television for Madeline was a safe, controllable method of exposure to language and may have in fact become a familiar reminder of home (since many movies and shows in Russia in the mid-nineties were either American or based on an American style of programming, such as soap operas or game shows). Familiarity with the mode of programming helped Madeline understand what to expect: the more familiar learners are with the elements and routines of their environment, the better they can predict how the interaction will take place and, thus, the better their comprehension and the more in control they may be of their L2 use environment. To summarize, the narrative passages presented in this chapter illustrate that learners who rely more on their learner-internal cues for establishing their sense of security (i.e., positive attitudes toward the self and the ability to predict the consequences of their L2 use) have a better sense of the self they are presenting publicly and are better able to protect it than those learners who rely more on social-environmental cues. When learners feel their sense of self to be weak or threatened, they typically avoid speaking in order to preserve their security from further damage. In some instances, however, learners exhibit “fight” behaviors, that is, aggressive L2 use under threatening circumstances, instead of “flight” behaviors, that is, avoidance of L2 use due to threats to their security. Generally, learners who study abroad gradually become increasingly reliant on learnerinternal cues to maintain their security. This process occurs for three reasons. First, as learners develop their linguistic skills, their attitudes toward their L2


143

ability become more positive, and they become better able to predict the outcome of their L2 use. Second, as learners gain experience through interaction with others in the L2, they begin to understand that the consequences of failed L2 communications are not as significant as they may have thought. Third, learners acquire strategies by which they reduce threats from their social environment and increase positive attitudes toward themselves. Such strategies include selftalk (rationalization, in particular), self-preparation and preparation of others, minimization of ability and knowledge, and choice of L2 environments. As learners grow more reliant on their own attitudes toward themselves and less sensitive to negative opinions of others, they are better able to use their L2 skills even in unfamiliar L2 use environments. As discussed in Chapter 3, learners rely on two sets of cues for evaluating their sense of social-psychological security: social-environmental and learnerinternal cues. However, the data offered in the present chapter illustrate that learners who rely more on their learner-internal cues (i.e., their attitudes toward themselves and their ability to predict the consequences of their L2 use) are better able to maintain their sense of security than those learners who show greater sensitivity to social-environmental cues. During time spent abroad, learners develop their reliance on their learner-internal cues and develop strategies for maintaining their security. The present chapter notes that learners report using strategies designed to minimize social-environmental threats to their sense of security and improve their attitudes toward themselves in an effort to support an internal sense of security. Although these strategies are generally overlooked by SLA researchers, the data here suggest that learners strive to maintain a sense of social and psychological security when interacting with others in the L2. By using such strategies to enhance their security, learners report that they are better able to participate actively in the L2 interaction.

Conclusion: the self in the second language: implications and next steps

Language not only represents but also can be viewed as playing a significant role in the construction of reality . . . To this extent, focus shifts to examine ways speakers, in using particular linguistic devices, are simultaneously positioning themselves and others in discourse, thereby making salient particular views of self and others. Nancy Budwig 2000 (197)

I’ve realized that you don’t learn a language by just sitting in class or coming to Russia. You have to make mistakes and take the consequences or whatever, but at least I have to just practice, practice, practice, and don’t let your pride get the better of you. I didn’t think about it, even at orientation, but now I know intimidation is a big block in language acquisition. Abe, Spring Semester

For Abe, as for other students, the ultimate reward of study abroad is not better language, deeper understanding of the foreign culture, or even the friends you make or the memories you take along. Pride, intimidation, mistakes, and consequences – for Abe, the real return is the knowledge that these common obstacles to language use, ones that previously remained concealed to him, were only paper dragons, easily blown away with a greater sense of the self. Abe’s new-found knowledge of who he is and what he is capable of achieving ensure for him continued foreign language use and development. Undoubtedly, Abe’s language skills have improved and he has acculturated in ways that allow him to understand the Russian people and their society like never before. Through that process of adaptation, he has not relinquished his own personal identity but has rather more clearly defined his own image of self. The process of constructing the self for most learners becomes progressively easier as they learn the factors that affect them and strategies for dealing with these factors. As security in selfpresentation increases, so too does the inclination to use the L2 in spontaneous interactions. Implications In reviewing the theories of self-construction in the L2 environment, as laid forth in this work, the question arises as to what end these ideas may be applied 144

Conclusion: the self in the second language

145

and of what value this research is in the fields of second language acquisition and foreign language pedagogy. This work serves several purposes. First, it introduces to the field of SLA a concept of the construction of self that heretofore has not been sufficiently explored. In support of this conceptual advance, the work incorporates social psychology and communication literature, along with SLA literature. Many of the works of psychology of self-construction, communication theory, and social psychology of interpersonal and intercultural relations have not yet been considered in this very social, communicative phenomenon of learning a second language, and it would behoove the field to look further into these bodies of literature. Second, this work invites the reader to reconsider current beliefs in SLA about what it means to be a good language learner, what anxiety is, and what the experience of study abroad entails. The attention of SLA researchers at the end of the twentieth century turned more and more toward the study of affective factors in language acquisition. Yet many of the works considered how emotions affect language acquisition, not their impact on language use. The new perspective on anxiety, its causes, and its functions in L2 use and the construction of the self offers a new definition to be considered. Moreover, we may begin to look less toward categorizations of “good learner”/“bad learner,” and more toward the individual and the social and environmental factors that help the individual create his or her image as a learner and as a person. Third, the construction of the self holds implications for models of foreign language pedagogy. Foreign language teaching methods of recent decades are rooted in principles of communicative language use (for example, see Lee and van Patten 1995). It is widely believed that L2 acquisition is both supported and accelerated by frequent authentic language use that involves real communication goals and negotiation of meaning between participants to achieve those goals. The pedagogical aim has been to develop in each student “communicative competence,” or the ability to use the language to express, interpret, and negotiate meaning in the new language (Savignon 1983). More than linguistic competence, or mastery of the linguistic code, communicative competence suggests abilities in a second language comparable to those in the first language. Sandra Savignon’s work on the concept of communicative competence (CC) proposes four constituent competences: grammatical competence (knowledge of the structural forms and underlying rules of the language); sociolinguistic competence (understanding of the rules by which interactions occur, such as greetings, turn-taking, and other pleasantries); discourse competence (comprehension of how sentences and utterances connect in interaction); and strategic competence (the ability to compensate for gaps in one’s knowledge of the language). Yet one may argue that to possess full communicative competence is to be able to present oneself fully, comfortably, as would be possible in the first language. Such “self-presentational competence” is beyond the scope of

146


Savignon’s model. Yet those learners who are unable to present the self successfully and comfortably may be less successful in negotiating meaning and wielding influence in communicative interactions. In 1986, van Ek added to Savignon’s model sociocultural competence (understanding of the cultural and social frames of reference that differ from those of the student) and social competence (the willingness and ability of the student to interact with others). Van Ek’s attention to social competence brought into the realm of communicative competence factors such as attitudes and motivation, as well as empathy, self-confidence, and the ability to deal effectively with various social interactions. Yet while each of these factors is important in the presentation of the self, van Ek falls short of noting that competent learners are also able to feel fully “at home” in a new language, that is, finding security in constructing the self in the L2. Michael Byram’s 1995 work on the concept of intercultural competence (ICC) advances the ideas of competence beyond communication alone and moves even closer to incorporating self-construction in the L2 and second culture (C2). Recognizing learners’ role as “social actors” in communicative interactions, a role in which learners must adopt new social statuses in the new country, Byram modifies the concepts of cultural competence to include a new conceptualization of sociocultural competence. In this, Byram identifies four savoirs or aspects of knowledge that a learner must develop to be fully competent: savoirs (i.e., knowledges, suggesting a system of cultural references and perspectives that learners must recognize in the C2); savoir-apprendre (i.e., the ability to learn, “to produce and operate an interpretative system” by which one can discover culturally specific values and practices in a C2); savoireˆ tre (i.e., the ability to recognize one’s own attitudes and values as culturally biased, to abandon one’s ethnocentricity and establish a balanced relationship between one’s own culture and the C2); and savoir-faire (i.e., the know-how to apply the other three savoirs in authentic C2 interactions). According to Byram, interculturally competent learners of L2 and C2 need not relinquish their own identity as a member of the L1 and C1 community. Rather they must undergo a process of socialization in the new culture, in which the individual recognizes deviations in the C2 in values and beliefs that the individual previously assumed to be self-evident and commonly held. Competent learners have the ability to accept such differences and re-assign their self-identity accordingly, with its new social statuses and roles, in the C2. Annie Aarup Jensen (1995) similarly advocates moving the model of learners’ competence beyond communication to that of intercultural competence, that is, the ability to perform appropriate behaviors when coming into contact with a C2. As social actors, language learners must therefore learn the routine, as it were, of proper conduct or “social skills.” In successful behavioral training, attitudes form the basis of ICC, giving learners personal affective preparedness.


147

Such preparation can be achieved only when learners understand their own cultural background. Jensen further recognizes that to put oneself in contact with other cultures brings into question the personality and identity of the interculturally competent person. Among the traits such a person must possess is the ability to stabilize one’s own self-identity during intercultural interactions, as well as to help others do the same. Jensen suggests that this ability is a trait characteristic of a successful individual; the experiences of the students reported here, however, imply that such an ability may also be developed over time, through extended experience in-country. With time, learners demonstrate that their self-image becomes more reliant on their own internal indicators, rather than on the behaviors and attitudes of others. As such, learners come to be in greater control of their self-image, and the self becomes more stable, allowing them greater flexibility and competence in intercultural interactions. A second characteristic identified by both Jensen and Byram as vital to the development of ICC is that of empathy. Savoir-être, which Byram emphasizes includes the “ability and willingness to stand between own and foreign culture and relate the one to the other” (57), requires empathy, or the ability to reposition one’s point of view to be consistent with that of others. For ICC, empathy gives learners insight into the experiences of NSs in the C2. For the construction of the self, empathy allows learners to interpret interlocutors’ behaviors and recognize with greater accuracy interlocutors’ attitudes and perceptions. Empathy also helps learners understand the burden their interlocutors may feel when working with a NNS and the responsibility they take on as caretakers. Neither Byram nor Jensen recommend that learners abandon their own cultural background to assimilate into the C2 and function as a NS. Instead, learners should maintain a stable sense of self-identity and adopt the role of mediator in the new culture, negotiating both dissonance and accord between the C1 and C2. Learners need to be able to participate actively in the new culture but also maintain a healthy distance to incorporate objectively their newly acquired culture into the schemata of knowledge they already possess. The balance learners gain between the culture from which they come and the culture into which they enter gives them greater insight into their own self-construction between the two worlds. As evidenced by the students profiled here, language learners entering the realm of the new culture often lack the necessary degree of empathy to understand their own position in the new culture. Many are highly sensitive to their social environment, and their emotions are rather easily dictated by the actions of others. Their sense of self is easily swayed, and their self-construction and presentation can become stilted and stifling. Language use ultimately suffers in an effort to protect the self. The question then becomes, in what ways can learners better prepare for the study-abroad experience so that they may quickly establish a stable sense of self in the new linguistic and cultural environment?

148


By learning and developing the strategies and practice of balancing L2 use with self-presentation, a process that appears to occur naturally with extended in-country experience, learners can more quickly come to use the L2 in spontaneous interactions, ultimately reaping greater language learning benefits from their time abroad. Next steps As social actors in a new cultural and linguistic environment, language learners find themselves at a great disadvantage to construct a real self that approximates the ideal they uphold. By taking a number of curricular steps in language pedagogy and preparation to study abroad, learners can be made more successful language users in intercultural encounters. First, it is of utmost importance that the concept of self-construction be expressly incorporated into the model of intercultural competence and this new model of ICC be established within foreign language programs from their inception. It may be said that to be fully competent, learners must develop “identity competence,” that is, the ability to establish and maintain the desired level of control, status, safety, and validation, while interacting in the L2 in order to present her or his identity successfully. Given the importance of perception in the construction of the self, learners who are unable to read the culturally marked behaviors and reactions of their interlocutors are prone to misinterpretations. Moreover, as mediators of two cultures, learners should not only understand the culture into which they are entering, but also have an intimate knowledge of their own culture, and they must be able to recognize parallels and contrasts between the two. Second, learners must be trained in personalized language use with a special focus on developing their own personality in the second language. Personalized language use has long been viewed as an important component of the communicative language teaching model. With the issues of self-construction, however, personalized language use becomes all the more central to language training. Moreover, it must go beyond the traditional practice of communicating individually important information to include the expression of identity in the L2. Third, learners’ expectations should be realistic as to what they will be able to accomplish in the language and the problems they might experience. This is especially important given learners’ propensity to perceive their own L2 performance as inferior to that of others or to what they believe it should be. By building an understanding of the processes involved in second language acquisition, learners can perceive themselves more accurately and optimistically. They must also understand what types of culturally and socially specific interactions they may encounter when using the language. Such advance preparation will help set their expectations and allow them to be able to navigate the difficulties they will undoubtedly encounter.


149

Fourth, learners need to gain a metacognitive awareness of the issues of self-construction in spontaneous second language use and be made aware of the strategies often used by experienced learners to overcome inhibited selfpresentation in an L2. The strategies presented in Chapter 4 are those identified by learners who have acquired them primarily through trial and error after extended time abroad. However, training resembling Foss and Reitzel’s (1988) rational emotive therapy may be prescribed to assist learners in developing their sensitivity to negative attitudes and self-defeating behaviors. By helping learners develop such strategies, as well as a metacognitive awareness of the issues of self-presentation, they may be able to maximize their L2 use more quickly during study abroad, rather than after months of in-country experience. Advance preparation of learners’ knowledge of language, culture, communication practices, and self-identity helps learners be more personally accountable for their own spontaneous L2 use and self-construction. We may further help learners, however, by preparing the caretakers with whom they will interact. Ultimately, only the learner can truly be in charge of his or her study-abroad experience. However, by alerting teachers, administrators, and homestay family members to the difficulties learners experience in expressing not only their needs, but their personality, these individuals may be better prepared, as caretakers, to help learners feel more comfortable and productive. With this added support, learners may be able to build confidence more quickly and overcome many of the barriers typically experienced upon entry into the new culture. The question of self-construction in spontaneous second language use has been introduced only by the research presented here. Indeed, the communication of the self must be explored in greater depth by further empirical means, including both qualitative and quantitative investigations. The reconceptualization of anxiety as a symptom of the cognitive dissonance between real and ideal selves in L2 use, rather than a cause of L2 avoidance, also offers a novel approach to anxiety research in SLA that deserves further investigation. Many claims have been laid regarding the characterization of language learners as good or bad, talented or untalented, willing or unwilling to interact, and so forth. In many instances, however, social-environmental and learner-internal factors play a more serious role in language use than has previously been acknowledged. Labeling learners in such ways acts as any stigma would, leading potentially to self-fulfilling prophecies of failure or success. Instead of being labeled as naturally inclined to speak and to learn, learners would be better served by understanding how their own language-use patterns are structured and what factors affect them. Moreover, exploration into the role of individual learner differences, such as learning styles, in L2 self-construction is essential. In addition to further research within SLA on spontaneous language use and self-construction, a wealth of knowledge from other fields should be investigated and incorporated into the study of second language use; much is to be

150


gained through the exploration of research in psychology, social psychology, and communication theory. While some research from other fields has been incorporated here, this work has only scratched the surface of a very valuable store of empirical and theoretical knowledge. Exploring the findings of other fields in the context of SLA will greatly enhance our knowledge of the second language acquisition process. Finally, through this work I hope to make the case for further use of qualitative methods in SLA research. During the 1990s, ethnography and case-study methodologies gained popularity in studies of the language-learning experience and affective issues, such as attitudes and motivations (see, for example, Bailey and Nunan 1996; Leaver 1997; Pellegrino 1998b). The Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM), employed in this study, however, has been used quite infrequently in SLA, although it is a well-established methodology in other social sciences. This rigorous method allows for very structured investigation of phenomena and the establishment of theories about those phenomena, firmly rooted in the data themselves. GTM is unique among qualitative methods for its theory-building objectives and exceptional rigor. By employing this methodology, this study opens the doors to several areas of research that either have yet to be examined or should be re-examined through this alternative approach. For many second language learners, the study-abroad experience is the adventure of a lifetime. It is often unique as the first trip abroad, the opportunity to spend time away with friends, the prospect of exploring a new language, culture, society, and the chance to reinvent yourself. Each of these is an exciting and novel experience for many young students. But of these, it is perhaps the last that is the most amazing, the most difficult, and the most rewarding. Studyabroad students often report that their trip changed them deeply by challenging all that they know and believe about the world and themselves. By experiencing the “reduced” self of the learner, the “half-wit” on the way to becoming a “wit,” learners go through a unique rebirthing of the personality that they may ever know. The frustrations of limited communicative abilities force learners to develop alternative means of interaction, not only with others, but with their own self-identity. The result is a new sense of personality and purpose that continues long after the souvenirs are bought, the exit exams are passed, and the return flight touches down.

Appendix 1 Study context and research methodology

The data presented in this book were collected during a 1995–96 studyabroad program in post-Soviet Russia. Among myriad exchange and research programs, the nationally prominent organization, the American Council of Teachers of Russian, hosts students from all over the world at three institutes in Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia. Students on this program attended classes, lived with native families (in “homestays”) or in dormitories, and went on regular excursions throughout the area. Basic information regarding participant cohort is provided in the Introduction and in Appendices 2 and 3. The following sections provide greater detail concerning the research methodology used and the data collected for this study. Data-collection process During the 1995–96 academic year, I lived in Moscow and traveled frequently to St. Petersburg to observe and interview the American students. Like the students, I lived in a host family and went regularly on excursions and to class with them to observe them. The data I collected during this time were guided by three broad questions: (1) what factors facilitate or inhibit students’ use of Russian as a second language in an in-country, non-classroom environment, (2) what are the strategies students employ either to use or to avoid using the language, and (3) what are the consequences of students’ Russian language use or non-use in informal interactions, that is, how do the results of learners’ L2 use decisions in one interaction inform their choices in subsequent interactions? Research methodology The research methodology used in this study is termed the “Grounded Theory Approach” (Strauss and Corbin 1990). Developed in the 1960s by sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, this qualitative research approach has been applied in a wide variety of social science disciplines. This systematic and rigorous research method gives the researcher a set of tools essential for gathering 151

152

Appendix 1

and analyzing qualitative data not only to describe an observed phenomenon, but also to derive a theory about its structure and occurrence. Through the grounded theory procedure, the researcher conceptualizes, expands, and verifies theories on the basis of the data and does not attempt to test and prove preconceived theories. In this way, the resultant theory is grounded in the data themselves. Accordingly, research questions are broad and general, unlike questions posed in quantitative studies intended to test individual hypotheses, and extant field literature is reviewed only after preliminary data analysis has been completed to prevent interference from preconceived theoretical biases. While most other qualitative methodologies are designed to describe events with the minimum of researcher interpretation, the grounded theory approach requires conceptualization and categorization of data in order to create a theoretical conceptual scheme. Furthermore, the sequence of data collection, analysis, and theory development in the Grounded Theory Approach differs from other methodologies in that these activities occur in constant alternation with one another, rather than sequentially, in order to reach “theoretical saturation,” that is, the point at which marginal addition made by further data is minimal (Strauss and Corbin 1990). The data collection and analysis procedures prescribed by the Grounded Theory Approach are complex and add richness, depth, reliability, and validity to the research product that may otherwise be lost to a researcher’s presumptions and literature-based assumptions. The rich data clearly illustrate and support the ideas presented specifically because those ideas come immediately from the data themselves. Therefore, the theories are well grounded in the experiences of actual language learners and are not preconceived hypotheses tested by the data. For more information concerning the Grounded Theory Approach, see Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998). Data instruments General demographic information As participants in a large study-abroad program, all seventy-six students in the cohort group were included in large-scale data collection conducted by the ACTR. The data gathered included demographic information, academic background, and measures of linguistic and communicative proficiency. Those measures included pre- and post-program oral proficiency interviews (conducted by ACTFL-certified raters), reading and listening proficiency (published by the Educational Testing Service), and a qualifying grammar test. The results of those tests, as well as other data collected by the ACTR, have been included in the present study. Grades from the program, as well as evaluations from the resident directors, were also made available.


153

Questionnaires In order to gain a better understanding of students’ experience of Russian language use, I administered a questionnaire to students during program orientation. A follow-up questionnaire was given at the end of the program as well to determine the degree to which students’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors had changed during the semester and their satisfaction with the results of their time abroad. The “Pre-Program Questionnaire on the Experience of Classroom1 Russian Use” was based initially on a questionnaire developed by Christopher Ely (1986). Adapted for use in this study, the questions posed on the preprogram questionnaire focused on four main areas of language use: (1) the possible motivations students may have for learning the language, studying abroad, and wanting to use the language in context, (2) factors within the learners or within their environment that may promote or inhibit their use of the language, (3) strategies learners employ to enhance or reduce the amount of language learners use, especially in instances of insufficient language skills for achieving goals (Færch and Kasper 1983), and (4) the effects of actual language use on learners’ subsequent motivations, environmental and personal factors, and strategies for language use. Responses to statements on this 32-item questionnaire were given by a seven-degree Likert-scale (Strongly disagree, Moderately disagree, Disagree, Not enough experience to answer this question, Agree, Moderately agree, Strongly agree). Students were also encouraged to expand upon any answers they felt were not adequately explained by the questionnaire itself or offer suggestions to clarify any items they felt were confusing. The follow-up questionnaire, “Program-End Questionnaire on the Experience of Russian Use,” addressed the same four areas as the pre-program version. However, the questions were adapted to address more specifically the use of language in non-classroom interactions and the effects the study-abroad experience had on students in terms of motivations, factors affecting their language use, and the strategies they employed to manage their language use. Item order was changed, and eighteen items were added concerning the same issues but focusing only on non-classroom use and based on language-use experiences reported by the students throughout the semester. The Likert response option, “not enough experience to answer this question” was removed. Finally, students were once again encouraged to expand upon their answers, and an optional free response item was added, asking the participants: What has this semester taught you about the way you learn a language? 1

The word “Classroom” was included in the questionnaire’s title to indicate that for most students the study-abroad program was their first Russian use experience outside of the classroom and, thus, would base their answers on classroom Russian use experiences. This, however, turned out to be unnecessary and a misnomer, since several items were included on non-classroom Russian use. The response “not enough experience to answer this question” allowed students to avoid questions they did not feel prepared to answer.

154

Appendix 1

The data set gathered through this instrument includes 63 completed preprogram questionnaires and 81 completed program-end questionnaires.2 Of the 40 fall participants, 28 completed the pre-program questionnaire, while 39 completed the program-end questionnaire; of the 32 spring semester participants, 27 completed the pre-program questionnaire (only the 5 participants who were returning after the fall program did not complete it) and 30 completed the program-end version; and of the 9 year-program participants, 8 completed the pre-program questionnaire, 7 completed a program-end one at the end of the first semester, and 5 followed up with the same program-end questionnaire at the end of the second semester. Textual data Textual data include all types of narrative and/or descriptive data that were completed by the participants, myself, or both myself and participants in collaboration. Participants submitted data they completed either independently, as in the narrative journals and notebooks, or through interaction with me, such as the interviews. Data recorded by me alone include classroom observations, interviews with teachers and resident directors, research notes, and a personal language-use journal. Textual data were either tape-recorded or handwritten in their original form and were subsequently transcribed. Participants who submitted textual data independently were given instruction sheets that focused the participants’ attention on various aspects of language use without prompting particular responses or limiting answers. Narrative journals and notebooks (diaries) Narrative journals (NJs) were collected three times each semester at each of the three institutes: once in the beginning of the semester, once in the middle, and once at the end. Each seven-day collection period was called a “round,” and students were asked to include information about at least three language-use events per round. Participants received instruction sheets in which the concept of the NJ was explained and loose guidelines were offered to help students think of possible areas for discussion concerning their language use. This instruction sheet was based on the instructions given to participants of the ongoing ACTR/NFLC study (Brecht, Davidson, and Ginsberg 1993; Brecht and Robinson 1993) but was adapted to address better the participants’ language-use experience. I also encouraged students to include other information that may not be listed in the 2

Five participants repeated the semester program and, therefore, filled out the program-end questionnaire at the end of both the fall and spring quarters. They did not, however, repeat the pre-program questionnaire.


155

guidelines. All of the students were invited to complete any or all of the rounds at their discretion, and none was obligated to participate in any round. Also, participation in this data collection was paid; students were offered ten dollars per completed NJ round. During the 1995–96 programs, I gathered 64 rounds of NJs from thirty-three students (43 rounds from twenty-one students in the fall, 19 rounds from eleven students in the spring, and 2 rounds from one academic-year participant). Of these students, thirteen completed all three rounds of collection. The length and amount of description contained in each round depended on the journal’s author. For those participants who enjoyed completing the NJs, the option was given to keep a notebook (NB). The notebook was identical to the narrative journals in concept and instructions. The primary difference, however, was that NBs were kept weekly, rather than three times per semester. Also, those who kept a notebook were compensated at fifty dollars for the semester. Notebooks were collected periodically, along with the NJs, and also at the end of each semester. In all, seven notebooks were gathered. Six semester-length notebooks were gathered from four semester-program participants and two academic-year participants, and one year-length notebook was gathered from an academic-year participant. In addition, I maintained my own language-learning journal, following the same guidelines as the students. Interviews Throughout the year, I invited both academic-year and semester students to meet individually with me for the purpose of discussing the students’ experiences using their language in-country. These interviews typically ran twenty to forty minutes and were always audio-taped with the informed consent of the student or students being interviewed. Generally, two types of interviews were conducted: survey or “grand-tour” interviews and directed interviews (Fetterman 1989). Survey or “grand-tour” interviews were conducted with students who were interviewing for the first time or who hadn’t interviewed recently. These interviews were designed to encourage students to speak about their time abroad without giving them any specific questions to answer, thus avoiding interviewer influence on topic or manner of speech. Grand-tour interviews generally began with the interviewer’s statement, “why don’t you tell me about a typical day in the life of [interviewee’s name] here in [Moscow/St. Petersburg].” With this open-ended approach, students then described time spent in their classes, their homestays and/or dorm dwellings, and their free time in terms of activities, other individuals in their environment, the amounts of Russian and English that they use, and factors that affect how they use their language. In these interviews, students both summarized their experiences in general terms and

156

Appendix 1

described specific events that had occurred during their study abroad. Also, as students recounted their experiences, I interacted with them to elicit more in-depth descriptions of events and greater focus on affective issues, such as motivation and attitudes, connected with language use. The second interview style, the directed interview, was used as a follow-up to NJs, NBs, grand-tour interviews, and classroom and informal observations. These interviews were generally shorter in length than the grand-tour interviews and were directed by specific questions that arose in response to events or affective issues recounted in one of the above-listed media. In all, seventy-seven taped interviews were conducted with fifty-five students. All of the interviews were conducted one-on-one in a private space, with the exception of three interviews that were conducted with student pairs (two with the same married couple). Technical problems prevented the taping of approximately six more interviews. However, I hand-recorded students’ responses after the completion of these interviews. In addition to student interviews, I also conducted interviews with the teachers and the resident directors to help triangulate the performance and experiences of the students. These interviews were handled in a similar manner to those of the students. Classroom observations This study overwhelmingly relies upon the self-report data provided by the ACTR study-abroad participants. However, I chose to observe the students actually using their language skills in order to triangulate their own observations of their language use with those of an outside source. Since this study’s focus is language use by students in a non-classroom environment, observation of informal interaction with native speakers would, of course, be ideal. However, students were frequently separated from me by scheduling or location of homestay, or they spent much of their non-classroom time with each other speaking English in the dormitory. Therefore, informal observation was made much more difficult. When possible, I did record observations from spontaneous interactions. However, as a surrogate for informal interaction, I attempted to gather observations of students interacting with each other and with their teacher in their classes. Students were observed primarily in conversation classes, which are specifically designed to develop skills in interpersonal interaction. During the fall and spring semesters, I attended and observed forty-nine classes with each of the sections at all three of the institutes. Owing to difficulties in receiving permission from the institutes’ administration to observe the classes, however, observation was less frequent at the two Moscow institutes, especially in the fall semester. The notes taken during these classes are rich in detail and provide insight into strategies that students employ to manage


157

their language use, as well as the effects of personal interaction, judgment, and observation on language use. I often followed observations with directed interviews with the students. However, several difficulties with the observations limit their usefulness. The classroom environment differs greatly from that of informal interactions. The only native Russian speaker present was also the teacher, who may pose the threat of grades and harsher judgment than Russian friends or the host family might. Topics for conversation are dictated by the teacher primarily, and students are given vocabulary they are expected to use in their conversations. Furthermore, my presence in the room also created yet another factor that could influence students’ use of language.3 Nonetheless, the classroom observations do provide some important insights that may not be gained only through self-report. 3

Support for this claim may be seen in students’ responses to the program-end questionnaire item concerning classroom observation. In the program-end questionnaire, 53 percent responded that they did not feel very relaxed speaking Russian in class when their class was being observed, although only 18.5 percent did not feel relaxed when their class was not being observed.

Appendix 2 ACTR study-abroad program participants: 1995–1996 demographic profile1

Total number of participants: Gender: Program type: Age: Educational status:

Major:

Russian education: Previous USSR/CIS Immersions: OPI Scores:2 Pre-program 0 2.8% 1 69.4% 1+ 20.8% 2 5.6% 2+ 1.4% 3 0% 1 2

76 students 54 women; 22 men 9 academic year; 67 semester (5 dual semesters) range 18–29; 70% of conventional college age (18–21) 84% undergraduates, 12% graduates, 4% not enrolled 73% Russian language or area studies, 9% International Relations, 18% other 65% no high school Russian, 80% 2–3 years of college Russian 73% no immersions 21% one immersion, 6% two or more immersions Program-end 0 0% 1 30.6% 1+ 36% 2 18% 2+ 10.7% 3 4%

Complete results of the questionnaire data are available in Pellegrino 1996. OPI: Oral Proficiency Interviews. These interviews were conducted by ACTFL-certified raters, retained by the ACTR, at the beginning and end of each program to assess learners’ advances in oral proficiency. For more information regarding the OPI interview techniques and ACTFL rating scale, see Omaggio Hadley 2001.

158

Appendix 3


There were a total of seventeen participants in the present study: six who comprised the core data set (“primary cases”) and eleven whose data provided additional support and illustration in the study (the “supporting cast”). The following profiles provide in-depth information regarding each of the participants. They give a comprehensive backdrop for the learners’ experiences presented throughout the work and will help the learner understand the personality and story behind those experiences. Primary cases “Bob” Bob was a unique participant for a study-abroad program. The oldest learner of the seventy-six students (29 at the time of application), Bob had studied Russian for the least amount of time, fitting two years of Russian study into the nine months preceding. Bob had never studied any other foreign language. He was also married, and he and his wife were participating on the program together. While in Russia, they shared a homestay, were both part of the same study group in the same institute in Moscow, and spent virtually all of their free time together. Moreover, unlike most other students, Bob had a significant employment history behind him; he had already served in the military and as a police officer in a large metropolitan center and was hoping eventually to obtain a law degree and to establish a career in federal law enforcement. When Bob participated in this study-abroad program, he was completing his undergraduate degree in political science at a large state university and was preparing to apply to law school. To my knowledge, as of six years past the program he had completed a law degree and was working for the US Government. Bob was a quiet individual, introverted, occasionally temperamental, but deeply loyal to friends. He had a subtle, dry sense of humor that he expressed from time to time even in Russian. He and his wife mostly isolated themselves from the other Americans, although occasionally they spent time with another young American couple in the group, visiting museums or going for walks. 159

160

Appendix 3

They rarely spent time apart from each other. In fact, their constant togetherness was reflected in their language use. Both were among the least advanced of the students linguistically throughout the program, although his wife performed slightly better than Bob in comprehension and production. In classes and social interactions, they often relied on each other to communicate in Russian, using “tag team” tactics, one providing missing vocabulary and aiding comprehension for the other. Their teamwork seemed to aid their joint communication, but in fact, at times stifled their individual L2 use. For example, the teachers tended to address them as one, often allowing one to answer for both while neglecting the other. Also, the host family with whom they lived often became so impatient with Bob’s difficulties that they would address only his wife to communicate information, leaving Bob feeling rejected and having minimal L2 practice. Both Bob and his wife did, however, make attempts to communicate on their own when opportunities arose. Having worked with Bob as his second-year Russian teacher in the US, I was more familiar with his academic and personal history than that of other students. Bob was a very serious student, deeply concerned with his academic progress, and was disappointed by any grade less than an A. He was very dedicated to his studies, as his resident director in Russia wrote, “without hesitation, I can say that no one in our group works harder at improving their Russian than Bob” (RD evaluation). His academic aspirations often led to social isolation, however, since he frequently chose to pore over grammar and vocabulary lists for long hours in lieu of interacting with native speakers and other students. Both in the US and in Russia, Bob was deeply critical of his own performance and was impatient to achieve the results his teachers promised. In fact, within the first few weeks of his program in Moscow, my encouragement that his Russian would indeed improve with patience was met with a doubtful rolling of the eyes. Owing to his law school applications, he insisted on maintaining a strong grade-point average. Moreover, he came from a family that was demanding and critical of him academically. Bob was the first of his family to enter higher education, and he felt the pressure from his family to succeed. Bob’s obsession with high grades and strong academic performance made him reluctant to make mistakes, and he avoided taking risks in Russian. After completing the preprogram questionnaire, Bob remarked, “you know, I’m such a risk-taker in all areas of my life, but I guess after answering this questionnaire I realize I’m not really one in language.” As his journal entries reveal, Bob tended to spend more time in low-risk language-performance activities, like homework and watching television than in high-risk activities, such as engaging in live interaction with native speakers. Bob’s resident director also commented on his hesitancy to use the L2, writing “I also believe he is a perfectionist and often holds back from conversation as he doesn’t want to, as he says, ‘sound like an idiot.’” This may explain Bob’s lack of measurable gain in OPI (pre-semester and post-semester


161

level 1). However, the resident director noted Bob’s developing willingness to use his Russian more, writing, “still, he has taken more and more language risks throughout the semester.” Indeed, according to his responses on the pre-program and program-end questionnaires, Bob moderately agreed that his semester in Russia had made him much less concerned about making mistakes in Russian than he was before he came. He also indicated that he was less likely than before to deal with difficult interactions by resorting to avoidance strategies such as speaking English, changing the topic, or simply not speaking at all. As is reflected in many of Bob’s entries, he and his wife endured a dangerous, unproductive living environment while in Russia. With only a month left in the program, Bob and Marie were moved to a new host family by their resident director. In his program evaluation Bob reported, “our second family is patient and we have improved significantly even though we have been with them only a month.” Overall, he rated his homestay experience as “excellent . . . Definately [sic] stay with a family is the best advice.” The strength, stubbornness, and resilience demonstrated in Bob’s homestay experience represents his personality well. “Camille” “Camille is a delight,” wrote the resident director. “She is mature, emotionally stable, and acutely interested in everything” (RD evaluation). A student of Russian for six and a half years prior to studying abroad, Camille had one of the strongest academic backgrounds in Russian of any participant. Yet activating her skills proved harder than she had anticipated, as she wrote of her surprise and dismay concerning the difficulties she encountered comprehending native speakers and her fellow language learners, who spent considerably less time in the language classroom than she. In fact, Camille’s classroom behavior was highly reserved, sitting back and avoiding eye contact with her teacher, while her classmates sat on the edge of their seats, looking up and obviously engaged. In the beginning, Camille’s teachers often singled her out from the group, asking her if she understood and usually offending her in the process. Furthermore, Camille’s frequent classroom requests for grammatical explanations (fieldnotes) and need to know exact usage of a word before employing it (pre-program questionnaire) suggest an inhibition to perform in unstructured learning environments. During the semester, Camille underwent a transformation and, in the end, she proved to be an ambitious learner, willing to take risks to learn the language and create a healthy social network of NS friends. Living with a highly active and involved host mother, Camille had numerous opportunities to meet native speakers, attend cultural events, and explore the city in the company of Russians. Camille also arranged to attend an economics course for regular

162

Appendix 3

students of the Russian institution in which her group was enrolled. Her resident director writes of her, “She goes to lots of concerts and plays, lots of museums and exhibitions, she hangs out with Russians, audits an economics class at [the] University, and works hard in her classes. The teachers compliment her” (RD evaluation). By the end of the program, Camille “strongly agreed” that she was significantly less concerned with making mistakes than she had been at the beginning (program-end questionnaire). She also “strongly disagreed” that she needed to know exactly how to use a word in order to use it, a statement with which she “moderately agreed” at the program’s beginning. Nevertheless, by the end of the program she still believed herself to be more self-conscious than her classmates and “strongly agreed” that she tends to remain silent when other learners perform in Russian better than she (pre- and post-program questionnaires). Despite Camille’s linguistic timidity, she showed great independence, planning and taking a trip to the Ukraine with another student and taking the TransSiberian Railroad to China with her American boyfriend, who spoke no Russian, at the end of the program. She also maintained a consistently pleasant demeanor. Her resident director wrote, “Camille is really sweet, a genuine nice person, and everyone likes her, but she is independent too. Just admirable, all around.” Although Camille’s measurable gains in oral and listening proficiency were average (1 to 1+ in each), qualitative changes in her communicative abilities increased dramatically, as her RD wrote, “Her Russian was weak when she arrived, but she has made marked improvements.” This noted change was perhaps so perceptible due to the openness Camille gained throughout the course of the semester in using her L2 skills in interactions with others. Since the program, she has spent time in other areas of Eastern Europe and works for an American consulting firm. “Jim” A clean-cut, studious learner, Jim was one of only two men in his host institute’s program of sixteen students. Jim went to Russia to develop his speaking skills. As a graduate student at one of the United States’ top international relations institutes, Jim needed to pass rigorous exams in the language in order to receive his Master’s degree. When Jim arrived in Russia, he spoke with reservation and caution, reluctant to make mistakes. Yet, his narrative journal entries, interviews, and the comments of his teachers and resident director show that as the semester progressed, Jim became much more active in his use of the language. His resident director wrote, “He took more risks (language-wise) than in the beginning of the semester and started to feel very comfortable speaking, and with his own progress in Russian.” The RD attributed Jim’s progress in Russian to the close relationship he developed with his Russian host family: “Jim had a


163

very good relationship with his host family and in turn his language improved greatly” (RD evaluation). Yet Jim’s L2 use went beyond the home environment; during class, I often noted that Jim made efforts to speak Russian with his classmates even when his teachers were not around to hear the students. Despite Jim’s apparent L2 use, the OPI failed to register change in his oral proficiency (pre- and post-semester OPI scores of 1). However, as with other apparent episodes of “non-gain,” this speaks more to the insensitivity of the OPI as a research tool for qualitative proficiency change than to any failure on Jim’s part.1 While living abroad, Jim became very active in the Russian and American communities. He worked as an intern with a US governmental organization preparing an art and business exhibition and volunteered in the Russian Orthodox Church, teaching English to Russian children as part of the Sunday School curriculum. A religious individual himself, Jim was also active in a local Protestant church, attending weekly services and functions conducted only in Russian. In addition, Jim tried to take advantage of Russian cultural events whenever possible, attending the theater two to three times per week (RD evaluation). In conversations with me, both during the study-abroad program and in the year following, Jim expressed frustration with members of the group who were younger than he, both chronologically and in terms of maturity. As Jim’s resident director described him, he has a “great sense of humor, great sense of responsibility, and [is] a very mature human being.” Within a year and a half after their study-abroad program, Jim had married his fiancée, graduated, and found work in his field. “Madeline” Madeline was a central member of both her study-abroad groups. Originally a fall semester participant in the same group as Bob, Madeline opted to continue her studies in the spring at the same institute. Her RDs characterized her as “very generous and thoughtful to her fellow students,” writing that “no one knew more about what was going on in each group member’s life at any one time than Madeline” (RD evaluations). As an extrovert, Madeline enjoyed spending significant amounts of time with her American friends, sometimes shopping and dining out, sometimes partying in the foreign dormitory. Her drive to socialize, however, tended in fact to limit the amount of time she spent actually speaking Russian. She became very close to the Americans in her groups, especially in the spring group, and developed a routine of weekly card games and regular 1

During recent years, the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) has undergone reevaluation for the aspects of communication it fails to measure, such as intercultural competence, sociolinguistic competence, and discourse competence. Future versions should become more sensitive to these aspects of students’ speech.

164

Appendix 3

events. As a result, she often chose to socialize only with Americans and avoided events where Russians would be included. When with her American friends she did not speak Russian, explaining that “it doesn’t seem logical” to speak when no one has perfect language skills. Furthermore, both in the classroom and in social interaction, Madeline tended to defer speaking opportunities to other Americans, especially those with stronger Russian skills, as several of her narrative journal entries demonstrate. Her resident director also noted that among the students in her study group, Madeline was the least advanced in Russian, and this “significant and visible difference . . . likely contributed to Madeline’s ease at letting the upper students take control.” Outside of her American friends, Madeline befriended no Russians beyond her host family throughout the course of the year. Her relatively low level of oral proficiency (pre-program and post-program remained at OPI level 1, in both fall and spring semesters) and difficulty in comprehension made communication with native speakers challenging. An even greater obstacle facing Madeline was that of racial discrimination. In a culture which had been untouched by the Western concept of “political correctness,” this young, African-American woman often drew undesired attention and ridicule. The Russian woman acting as homestay coordinator reported that many families refused to house AfricanAmerican students in their home. Awkward stares and rude comments were a daily occurrence, and some events were more personally offensive. As her resident director noted, “being black, even in Moscow, causes many people to stare at her, which can get tiring for her. Other students are able to blend in if they wish, to relax for a while” (RD evaluation). As a result, her contact with native speakers became limited, as she tended “to hibernate every once in a while, either at home or in the dorm, to get away from stares and attention” (RD evaluation). In spite of the barriers the controversy of race presented her, Madeline managed to create a warm and supportive relationship with her Russian host family, in particular with her host father. The host family consisted of a mother and father (mid- to late-30s), an eight-year-old host sister, and a second boarder whose relationship to the family remains unclear. Outside of class, the family was her greatest source of Russian conversational practice and cultural experience. She felt they accepted her race and linguistic abilities unconditionally; in her narrative journal, Madeline wrote, “I’ll have to admit I can get harassed all day about color, gender, nationality, and whatever, but because I know that I have a strong Russian tie [her host father] it all rolls off me.” She explains that conversations with her host family excite her about the culture and inspire her to learn. In the program-end questionnaire, Madeline reported, “I learned more from my charming, authentic Russian host family than I could and have ever learned in class. I learn better in a home environment and with a support system behind me.”


165

Although she rarely missed class, Madeline’s resident directors did not consider her a diligent student. In class, she often avoided answering grammar and vocabulary questions by looking down, saying, “I don’t know,” in English, or even by covering her head. Yet, occasionally she would be the only volunteer to answer content-based questions in Russian such as on issues of Russian history or literature. During the second semester her social activities outweighed her studies, as the new group of students attending the institute spent significant periods of time drinking and playing cards in the dormitory with each other. Madeline’s contact with her host family diminished, her efforts to develop her language decreased, and she reported at the end that unlike her first semester, she felt she could have put in a much greater effort during the spring to interact with native speakers. Both semesters she was disappointed with her progress, unlike the majority of the students, yet she remained highly motivated to continue her studies (program-end questionnaire). In addition, Madeline never fully integrated into Russian culture. Surely, her race proved a barrier in many ways, yet frequent money transfers from home allowed her to visit many Western establishments and purchase imported goods that separate foreigners and the new elite from the vast majority of Russians today. Overall, the year Madeline spent in Russia benefited her linguistic and communicative development in a number of ways. Madeline had difficulty learning the details of grammar and vocabulary, despite two semesters in Russia, four years of high school Russian, and three years of college Russian. However, while her OPI score reflected no measurable change and her grammatical accuracy remained low, she in fact became much more communicative in Russian throughout the course of the year, as both her resident directors noted. One RD wrote, “arriving in the host family with little or no Russian oral skills, by the end of the semester Madeline’s social and linguistic connections with her family were so strong that she could lead conversation on occasion.” Furthermore, during the second semester, she repeated much of the same classroom material that she had done in the fall and was thus better able to answer the teachers’ questions in class. She began to guide new students through the city with which she was already familiar and became a source of support for the new students. Other students occasionally report in their narrative journals interactions in which they observed Madeline approaching strangers and leading conversations, something she typically avoided during the fall. In the programend questionnaire, Madeline reported a lower level of self-consciousness when speaking Russian than she had felt at the beginning of the semester and found her own discomfort to be less of a barrier to her speaking than it had been before studying abroad. She also was more willing to test her use of new words in conversation, reporting at the end of the year that she no longer needed to know exactly how a word was used in order to use it. Thus, while her Russian proficiency appeared to have remained unaffected, this young woman in fact

166

Appendix 3

developed greatly in terms of ability to communicate, willingness to risk linguistic failure, and understanding of contemporary Russian popular culture. “Reanna” Reanna was a student many study abroad coordinators might call the “perfect participant.” Reanna went to Russia to speak Russian, and she let little stand in her way of doing so. She was a diligent student who found all of her classes to be extremely beneficial, even when others felt the teachers may not have done enough or taught in the right way; on her evaluation of the program, she wrote “All of above classes were excellent in the area they were intended to focus on.” Beyond the classroom, Reanna remained a dynamic force, going out of her way to find a life of activities and relationships in which she could use her Russian extensively. For example, she was the sole female member of a regular group of Americans and Russians who played basketball weekly. Reanna also explored her future medical career by establishing a relationship with a Russian physician at a local teaching hospital in St. Petersburg. There she would enthusiastically sit in on lectures and go on rounds at the hospital with Russian medical students. She also spent large amounts of time with her host-family members (a brother and sister close to her age and two parents) and their friends with whom she established warm relationships. Even when with Americans, Reanna tried to speak only Russian, although the American students often reverted to English, causing Reanna to follow their lead in order to avoid alienating herself from them. Although she was not particularly close to any of the American students, she appeared to be well liked by everyone. She also seemed to have a very healthy attitude toward her own learning and her own skills. Throughout her diary, she reports feeling good about her efforts to interact with others and not allowing herself to become distracted or discouraged, even when she recognized difficulties in her comprehension or speech. Her positive approach is evident in many of the passages used throughout this work. Even at times where she might have allowed herself to feel rejected or uncomfortable, she chose to continue speaking and find reasons for others’ behaviors that were not self-derogatory. Throughout the semester, Reanna displayed self-confidence, both in her social interactions and in her use of Russian. She did not allow potential language barriers to stand in the way of her personal and professional interests. She also played a caretaking role quite frequently, both for other Americans and for her Russian friends. She stated during an interview that she often felt that other Americans assigned her “responsibility” for correcting misunderstandings in class and leading group social interactions with NSs, explaining, “it’s a combination both of what I expect, what I feel is their expectation, and also because I’m an impatient person, and if I can see a way that something should


167

be handled or done, if it’s more efficient some way, I will step up and say, ‘look, let’s do it this way.’” As a learner of Russian, she rarely displayed hesitation in using her linguistic skills, especially if she felt a sense of responsibility for improving a situation. Reanna’s linguistic progress throughout the semester was impressive. She made the largest leap in oral proficiency of all the participants, going from a 1+ to a 3 in one semester. She consistently demonstrated great enthusiasm, both for speaking Russian and for the present research project. Since the program she has gone on to attend medical school at one of the most prestigious schools in the world, winning fellowships and recognition along the way. “Rebeccah” Rebeccah was a colorful individual with very rich insights into her own learning experiences. Of the six primary case studies, Rebeccah was the only one who came to Russia intending to study for an academic year. She was a quiet and reserved person, extremely thoughtful of others and very sensitive to others’ attitudes and behaviors. As Rebeccah’s teacher described her early in the year, she was easily offended and worried a lot; she was the most emotional of the group and often seemed to feel uncomfortable when speaking (as was noted in particular by one of her teachers, as well as other caretakers). Despite her self-consciousness, she often took risks that seemed unexpected for her, such as trying to arrange travel to Europe by herself through a travel agent, going on a blind date, and making numerous “cold” phone calls to set up a teaching job. Even Rebeccah’s resident director noticed the paradox of her reserved nature and risk-taking behavior, writing, “Rebeccah surprised me. I thought for sure she’d have difficulties getting around and feeling accepted. She has shown us otherwise by always being at class and on excursions on time” (RD evaluation). Although Rebeccah’s frequent reports of rejection by her host family suggest that she did indeed experience difficulty feeling accepted, she knew how to take care of herself and achieve goals she set for herself. Despite her tenacity at accomplishing her goals, Rebeccah spent much of her year alone. She reported that she spent little time with other participants of the study-abroad group and complained often that her homestay was quite unpleasant. The homestay family consisted of two sisters, both over fifty years of age, and their mother. There was very little in common between the women and their student, and, according to Rebeccah, the women made little effort to include her in their family life. In interviews, Rebeccah explained that the women with whom she lived often isolated her from them, making her eat dinner by herself and ordering her to leave the kitchen when all were gathered there because there was not enough room for all. They rarely invited her to speak with them, and she wrote in her

168

Appendix 3

evaluation, “I do not think my homestay improved my language since they hardly speak to me at all.” As a result, Rebeccah reported that she spent much of her time alone. Although Rebeccah was unhappy with the treatment she received from her host-family members, she did not move and remained with them for the full nine months. To compensate for the loneliness and lack of L2 practice, Rebeccah looked for other ways of finding interactions with native speakers. Sometimes she would approach strangers on the street on the pretense of buying a product just to practice her Russian and make contact with people. She found a job teaching English to professors at another institute, and started studying French with a Russian tutor. Nevertheless, Rebeccah typically reported feeling lonely and spoke negatively about her Russian skills. Rebeccah often took the blame for poor relations with others upon herself, citing that she was too sensitive and that she couldn’t tell if their behavior was rude or culturally dictated. She was also quick to ridicule herself for imperfect language use. Classroom observations show her hitting herself in the head for forgetting a word, making faces and exhibiting frustration with herself for not knowing a construction, and other self-derogations. Rebeccah once described speaking Russian as riding a bike. As long as she remained calm and relaxed, she was able to remain on the seat of the bike and in control of her speaking. However, excitement and nervousness threw her over the handlebars and out of control, putting her “ahead of herself” and making it impossible for her to say anything at all. Rebeccah’s reports of her L2 use experiences vary broadly in terms of her own satisfaction and enthusiasm. Successful L2 use elated Rebeccah, making her visibly proud and enthusiastic. However, unsuccessful attempts at communication appeared to depress her, making her very introspective and disappointed in her inability to win the respect and friendship of her interlocutors. Rebeccah displayed extreme discomfort speaking Russian early in the year. Yet she showed great signs of improvement throughout the year (gaining from a 1 to 2+ in speaking, a 1 to a 2 in listening, and a 1+ to a 3 in reading, ACTFL proficiency scales) and a corresponding growth in satisfaction, although even in the last months of her time abroad she wrote of great disappointment in her abilities. Supporting cast “Jill” A member of Madeline and Bob’s group, Jill was a striking young woman. As a twenty-year-old student of international relations attending a Mid-Atlantic university, she had studied Russian for three years in high school and three


169

years at the university. Yet despite her six years of study, she was remarkably self-conscious about her own speaking and about appearing unintelligent. In describing her experiences speaking Russian, she explained, “I would rather be thought of as being ugly or bitchy or anything – but not stupid – so this has been pretty hard.” She often characterized herself as “shy,” “introverted,” and “quiet,” explaining that social interactions tended to make her tired, yet while abroad she was a member of her group’s central clique of students who enjoyed spending time together. As Jill’s semester abroad progressed, she encountered unusual problems that caused her to fall into a depression by the end of the program. She found herself in the hospital twice (once for food poisoning and once after being the victim of a hit-and-run ambulance). At the same time, she noted that she was starting to acquire greater confidence and control as her depression subsided. She started to observe improvements in her own language and began to assert herself in stores and restaurants: “In turn I’ve felt a lot better in general about my speaking because I know I can do it now.” Nevertheless, she reported having very few Russian acquaintances, and she was not driven to make them, writing: Personally, I’d rather have a good time hanging out with Americans I feel comfortable with, than forcing myself to be bored and uncomfortable around Russians. I mean, if it happens, great – but I haven’t met any Russians I could really talk to or feel comfortable with.

By the end, she reported that her Russian had been reduced to almost nothing, and that she was only speaking Russian to get by; her group had endured many illnesses and crimes, her group of friends had argued and disbanded, and she was anxious to go home. Still she was able to report feelings of improvement (speaking on the phone, for example), remarking: Maybe there is some Russian ability rattling up there somewhere that just needs to be jolted out . . . I really just can’t seem to get over my performance anxiety speaking Russian – I just feel like I have to be perfect when I speak so I try to find the right words, put everything in the right cases. And when I can’t I just give up – it’s gotten better because my Russian is better – but I’ve been under so much stress – it’s just been really hard.

Despite her negative feelings, Jill made quite normal progress, going from a proficiency level of 1 to 1+ in speaking and listening, and from a 1+ to 2 in reading. Moreover, while I originally expected that Jill would forever abandon her study of Russian, I happened upon her in an airport in Russia several years later. As a law student, she had been in Russia for work. Although her first trip was very difficult, Jill had grown up a great deal and had not given up.

170

Appendix 3

“Mamie” At age twenty-three, Mamie was a bit older than her group mates. She was a group mate of Camille and often spent time with Madeline, although they studied at different institutions. Mamie had been placed into a higher level of Russian than seemed right for her, and she felt unprepared for the language classes and looked down upon by her peers. Nevertheless, she had never been overseas before and was fascinated with all that she saw. As a political science major at a large Midwestern university, Mamie had studied Russian for two years in college, and upon arriving in Moscow, she immediately contacted close family friends, who lived outside of the city. She would come to spend many weekends with this family, who knew no English. Her narrative journal repeatedly describes the joy she felt speaking only Russian with them, playing with the children and interacting with the adults. Her host-family situation, on the other hand, was less than desirable. After moving from one family after the first night, she came to live with a mother and son who were devout Russian Orthodox believers. Their strict lifestyle and seeming lack of patience for Mamie became difficult for her in the long run: I have been so frustrated with her and the way she talks to me like I’m a small child or something. She has no patience for me if I don’t know a word and just gives up the conversation instead of explaining it to me or giving me a synonym. Also, I feel a lot of the time she doesn’t even listen to me when I talk . . . She also never corrects me or helps me when I’m struggling . . .

Regardless, Mamie thoroughly enjoyed her time in Russia, believed that she was making great progress overall, and arranged to stay through the following summer. She found work teaching English and enjoyed playing with her friends’ children, teaching them games and visiting their school to tell about American holidays. Overall, her language improved from a 1 to a 1+ in listening and speaking and held steady at a 1+ in reading (ACTFL proficiency scales). “Beth” I was fortunate to know Beth from her first day of studying Russian, as I had been her teacher. It was exciting to see her go to Russia for the first time, with all her energy and fire. Beth was a no-holds-barred student who knew what she wanted and wasn’t afraid to command the world around her to get it. As a group-mate of Madeline’s, she quickly adapted to the social life of Madeline’s second study-abroad group and entered Russia with passion and drive. Beth was twenty years old, with a double major in Russian and Math and had studied Russian for three years in college. While she exuded great personal confidence and sociability, however, she was not above her own fears of using the L2.


171

Hoping eventually to work in Russia as a lawyer, she knew the importance of studying abroad and embraced the challenge of the Russian culture and society. In an effort to broaden her horizons, she often attended cultural events with the other Americans and sought out an internship while in Moscow. Her host family proved to be a mix of positives and negatives, with a host mother who treated her with care and respect and a host father and brother who seemed distant and uninterested in her. Outside of her host family, she had made no Russian friends, and she expressed frustration that her American friends did not like to speak Russian. In the end, she made typical gains in her language proficiency, going from a 1 to a 1+ in listening and speaking and a 1+ to a 2 in oral proficiency (ACTFL proficiency scales). Since her trip, Beth has in fact pursued a legal career in state government. “Gina” Gina was an extremely insightful student. She was very aware of her own learning and of the factors that affected her and was sensitive to the world around her. A very pleasant twenty-year-old student from a large university, she had taken three years of college Russian, including a prior intensive program where I got to know her. While in Russia, she belonged to the same group of students as Madeline and Bob and had become close friends with Jill as part of the same social clique. Although she was very reluctant to speak at all upon arriving in Russia, within two months she explained: . . . now I’ve finally gotten to the point where I’ve just started doing it, it’s gotten really easy and I can go up to anybody, and I’ve had people come up to me and I’ve been able to give them directions, so it’s just like, you know, so much more controlled, talking to strangers.

Among her American friends, Gina was often made the primary speaker with strangers, although she did not speak Russian with other Americans, citing embarrassment, poor examples, and overwhelming difficulty as the primary deterrents. Like Beth, Gina had established a close mother–daughter relationship with her host mother, although her fourteen-year-old host sister remained a mystery to her. She met very few Russians outside of her host family, however she felt extremely uncomfortable around Russian men. By the end of the program, she felt frustrated and depressed. During the semester, she had a turbulent breakup with her American boyfriend, who was also studying in a different city in Russia. Her emotional distress was compounded by illnesses and injuries happening to those around her. After Jill’s accident, she shared with me that she no longer wanted to speak Russian. She ultimately made plans to leave the trip several weeks early.

172

Appendix 3

Despite her difficulty, Gina still showed great progress, gaining proficiency from a 1+ to a 2+ in listening, a 1 to a 1+ in speaking, and maintaining a 1+ in reading. Unfortunately, I do not know what her post-program life has included. “Susan” Susan had an easy-going demeanor and an enjoyable personality. She had studied Russian for three years in college before joining Jim and Rebeccah’s studyabroad group. At home she majored in sociology and women’s studies at a relatively small liberal arts school, and she was planning to go to medical school in the future. While she was in Russia, she knew what she wanted to achieve and was willing to work to get it. Not satisfied with her classes, she worked to make improvements in the system, and to develop her knowledge of the Russian medical system she volunteered to work in a health clinic. She also spent her time volunteering for a US Government cultural project, as did Jim. In her homestay she lived with a grandmother and a young girl. She often complained that the grandmother was stubborn and impatient with her language skills. Susan also complained that her host sister, while spending time with her, also had a very difficult time helping her learn. Although the members of Susan’s host family were not ideal caretakers, she did manage to meet friends outside of the family and felt very positive about the relationships and conversations that ensued. While Susan’s proficiency score in speaking remained at a 1 (ACTFL proficiency scale; no records exist for Susan’s pre-program listening and reading scores), her language improved qualitatively and in her journal she reported improved confidence. “Julie” Julie could be considered a typical study-abroad student. At twenty years old, she had had four years of college Russian and was majoring in Russian and journalism at a large Midwestern university. She was studying at the same institute as Jim and Rebeccah and living with a host family that she loved. Although she frequently noted frustration with speaking Russian and occasionally called herself names like “dork,” Julie generally remained very positive about her progress in Russian. When communication breakdowns occurred, she would express disappointment and embarrassment, yet she could also clearly focus on what she needed to improve. Maintaining that positive outlook was characteristic of Julie, and as the semester progressed, she gradually overcame her passive tendencies to be more like her old self. As an honors student, she was obliged to complete an independent research project while in Russia that required her to contact the editorial offices of two major newspapers. Although


173

she was reluctant to do so, she persevered and called the very busy offices. Although she reported feeling intimidated, she did not give up until she made the contacts. While Julie was diligent and driven in her speaking, she, like others, still experienced the difficulties of learning abroad. She ended her narrative journal with these words: the more I think about it, the more I realize that I have the vocabulary of a 5-year-old here! It’s a little frustrating to realize that I really do use mindless constructions like “ya budu ochen’ rada . . .” (I will be very glad . . .) all the time! There’s really nothing I can do about it, aside from working at learning new constructions, but it was interesting when today, as I was brainstorming questions for the editors, I realized that even when I speak English now I don’t use complex sentences. Argh! Russia has turned me into a monosyllabic MORON!

Yet despite her frustrations, Julie made quite normal progress in her proficiency, going from a 1 to a 1+ in speaking and listening, and a 1+ to a 2 in reading (ACTFL proficiency scales). “Tammy” A group mate of Camille’s, Tammy entered the program as a graduate student of Russian linguistics and had considerable experience under her belt. She had been to Russia twice before and had studied three other languages as well, in addition to the three years of Russian in high school and four years in college. Yet she was surprisingly bitter about her stay in Russia this time. She was twenty-two, far from her boyfriend, and forced by her school’s curriculum to spend a semester in Russia to improve her language skills. The way in which she spent her time, however, would only ensure that she would have difficulty doing that. While she did get practice speaking in her lessons, she did not like to speak Russian outside of the classroom. She resented the Russian people for what she saw as rudeness and believed that most of them only wanted something from her, like money or sex. She assumed that native speakers didn’t try to understand her when she spoke, and that they were nationalistic and only insulted Americans. She chose to live in the dormitory rather than in a host family and often spent time in her room studying, playing music, or watching television. She did recognize in part that her attitudes may be based on miscommunications and cultural misunderstandings. She had not maintained contact with friends from previous trips and made no effort to establish new friendships. Tammy’s negative opinions of the Russian people severely prevented interaction with any native speakers. Nevertheless, Tammy made progress, moving from a 1+ to a 2 in reading, a 1 to a 1+ in speaking, and maintaining a 1+ in listening (ACTFL proficiency scales).

174

Appendix 3

During the program she contemplated leaving early. By the end of the program, Tammy proclaimed that the one thing she learned about her own study of Russian was that she hated Russia and she needed to change her major. She explained in an interview that she never liked linguistics but had wanted to learn the language. Yet six years later, she was still pursuing further graduate degrees in the field of Slavic studies. “Melinda” A group mate of Reanna, Melinda was an outgoing, attractive young woman with a wonderful laugh. She was twenty years old, majoring in Russian at a large state university, and had studied Russian for three years in college. She had been to Russia once before, but she had never studied any other foreign languages, and her oral proficiency was relatively low upon entering the program (0 on the ACTFL oral proficiency scale). She had been considering dropping Russian prior to the trip but decided to go through with the program just to get out of her home institution for a semester. The first few months of the program were hard for her – she was chronically tired and continued to think of changing her major. Only toward the end of the program did she find herself participating in conversations instead of just observing, responding to statements, and sustaining interactions with her host family. Melinda characterized herself as laid-back, speaking really only when she was spoken to, but doing so with great emotion and enthusiasm. Physically, Melinda attracted a great deal of attention. She was of mixed ethnic descent but was often taken for Indian or Moroccan, and she sported long, beautiful braids that were quite unusual in Russia. Consequently, strangers often approached her, which gave her a fair amount of speaking practice, stating, “if I get that feeling, like, ‘Oh!’ I’m never going to see them again, then I can just, like, go with it, kind of.” In contrast, she spoke little at home, and often felt in class that she, being the only female in her study group of three, was discriminated against (a common complaint among female exchange students in Russia). Little by little, interacting with Russian-speakers became easier for Melinda, and she came to enjoy her time there. In fact, so much so that by the end of the program she was making plans to return to Russia the following spring. Ultimately, she left the program having developed her proficiency to a 1 in speaking, and maintained a 1 in listening and a 1+ in reading. “Abe” A group mate of Reanna, Abe’s study-abroad experience began in a rocky way. He arrived a week after the other students, since he worked for the studyabroad organization and had loose ends to tie up before leaving. As a result, he


175

missed a lot of the bonding moments a group goes through during its first week. Moreover, frequent illness kept him isolated. But as a 21-year-old government major from a prestigious Mid-Atlantic university, he was determined to succeed. Handsome, all-American, collegiate, kind, and personable, he seemed to be the kind of student who could accomplish anything and should feel confident in all he tried. Yet for Abe, the stakes were high, and from the beginning he spoke of how difficult it was for him. He had studied Russian for four years in high school and three in college and to him, the reality of coming to Russia and struggling to speak seemed like a slap in the face. Early in the program, Abe came to me to ask how he could improve his Russian and make his time worthwhile. He worried that he didn’t spend enough time with Russians. He worried that his grammar was not good enough. Most of all, he worried that he could never learn Russian. Ultimately, he did make progress in reading and listening, moving from a 1+ to a 2 in both, while his oral proficiency score held steady at a 1 (ACTFL proficiency scales). He left Russia with a greater knowledge of what was needed for him to learn a language and more confidence in his own ability to do so.

“Kathy” Pretty, smart, pleasant to be around, Kathy made friends easily and was well liked by her peers. In the spring of 1996, she came to Russia to study in the same group as Reanna and Abe. She was twenty years old and studying international relations at a Mid-Atlantic university. Although she had studied Russian for four years in high school and two in college, when she arrived for the program, she had not spoken Russian in two years and was dreadfully nervous: “I had very low expectations for myself in the beginning. Very low expectations. I was terrified. All I wanted to be able to do was to overcome my shyness about talking to people, to be able to carry on a conversation.” Yet by the middle of the semester, she achieved this goal and expressed extremely positive attitudes about her experience and healthy attitudes about her own ability: I felt like I was behind in the beginning, and, and every class I’m trying to catch up a little more, but I know that’s not a good way to, to put it, because I know everybody in my group probably feels like at times they’ve been behind everybody else . . .

By the end of the trip, she was happy to go home, but was anxious to return, and characterized herself as a risk-taker in the language, leading her friends when they encountered strangers on the street. Kathy, in fact, improved in her language proficiency, moving from a 1+ to a 2 in listening, a 1+ to a 2+ in reading, and a 1 to a 1+ in speaking (ACTFL proficiency scales). Five years after the program I learned that she had returned to deliver her commencement

176

Appendix 3

address at her university graduation and had planned to move on ultimately for a graduate degree in journalism. “Roslyn” Roslyn was the model of the study-abroad student demographics. Twenty years old, majoring in Slavic Languages and Literatures, she had studied Russian for three years at her large Midwestern university. She studied at the same institute as Jim and Rebeccah, and her progress reflected average gains for the students, moving from a 1+ to a 2+ in listening, a 1 to a 1+ in speaking, and maintaining a 1+ in reading. Six years following the study, I learned that Roslyn had completed graduate work from a prominent North American school of foreign service in Eurasian, Russian, and Eastern European studies and was working for state government.

References

ACTFL. 1998. ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Inc. Andersen, Susan M., Inga Reznik, and Serena Chen. 1997. “The Self in Relation to Others: Cognitive and Motivational Underpinnings.” In The Self Across Psychology: Self-Recognition, Self-Awareness, and the Self Concept, ed. Joan Gay Snodgrass and Robert L. Thompson. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. Aronson, Elliot. 1995. The Social Animal. 7th edn. New York: W. H. Freeman. Bailey, Kathleen M. 1983. “Competitiveness and Anxiety in Adult Second Language Learning: Looking at and through the Diary Studies.” In Classroom-Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition, ed. H. W. Seliger and M. Long. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Bailey, Kathleen M., and David Nunan, eds. 1996. Voices from the Language Classroom: Qualitative Research in Second Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baron, R. A. 1970. “Magnitude of Model’s Apparent Pain and Ability to Aid the Model as Determinants of Observer Reaction Time.” Psychonomic Science 21:196–97. Booth-Butterfield, Melanie, and Steven Booth-Butterfield. 1998. “Emotionality and Affective Orientation.” In Communication and Personality: Trait Perspectives, ed. James C. McCroskey et al. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Brecht, Richard D., and Jennifer L. Robinson. 1993. Qualitative Analysis of Second Language Acquisition in Study Abroad: The ACTR/NFLC Project. Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center. 1995. “On the Value of Formal Instruction in Study Abroad: Student Reactions in Context.” In Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context, ed. Barbara F. Freed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Brecht, Richard D., John Caemmerer, and A. Ronald Walton. 1995. Russian in the United States: A Case Study of America’s Language Needs and Capacities. Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center. Brecht, Richard D., Dan E. Davidson, and Ralph B. Ginsberg. 1993. Predictors of Foreign Language Gain during Study Abroad. Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Budwig, Nancy. 2000. “Language and the Construction of Self.” In Communication: An Arena of Development, ed. Nancy Budwig, Ina C. Uzgiris, and James V. Wertsch. Stamford, Conn.: Ablex Publishing. 177

178

References

Burck, Charlotte. 1997. “Language and Narrative: Learning from Bilingualism.” In Multiple Voices: Narrative in Systemic Family Psychotherapy, ed. Renos K. Papadopoulos and John Byng-Hall. New York: Routledge. Buttjes, Dieter, and Michael Byram, eds. 1991. Mediating Languages and Cultures: Towards an Intercultural Theory of Foreign Language Education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Byram, Michael. 1995. “Acquiring Intercultural Competence: A Review of Learning Theories.” In Intercultural Competence. A New Challenge for Language Teachers and Trainers in Europe. Vol. I: The Secondary School, ed. Lies Sercu. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University. Byrne, D. 1969. “Attitudes and Action.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. IV, ed. L. Berkowitz. New York: Academic Press. Carlson, Jerry S., Barbara Burn, John Useem, and David Yachimowicz. 1990. Study Abroad: The Experience of American Undergrads. Contributions to the Study of Education, no. 37. New York: Greenwood Press. Carroll, John. 1967. “Foreign Language Proficiency Levels Attained by Language Majors Near Graduation from College.” Foreign Language Annals 1:131–51. Clark, John L. D., and Ray T. Clifford. 1988. “The FSI/ILR/ACTFL Proficiency Scales and Testing Techniques.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 10:129–47. Cody, Michael J., and Margaret L. McLaughlin, eds. 1990. The Psychology of Tactical Communication. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Connelly, F. M., and D. J. Clandinin. 1990. “Stories of Experience and Narrative Inquiry.” Educational Researcher 19, 5:2–14. Cooley, C. 1902. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Schocken Books. Corder, P. 1967. “The Significance of Learners’ Errors.” Applied Linguistics 5:161–69. 1981. Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DeKeyser, Robert M. 1991. “Foreign Language Development during a Semester Abroad.” In Foreign Language Acquisition Research and the Classroom, ed. Barbara F. Freed. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath. Dion, K., E. Berscheid, and E. Walster (Hatfield). 1972. “What is Beautiful is Good.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24:285–90. Dörnyei, Z., and A. Malderez. 1997. “Group Dynamics and Foreign Language Teaching.” System 25, 1:65–81. Eagly, A., and S. Chaiken. 1975. “An Attribution Analysis of the Effect of Communicator Characteristics on Opinion Change: The Case of Communicator Attractiveness.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32:136–44. Ehrman, Madeline E. 1993. “Ego Boundaries Revisited: Toward a Model of Personality and Learning.” Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 1996. Understanding Second Language Learning Difficulties. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Ehrman, Madeline E. and Zóltan Dörnyei. 1998. Interpersonal Dynamics in Second Language Education: The Visible and Invisible Classroom. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Ellis, Rod. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References

179

Ely, Christopher M. 1986. “An Analysis of Discomfort, Risktaking, Sociability, and Motivation in the L2 Classroom.” Language Learning 36, 1:1–25. Ertelt-Vieth, Astrid. 1991. “Culture and ‘Hidden Culture’ in Moscow: A Contrastive Analysis of West German and Soviet Perceptions.” In Mediating Languages and Cultures: Towards an Intercultural Theory of Foreign Language Education, ed. Dieter Buttjes and Michael Byram. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Ervin-Tripp, S. M. 1973. Language Acquisition and Communicative Choice, ed. Anwar S. Dil. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Færch, C., and G. Kasper, eds. 1983. Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London: Longman. Fetterman, D. M. 1989. Ethnography: Step by Step. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications. Foley, William A. 1997. Anthropological Linguistics: An Introduction. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers. Foss, K., and A. Reitzel. 1988. “A Relational Model for Managing Second Language Anxiety.” TESOL Quarterly 22, 3:437–54. Fox, R., M. B. Luszki, and R. Schmuck. 1966. Diagnosing Classroom Learning Environments. Chicago: Science Research Associates. Freed, Barbara F. 1995. “What Makes Us Think that Students Who Study Abroad Become Fluent?” In Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context, ed. Barbara F. Freed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Freud, Sigmund. 1958. The Dynamics of Transference. Standard Edition. 1912. Reprint, London: Hogarth. Ganschow, Leonore, and Richard Sparks. 1996. “Anxiety about Foreign Language Learning among High School Women.” Modern Language Journal 80, 2:199–212. Gardner, R. C., and P. C. Smythe. 1974. Language Research Group National Test Battery. London, Ont.: University of Western Ontario. Gardner, R. C., R. Clément, P. C. Smythe, and C. L. Smythe. 1979. Attitudes and Motivation Test Battery – Revised Manual. Research Bulletin No. 15, Language Research Group, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario. Gardner, R. C., P. C. Smythe, R. Clément, and L. Gliksman. 1976. “Second-language Learning: A Social Psychological Perspective.” Canadian Modern Language Review 32:198–213. Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row. Goodwin, Crauford D., and Michael Nacht. 1988. Abroad and Beyond: Patterns in Overseas Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grosjean, Fran¸cois. 1982. Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Harder, Peter. 1980. “Discourse as Self-Expression – on the Reduced Personality of the Second-Language Learner.” Applied Linguistics 1, 3:262–70. Heckel, R. V., and J. M. Hiers. 1977. “Social Distance and Locus of Control.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 33, 2:469–71.

180

References

Heilbroner, Robert L. 1986. The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers. New York: Simon & Schuster. Heyde, A. 1979. “The Relationship between Self-esteem and the Oral Production of a Second Language.” Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Hoffman, Eva. 1989. Lost in Translation: A Life in a New Language. New York: Penguin Books. Hogg, Michael A. 1996. “Identity, Cognition, and Language in Intergroup Context.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 15, 3:372–84. Horwitz, Elaine K., Michael B. Horwitz, and Joann Cope. 1986. “Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety.” Modern Language Journal 70, 2:125–32. Jemmott, J. B., and E. Gonzalez. 1989. “Social Status, the Status Distribution, and Performance in Small Groups.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 19:584–98. Jensen, Annie Aarup. 1995. “Defining Intercultural Competence for the Adult Learner.” In Intercultural Competence. A New Challenge for Language Teachers and Trainers in Europe. Vol. II: The Adult Learner, ed. Annie Aarup Jensen, Kirsten Jæger, and Annette Lorentsen. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University. Jones, E. E., and V. A. Harris. 1967. “The Attribution of Attitudes.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 3:1–24. Kihlstrom, John F., and Stanley B. Klein. 1997. “Self-Knowledge and Self-Awareness.” In The Self Across Psychology: Self-Recognition, Self-Awareness, and the Self Concept, ed. Joan Gay Snodgrass and Robert L. Thompson. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. Kogan, Nathan, and Michael A. Wallach. 1967. “Risk Taking as a Function of the Situation, the Person, and the Group.” In New Directions in Psychology III. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Lalonde, R. N. 1982. “Second Language Acquisition: A Causal Analysis.” Master’s thesis, University of Western Ontario. Larsen, D. N., and W. A. Smalley. 1972. Becoming Bilingual: A Guide to Language Learning. New Canaan, Conn.: Practical Anthropology. Larsen-Freeman, D., and M. H. Long. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Longman. Leary, Mark R., J. B. Nezlek, D. Downs, J. Radford-Davenport, J. Martin, and A. McMullen. 1994. “Self Presentation in Everyday Interactions: Effects of Target Familiarity and Gender Composition.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67, 4:664–73. Leaver, Betty Lou. 1997. Teaching the Whole Class. 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press. Lee, James, and Bill van Patten. 1995. Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen. New York: McGraw-Hill. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Lemert, Charles, and Ann Branaman, eds. 1998. The Goffman Reader. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers. Leventhal, H. 1970. “Findings and Theory in the Study of Fear Communications.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. L. Berkowitz. New York: Academic Press. Liskin-Gasparro, Judith E. 1984. “The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines: Gateway to Testing and Curriculum.” Foreign Language Annals 17, 5:475–89.

References

181

MacIntyre, P. D., and Catherine Charos. 1996. “Personality, Attitudes, and Affect as Predictors of Second Language Communication.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 15, 1:3–26. MacIntyre, P. D., and R. C. Gardner. 1991a. “Methods and Results in the Study of Anxiety and Language Learning: A Review of the Literature.” Language Learning 41, 1:85–117. 1991b. “Language Anxiety: Its Relationship to Other Anxieties and to Processing in Native and Second Languages.” Language Learning 41, 4:513–34. Martin, Larry G. 1986. “Stigma: A Social Learning Perspective.” The Dilemma of Difference: A Multidisciplinary View of Stigma, ed. Stephen C. Ainlay, Gaylene Becker, and Lerita M. Coleman. New York: Plenum Press. May, Brett A. 1991. “The Interactions between Ratings of Self, Peers’ Perceptions, and Reflexive Self-Ratings.” Journal of Social Psychology 131, 4:483–93. McCroskey, James C., and Michael J. Beatty. 1998. “Communication Apprehension.” In Communication and Personality: Trait Perspectives, ed. James C. McCroskey et al. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. McCroskey, James C., and Virginia P. Richmond. 1998. “Willingness to Communicate.” In Communication and Personality: Trait Perspectives, ed. James C. McCroskey et al. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. McCroskey, James C., John A. Daly, Matthew M. Martin, and Michael J. Beatty, eds. 1998. Communication and Personality: Trait Perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. McGinnies, Elliott, and Charles D. Ward. 1974. “Persuasibility as a Function of Source Credibility and Locus of Control: Five Cross Cultural Experiments.” Journal of Personality 42, 3:360–71. Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. Reprint, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1962. Miller, Joan G. 1997. “Culture and the Self: Uncovering the Cultural Grounding of Psychological Theory.” In The Self Across Psychology: Self-Recognition, SelfAwareness, and the Self Concept, ed. Joan Gay Snodgrass and Robert L. Thompson. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. Miller, Peggy J. 1994. “Narrative Practices: Their Role in Socialization and SelfConstruction.” In The Remembering Self: Construction and Accuracy in the SelfNarrative, ed. Ulric Neisser and Robyn Fivush. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mills, J., and E. Aronson. 1965. “Opinion Change as a Function of Communicator’s Attractiveness and Desire to Influence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1:173–77. Mills, Margaret H. 1992. “Conventionalized Politeness in Russian Requests: A Pragmatic View of Indirectness.” Russian Linguistics 16:65–78. Naiman, N., M. Fröhlich, H. Stern, and A. Todesco. 1978. The Good Language Learner. Research in Education Series, No. 7. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Neisser, Ulric. 1997. “The Roots of Self-Knowledge: Perceiving Self, It, and Thou.” In The Self Across Psychology: Self-Recognition, Self-Awareness, and the Self Concept, ed. Joan Gay Snodgrass and Robert L. Thompson. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

182

References

Noels, Kimberly A., Luc G. Pelletier, Richard Clement, and Robert J. Vallerand. 2000. “Why Are You Learning a Second Language? Motivational Orientations and SelfDetermination Theory.” Language Learning 50, 1:57–85. Omaggio Hadley, Alice. 2001. Teaching Language in Context. 3rd edn. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. O’Malley, J. Michael, and Anna Uhl Chamot. 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, Rebecca L. 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. 1994. “Where Are We Regarding Language Learning Motivation?” Modern Language Journal 78, 4:512–14. Peirce, Bonny N., Merrill Swain, and Doug Hart. 1993. “Self-Assessment, French Immersion, and Locus of Control.” Applied Linguistics 14, 1:25–42. Pellegrino, V. A. 1994. “Conditions of Risk Management Behavior among Students during Study-Abroad: A Qualitative Analysis.” Master’s thesis, Bryn Mawr College. 1996. “Profile of a Study Abroad Group.” Unpublished data. 1998a. “Gender Choices.” Paper presented at Annual Conference of American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages, San Francisco. 1998b. “Student Perspectives on Language Learning in a Study Abroad Context.” In Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, ed. Barbara F. Freed, 91–120. Forthcoming. “The Measurement of Individual Learner Differences in the Second Language Acquisition Process: The Case of Resident Director Ratings.” In Language Gain and Study Abroad: Quantitative Studies, ed. D. Davidson and C. Marshall. Washington, DC: ACTR. Phillips, Elaine M. 1992. “The Effects of Language Anxiety on Students’ Oral Test Performance and Attitudes.” Modern Language Journal 76, 1:14–25. Pica, T. 1987. “Second Language Acquisition, Social Interaction in the Classroom.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6:69–78. Pittam, Jeffrey. 1999. “The Historical and Emergent Enactment of Identity in Language.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 32, 1 and 2:111–17. Plummer, D. 1976. “A Summary of a Foreign Language Learning Diary.” Unpublished manuscript, English Department (ESL Section), University of California, Los Angeles. Polanyi, Livia. 1995. “Language Learning and Living Abroad: Stories from the Field.” In Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context, ed. Barbara F. Freed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pozo, Christina, Charles S. Carver, Rodney A. Wellens, and Michael F. Scheier. 1991. “Social Anxiety and Social Perception: Construing Others’ Reactions to the Self.” Psychology and Social Psychology Bulletin 17, 4:355–62. Rotter, Julian B. 1966. “Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement.” Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 80, 1: Whole no. 609. Rubin, J. 1975. “What the ‘Good Language Learner’ Can Teach Us.” TESOL Quarterly 9:41–51.

References

183

Sacks, Oliver. 1990. The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and Other Clinical Tales. New York: Harper Perennial. 2000. Seeing Voices. New York: Vintage Books. Savignon, Sandra J. 1983. Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Schumann, J. H. 1975. “Affective Factors and the Problem of Age in Second Language Acquisition.” Language Learning 25, 1:209–35. Scovel, T. 1978. “The Effect of Affect on Foreign Language Learning: A Review of the Anxiety Research.” Language Learning 28:129–42. Sheldon, Kennon M., and Joel T. Johnson. 1993. “Forms of Social Awareness: Their Frequency and Correlates.” Psychology and Social Psychology Bulletin 19, 3:320– 30. Snodgrass, Joan Gay, and Robert L. Thompson, eds. 1997. The Self Across Psychology: Self-Recognition, Self-Awareness, and the Self Concept. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. Spitzberg, B. H., and W. R. Cupach. 1984. Interpersonal Communication Competence. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. Stansfield, Charles W. 1975. “Study Abroad and the First-Year Student.” System 3, 3:198–203. Stephan, Walter G., and Marina Abalakina-Paap. 1996. “Russia and the West: Intercultural Relations.” In Handbook of Intercultural Training, ed. Dan Landis and Rabi S. Bhagat. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Sussman, Rita. 1989. “Curiosity and Exploration in Children: Where Affect and Cognition Meet.” In Learning and Education: Psychoanalytic Perspectives, ed. Kay Field, Bertram J. Cohler, and Glorye Wool. Madison, Conn.: International Universities Press. Tanaka, Shigenori. 1982. “Interpersonal Communication Situations and Second Language Acquisition.” Psychologia 25:81–90. Tannen, Deborah. 1990. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine. Tarone, E. 1977. “Conscious Communication Strategies in Interlanguage: A Progress Report.” In On TESOL’77, ed. H. Brown et al. Washington, DC: TESOL. Tedeschi, James T. 1990. “Self-Presentation and Social Influence: An Interactionist Perspective.” In The Psychology of Tactical Communication, ed. Michael J. Cody and Margaret L. McLaughlin. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Van Ek, J. 1986. Objectives for Foreign Language Learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Walsh, Wendi A., and Mahzarin R. Banaji. 1997. “The Collective Self.” In The Self Across Psychology: Self-Recognition, Self-Awareness, and the Self Concept, ed. Joan Gay Snodgrass and Robert L. Thompson. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

184

References

Weaver, James B. III. 1998. “Personality and Self-Perceptions about Communication.” In Communication and Personality: Trait Perspectives, ed. James C. McCroskey et al. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. White, Cynthia. 1999. “Expectations and Emergent Beliefs of Self-Instructed Language Learners.” System, 27:443–57. Yates, J. F. 1992. Risk-Taking Behaviour. Chichester, England: Wiley. Young, D. J. 1991. “Creating a Low-Anxiety Classroom Environment: What Does Language Anxiety Research Suggest?” Modern Language Journal 75, 4:426–39.

Index

Abalakina-Paap, M. 42 Abe 93–94, 144, 174–75 affective orientation (AO) 121 age 5, 55, 72, 74–79 American Council of Teachers of Russian (ACTR) 2, 6, 10, 80, 84, 151 Andersen, S. 12, 15, 71, 106, 134 anxiety 10, 19, 21–25, 52, 54, 69–70, 87, 89, 96–98, 107, 117–18, 126, 135–36, 145, 149 debilitating 98, 118 facilitating 98, 118 foreign language 21–22, 52, 97 Aronson, E. 37, 67, 68, 73, 85, 90, 103, 105, 122, 129 attitudes 122, 130–31, 146 of learner 5, 19, 43, 86–91, 114–15, 119, 125–26, 129 of others 5, 15–16, 39, 56–71, 122, 124 attractiveness 37, 73–74 Bailey, K. 23, 24, 90, 96–98, 107, 108, 125, 139 Baron, R. 129 Beatty, M. 102 Behavior Modification Therapy 129 behaviors 5, 12, 19, 22, 38, 45, 56–71, 120, 122, 124 see also fight-flight behaviors Bentham, J. 26 Beth 17, 74–75, 77, 102, 170–71 bilingualism 12–14 Bob 6, 26, 38, 39, 46–49, 63, 67, 80, 87, 91, 96, 100–1, 103, 120, 123, 125, 127, 133, 139–40, 141–42, 159–61 Booth-Butterfield, M. 121 Booth-Butterfield, S. 121 Brecht, R. 2, 9 Brown, P. 18 Burck, C. 13 Byram, M. 15, 146, 147 Byrne, D. 105

Camille 6, 29, 30, 32, 43–45, 59, 67, 76, 77, 80, 83, 86, 87, 92, 101, 117, 161–62 caretakers 38, 45, 55, 56–86, 107, 115, 119, 149 Carlson, J. 9 Carroll, J. 1 Chaiken, S. 73 Chamot, A. 130, 135 code-switching 30 cognitive dissonance 60, 90, 118, 149 commonality 103–6 communicative goals 4, 25–30, 33, 41, 98, 115, 117, 118, 120, 124 comparison 66–71 competence communicative 5, 145–46 discourse 145 grammatical 145 identity 148 intercultural 5, 146–47 social 146 sociocultural 146 sociolinguistic 17, 145 strategic 145 competitiveness 96–98 compliance 37 compliments 62, 90, 96, 119 confidence 124 consequences (of L2 use) 87, 98, 102, 108, 115, 124, 126–29, 131, 132, 137, 151 control 4, 16, 19, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42–45, 48, 51, 52, 89, 115, 138 see also locus of control credibility 37 criticism 57–61 cultural frames 14, 33–60 culture 39, 42, 57, 148 differences in 57 and group membership 14, 57 and self 14 see also competence, intercultural

185

186

Index

culture stress 14 Cupach, W. 107 defensive practices 35 DeKeyser, R. 20 Dion, K. 73 Dörnyei, Z. 9, 20, 23, 57, 95 Eagly, A. 73 Ehrman, M. 9, 10, 20, 23, 24–25, 57, 89, 91, 95, 97, 107, 108 Ellis, R. 118 Ely, C. 21–22, 126, 153 empathy 70–71, 130, 133, 134, 146, 147 environment, choice of (as strategy) 140–42 effects of 15, 30, 118–21 see also social-environmental cues errors see mistakes Ertelt-Vieth, A. 14, 39, 42 Ervin-Tripp, S. 30 Færch, C. 135 familiarity 55, 73, 98–103 feedback 55–56, 57–65 felicitous calculus 26 fight-flight behaviors 5, 114–18 Foley, W. 91 Foss, K. 22, 89, 90, 107, 136, 149 Fox, R. 107 Freed, B. 1 Freud, S. 71 fundamental attribution error 68 Ganschow, L. 22, 117 Gardner, R. 21, 22 gender 5, 38, 72, 73, 79–86, 101 Gina 29, 34, 75–76, 81, 105, 171–72 Glaser, B. 151 Goffman, E. 12, 14, 35, 101 good language learner 20 Goodwin, C. 9 Grosjean, F. 13, 30 Grounded Theory Methodology 3, 150, 151–52 Harder, P. 18, 76 Harris, V. 68 Heyde, A. 89 Hoffman, E. 13 homestay 74, 99, 149, 151 Horwitz, E. 22, 23, 25 host family 43, 45, 59, 102, 149, 151 ideal self see self: real vs. ideal identification 37 individual learner differences 3, 20, 123

information exchange 28, 31, 32, 137 see also communicative goals interaction preparation 136–37 internalization 37 Jensen, A. 146 Jill 29, 34–35, 52, 77, 81, 168–69 Jim 6, 30, 31, 39–40, 42–43, 45, 61, 74, 81–82, 84, 87, 99–100, 125, 131–32, 162–63 Johnson, J. 70 jokes 115, 125 Jones, E. 68 Julie 54, 55, 79, 92, 172–73 Kasper, G. 135 Kathy 113–14, 123, 124–25, 175–76 Kihlstrom, J. 11 Klein, S. 11 Larsen, D. 14 Larsen-Freeman, D. 51, 107 leaders 32, 40, 94–95 learner-internal cues 5, 19, 55, 86–106, 114–24, 126 learning styles 3 Leary, M. 101–2 Leaver, B. 20 Leech, G. 18 Leventhal, H. 121 Levinson, S. 18 locus of control 121–24, 139 Long, M. 51, 107 MacIntyre, P. 22 Madeline 6, 27, 32, 49–51, 61–62, 63–64, 65–66, 67–68, 72–73, 77–78, 83, 92–93, 103–5, 126, 127–28, 136, 140–41, 142, 163–66 Malderez, A. 23 Mamie 9, 32, 74, 78, 84, 170 Martin, L. 66 May, B. 69 McCroskey, J. 20, 102 Mead, G. 68 Melinda 102, 174, 176 Mills, J. 18, 73 minimization of abilities and knowledge 137–40 mistakes 34, 35, 36, 41, 86, 87, 93 motivation 23, 31, 89, 114, 146 Nacht, M. 9 Naiman, N. 51 National Foreign Language Center (NFLC) 2, 10

Index obscenities see swearing O’Malley, J. M. 130, 135 Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) 6, 10, 152, 158, 163 Oxford, R. 135 pedagogical techniques 145–46, 148–49 Peirce, B. 90, 123 Pellegrino, V. 20, 71 perception 11, 14, 15, 16, 26, 38, 39, 42, 46, 55, 64, 68–71, 82, 90, 107, 122, 126 persona 71–72, 120, 139 Phillips, E. 25, 89 physical appearance 5, 49, 51, 72–74 Pica, T. 85 Polanyi, L. 84 politeness 39, 91 power 16, 37, 76 Pozo, C. 69 prediction 5, 11, 98–106, 115, 119, 129 proficiency 20, 21, 90, 124–26 see also Oral Proficiency Interview protective practices 35 qualitative research 150, 151–52 race 51, 65–66, 83 Rational Emotive Therapy 136, 149 rationalization 131–34 real self see self: real vs. ideal Reanna 6, 28, 29–30, 31–32, 40, 46, 62, 65, 83, 87, 88, 91, 93–94, 116, 121, 133–34, 166–67 Rebeccah 6, 28, 32–33, 40–41, 57–61, 62, 64–65, 73, 82–83, 88, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 108–12, 115–17, 120, 121, 126–27, 130–31, 132–33, 137, 138, 139, 167–68 Reitzel, A. 22, 89, 90, 107, 136, 149 resident directors 41 risks 18, 115 risk-taking 19–21, 25–26, 28, 38, 46, 48, 89, 99, 114 Robinson, J. 9 Roslyn 138, 176 Rotter, J. 122 Sacks, O. 13, 14 safety 4, 19, 35, 36–37, 38, 48–51, 52, 85, 115 Savignon, S. 145 savoirs 15, 146 second language practice 29–30 see also communicative goals security, sense of 7, 10, 11, 18, 19, 23, 25, 35, 37, 51, 52, 53, 115, 118–24, 125, 129 self 10, 11–21, 33, 55, 118 definition of 11–16

187 real vs. ideal 4, 15–16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 35, 36, 41, 46, 51, 95, 124 risks to 18 self-comparison 40, 41, 46, 91–98 self-concept 11 self-confidence 146 self-consciousness 21, 33 self-construction 10, 54, 144 self-determination theory 31 self-efficacy 88–90, 119, 125 self-esteem 15, 16, 24, 25, 66, 71, 88–91, 107, 119, 121–22 self-fulfilling prophecy 69 self-identity 147 self-image 2, 4, 17, 35, 46, 118 self-perception 25, 69–71 self-presentation 3, 5, 8, 16, 18, 25, 53, 114, 118, 125 self-talk 130–36 see also strategies sex see gender Sheldon, K. 70 slang 84, 125 Smalley, W. 14 Snodgrass, J. 11 social distance 4, 18, 36–37, 46–51 social hierarchy 4, 18, 36, 38–45 social influence 16 Social Learning Theory 122 social networking 28–29, 31, 32, 41, 46 see also communicative goals social-environmental cues 5, 19, 55, 114–24 Sparks, R. 22, 118 speech acts 35 Spitzberg, B. 107 Stansfield, C. 1 status 4, 19, 35, 36, 37, 38–41, 46, 48, 52, 60, 85, 115, 116, 117, 138 Stephan, W. 42 stereotypes 66, 67, 79–80 stigmatization 66, 146–47, 149 strangers 49, 51, 72–73, 99, 102–10, 126–27 strategies 151 achievement 115, 135 avoidance 115, 127 communication 114, 134, 135 for self-presentation 5, 19, 124, 130–36 language learning 134–36 reduction 115, 135 Strauss, A. 3, 151 study abroad 9–10 Susan 54, 55, 78, 172 swearing 49, 51, 115 Tammy 81, 173–74 Tanaka, S. 106

188

Index

Tannen, D. 85 Tedeschi, J. 15, 16 tolerance of ambiguity 51–52 transference 71, 106 validation 4, 19, 35, 36–37, 38, 46–48, 52, 60, 85, 115, 116 Van Ek, J. 146

White, C. 123 willingness to communicate 20 to speak 20, 40 to take risks 89, 114 word-coinage 88 Young, D. 22, 136

Study Abroad and Second Language Use: Constructing the Self

Study Abroad and Second Language Use: Constructing the Self

Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts (Second Language Acquisition)

Language in Use Pre-Intermediate New Edition Self-study workbook

Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (Second Language Acquisition)

Language Learning and Study Abroad: A Critical Reading of Research

First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning

Intercultural Journeys: From Study to Residence Abroad (Language and Globalization)

Phonology and Language Use

Measuring Second Language Performance (Applied Linguistics and Language Study)

Second Language Learning: Theoretical Foundations (Applied Linguistics and Language Study)

The Language Poets Use

The Acquisition of Sociolinguistic Competence in a Study Abroad Context (Second Language Acquisition)

The Therapist's Use of Self

Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning

Interlanguage Pragmatic Development: The Study Abroad Context

Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning

Advancing Social Studies Education through Self-Study Methodology: The Power, Promise, and Use of Self-Study in Social Studies Education (Self Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices)

The Study of Language

Second Language Acquisition (Oxford Introduction to Language Study)

The Korean Language: Structure, Use and Context

Telicity in the Second Language (Language Acquisition and Language Disorders)

The Study of Second Language Acquisition (Oxford Applied Linguistics)

Second Language Acquisition and Language Pedagogy

Abroad

The Study of Second Language Acquisition (Oxford Applied Linguistics)

New Ethnicities and Language Use (Language and Globalization)

New Ethnicities and Language Use (Language and Globalization)

Unity and Diversity in Language Use

Conversational realities: constructing life through language

Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use

Study Abroad and Second Language Use: Constructing the Self