University of Iowa Iowa Research Online Theses and Dissertations Summer 2013 Portraits of second language learners: agency, identities, and second language learning Chie Muramatsu University of Iowa Copyright 2013 Chie Muramatsu This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/4885 Recommended Citation Muramatsu, Chie. "Portraits of second language learners: agency, identities, and second language learning." PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) thesis, University of Iowa, 2013. http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/4885. Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd Part of the First and Second Language Acquisition Commons PORTRAITS OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS: AGENCY, IDENTITIES, AND SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING by Chie Muramatsu A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Second Language Acquisition in the Graduate College of The University of Iowa August 2013 Thesis Supervisors: Professor Yukiko A. Hatasa Associate Professor Judith E. Liskin-Gasparro Copyright by CHIE MURAMATSU 2013 All Rights Reserved Graduate College The University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL _______________________ PH.D. THESIS _______________ This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of Chie Muramatsu has been approved by the Examining Committee for the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Second Language Acquisition at the August 2013 graduation. Thesis Committee: ______________________________________ Yukiko A. Hatasa, Thesis Supervisor ______________________________________ Judith E. Liskin-Gasparro, Thesis Supervisor ______________________________________ Sue E. K. Otto ______________________________________ Carol Severino ______________________________________ Bonnie S. Sunstein To my parents and in memory of my grandmother ii Ultimately, every language learner is alone with a unique experience, an experience tailored to, by and for that individual. Livia Polanyi Language learning and living abroad: Stories from field iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation would not have been completed without supports from a number of people. First and foremost, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my dissertation directors, Professors Yukiko Hatasa and Judith Liskin-Gasparro, who guided me from the beginning to the end of my dissertation study. When I first came to the University of Iowa, I was a graduate student in the master’s program in Japanese language pedagogy, where I met Professor Hatasa. She opened my eyes to Japanese language teaching and taught me what it means to become and be a Japanese language teacher. After teaching Japanese at a liberal arts college for five years, I came back to the University of Iowa in 2006 as a doctoral student in second language acquisition, where I met Professor Liskin-Gasparro. She welcomed me to the Foreign Language Acquisition Research and Education (FLARE) and introduced me to the field of second language acquisition research. I am privileged and humbled by her dedication and devotion to the FLARE program and its students. Professors Hatasa and Liskin-Gasparro are my true inspirations, mentors, and the very reasons who and what I am today. I will never forget the time I spent at the University of Iowa, and I am proud to be a member of FLARE. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Professors Bonnie Sunstein and Carol Severino, the two most amazing writing teachers I have ever known. Professor Sunstein opened the door to the world of ethnographic methods and writing for me. She taught me what it means to be a field researcher and reminded me of the joy of composing text. Her words of encouragement and professional advice sustained me throughout this dissertation project and remain a valuable asset in my life. She did not have any doubt that I could carry out this dissertation study even when I thought I could not. I am sincerely grateful for her faith in me. Professor Severino generously provided me with variable comments and suggestions from her indepth knowledge of research on iv writing. Her insights and perspectives helped me deepen my analyses of the data. I am truly thankful to her. I am also thankful for Professor Sue Otto for her continuous support for my life as well as my dissertation. I have never met anyone like her, who always looks at the best qualities of students, encourages them to pursue their goals, and provides help when needed. She is my mentor and role model as an educator. Aside from my committee members, I would like to thank Professors James Pusack and Kathy Heilenman, who both passed away during my graduate study, for being so important in my academic life at the University of Iowa. I am truly sorry that I am not able to thank them in person. Their guidance, their spirits, and my memories of them will remain with me for the rest of my life. My dissertation study could not have been completed without the supports of the Greenville Summer Language Schools. First of all, I would like to thank Dr. McDowell, the vice President for Language Schools, Schools Abroad, and Graduate Program at Greenville College and Dr. Kitano, the director of the Japanese School, for allowing me to conduct the data collection for this dissertation study. Dr. Kitano generously provided all the support I needed to collect the data from the beginning of this dissertation project. I would also like to thank Miyamoto-sensei, Ishida-sensei, and Noda-sensei for allowing me to observe their classrooms. Miyamoto-sensei kindly opened his course for my data collection and helped me in every way to collect data. I regret that the need for anonymity prevents me from thanking the people from Greenville using their real names. Furthermore, my data collection would not have been possible without the study’s participants. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my focal students, Parker, Alison, Naiya, and Danielle, whose names regrettably cannot be revealed, for sharing their time with me, patiently explaining their perspectives, and helping me understand what it meant to learn Japanese at Greenville in the summer of 2010. I am sincerely thankful for the opportunity to step into their world of learning Japanese. I would also v the instructors, staff, and students in the Japanese School for making my data collection possible. During my graduate study at the University of Iowa, I met a number of wonderful people with whom I shared the same passion for teaching and studying. It was my true privilege to get to know them and call them friends. I thank all my friends for helping me during this dissertation project. Finally, my sincere gratitude goes to my parents and late grandmother, who taught me the value of diligence, patience, and persistence and encouraged me to work hard to pursue my goals in life. I would like to dedicate this dissertation to them with my deepest gratitude and appreciation. I would also like to thank my partner, Steve, who, in a sense, accompanied me on this dissertation journey. Thanks to his unwavering support, I have been able to complete this dissertation project. vi ABSTRACT This study is a qualitative examination of second language (L2) learning processes by four advanced learners of Japanese in the community of a summer intensive full-immersion program in the United States. Using L2 socialization theory as a theoretical framework, this study conceives of L2 learning as a process of social participation in a community of practice and examines L2 learning processes by four learners, focusing on the dynamic interplay between the affordances of the social community and the agency of the individual learners. The purpose of this study is twofold: (a) It investigates the ways in which the four learners exercise their agency to pursue their goals of learning Japanese and (b) it documents how the different ways in which the four learners exercise agency form different trajectories of learning and create different experiences of L2 socialization. This study has adopted an ethnographic case study approach to the investigation of research inquiries. Through the analyses of data obtained from multiple sources, including interviews with the four learners, observations of their engagement in the community of practice of the summer intensive full-immersion program, their audiorecorded conversations with other members of the community, and various artifacts, this study explores the role of L2 learner agency in the process of L2 socialization and describes in depth their experiences of learning Japanese from their emic perspectives. The case studies of the four learners have highlighted the different ways in which they engaged in the community of practice, understood their tasks of learning Japanese, interpreted the affordances of the social community, negotiated the meaning of their participations, defined and redefined their sense of self, and eventually achieved their L2 learning goals. The findings suggest that the richness and effectiveness of a social environment are not characterized by the physical and academic affordances of a social community vii alone; rather they are constructed in a dynamic relation between the affordance structure of a social community and the L2 learners’ agency in the pursuit of the joint enterprise of making L2 learning happen. With regard to the role of L2 learner agency, the study has foregrounded the important role of the aspirations of the four L2 learners for personal transformation and negotiation of the meaning of self of the past, the present, and the future. The findings suggest that L2 learners’ diverse and complex social and personal desires for learning an L2 may not be able to be explained using the notion of investment (Norton, 1995, 2000) alone. Since the SLA debate initiated by Firth and Wagner (1997, 2007), SLA research has begun to reconceptualize L2 learners as socially situated beings with diverse needs, wants, and identities. This study presents four portraits of L2 learners who engaged in the enterprise of learning Japanese, as a means of contributing to this reconceptualization, and explores for these four learners what it meant to learn Japanese in the summer of 2010. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................xiii LIST OF EXCERPTS ...................................................................................................... xiv CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1! Purpose of the present study ............................................................................ 5! Organization of the remaining chapters ........................................................... 6! CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................................ 8! Introduction...................................................................................................... 8! Language socialization .................................................................................... 8! Aim, scope, and historical development................................................... 8! Language socialization in multilingual contexts .................................... 11! Second language socialization ....................................................................... 14! How L2 learners learn an L2 .................................................................. 14! What is learned through learning an L2 ................................................. 17! Summary................................................................................................. 22! Community of practice ........................................................................... 23! Community of practice as a theory ......................................................... 23! Premise ............................................................................................ 24! Community ...................................................................................... 24! Legitimate peripheral participation: Affordance of opportunity for learning ...................................................................................... 25! Trajectories: Peripherality and marginality ..................................... 26! Nexus of multimembership ............................................................. 27! Community of practice-oriented research .............................................. 28! L2 socialization into a L2 classroom community ........................... 28! L2 socialization into a local community ......................................... 34! Summary: Community of practice-oriented research ..................... 40! Multidirectionality and agency in language socialization ............................. 42! Multidirectionality in language socialization ......................................... 42! Locating agency in L2 socialization research......................................... 43! Agency in SLA research ......................................................................... 44! Identity and investment ................................................................... 45! Agency, identity, and investment .................................................... 48! Agency in L2 socialization research....................................................... 50! Resistance ........................................................................................ 51! Non-participation............................................................................. 51! Summary of this chapter: What is known and what is not known ................ 52! Present study .................................................................................................. 56! Research questions......................................................................................... 58! CHAPTER III: METHODS .............................................................................................. 59! Introduction.................................................................................................... 59! Research site .................................................................................................. 59! Staff of the Japanese School ................................................................... 60! ix Director ................................................................................................... 63! Curriculum .............................................................................................. 65! Level 4 course (Intermediate II course).................................................. 67! Focal students ................................................................................................ 68! Ethnographic case studies .............................................................................. 70! Fundamental principles of ethnographic case studies ............................ 70! Ethnographic writing .............................................................................. 72! Positioning as a researcher and a writer ................................................. 74! Researcher...................................................................................................... 75! Researcher’s bias .................................................................................... 76! I am a Japanese language teacher .................................................... 76! Japanese School at Greenville College ........................................... 79! I am an L2 learner ........................................................................... 80! Researcher’s role .................................................................................... 82! Data ................................................................................................................ 85! Data sources and collection .................................................................... 85! Data analysis ........................................................................................... 87! CHAPTER IV: COMMUNITY ........................................................................................ 90! Introduction.................................................................................................... 90! What is Greenville? Its historical, social, cultural, and academic contexts .......................................................................................................... 90! Greenville College .................................................................................. 92! Coexistence of old and new............................................................. 92! Environmental stewardship ............................................................. 94! Greenville College: History, tradition, and modernity .................... 95! Summer Language Schools .................................................................... 96! The Language Pledge ...................................................................... 97! Miracle............................................................................................. 99! Japanese School as a community of practice ....................................... 101! The geographical boundary: Greenough Hall ...................................... 102! Practice: Mutual engagement, a joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire............................................................................................... 104! Legitimate peripheral participation: Peripherality and legitimacy ....... 110! Peripherality .................................................................................. 110! Legitimacy ..................................................................................... 112! Summary ...................................................................................................... 115! Overview of subsequent chapters ................................................................ 115! CHAPTER V: PARKER: LOST OPPORTUNITIES, RECONNECTION, AND TRANSFORMATION ................................................................................ 117 Beginning ..................................................................................................... 117! Engagement ................................................................................................. 117! Energetic student .................................................................................. 117! Finding his place................................................................................... 119! A frat boy who wants to speak Japanese .............................................. 121! Gambaru ‘Work hard’ .......................................................................... 123! Languaging ........................................................................................... 125! Pursuit of authenticity........................................................................... 137! Transforming ............................................................................................... 145! This is my second chance ..................................................................... 145! Becoming a speaker of Japanese .......................................................... 152! x Discussion .................................................................................................... 157! CHAPTER VI: ALISON: SHAME, RESISTANCE, AND OVERCOMING ............... 163! Beginning ..................................................................................................... 163! Engagement ................................................................................................. 165! I cannot speak Japanese ........................................................................ 165! Why did I come here?........................................................................... 169! Routine ................................................................................................. 172! Resistance ............................................................................................. 173! Mass phenomenon ......................................................................... 173! Cultural hegemony ........................................................................ 179! Avoidance ............................................................................................. 183! Facing .......................................................................................................... 193! Speaking is my problem ....................................................................... 193! Facing the problem ............................................................................... 196! Overcoming ................................................................................................. 196! Clicking ................................................................................................ 196! Speaking ............................................................................................... 198! Discussion .................................................................................................... 205! CHAPTER VII: NAIYA: SEPARATION, RESISTANCE, AND SELF– ACCOMPLISHMENT ................................................................................ 209! Beginning ..................................................................................................... 209! Engagement ................................................................................................. 210! Between two worlds ............................................................................. 211! Life is a process .................................................................................... 213! Roots.............................................................................................. 214! Pursuit of interest .......................................................................... 216! Separation ............................................................................................. 219! Resistance ............................................................................................. 225! Embarrassment .............................................................................. 225! Silence ........................................................................................... 228! Japanese is only an obstacle ................................................................. 250! Accomplishment .......................................................................................... 254! Discussion .................................................................................................... 257! CHAPTER VIII: DANIELLE: IDENTITIES, AMBIVALENCE, AND TRANSFORMATION ................................................................................ 262! Beginning ..................................................................................................... 262! Engagement ................................................................................................. 264! Becoming a Japanese language student ................................................ 264! Positioning ............................................................................................ 268! I am the oldest student ................................................................... 268! I am a teacher ................................................................................ 280! Struggle................................................................................................. 288! Becoming a teacher of Japanese .................................................................. 293! Discussion .................................................................................................... 297! CHAPTER IX: CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 301! Introduction.................................................................................................. 301! xi What can we learn from the studies of the four learners? ........................... 301! Role of social contexts in L2 learning .................................................. 301! Locating agency in SLA research......................................................... 304! Agency and investment revisited .................................................. 304! Individual differences revisited ..................................................... 306! Implications for pedagogy ........................................................................... 310! Limitations of the present study .................................................................. 312! Directions for future research ...................................................................... 313! Two and a half years after the summer of 2010 .......................................... 315! APPENDIX: TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS ...................................................... 317! REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 318! xii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Staff of the Japanese School................................................................................61 Table 2 Total hours of audio-recorded conversations by the focal students......................87 xiii LIST OF EXCERPTS Excerpt 1 Seminar room conversation. P: Parker; EV: Eva (level 4)...................... 128! Excerpt 2 Seminar room conversation. EV: Eva; P: Parker; JN: Jen (level 3) ....... 129! Excerpt 3 Seminar room conversation. JN: Jen; P: Parker; SL: Sally (level 5); S?: Unidentified student; SS: Multiple students ..................................... 132! Excerpt 4 Seminar room conversation. TN: Tuan (level 3); P: Parker; S?: Unidentified student; B: Ben (level 3) .................................................... 135! Excerpt 5 Conversation on the way to the library. TN: Tuan; P: Parker; JN: Jen .. 140! Excerpt 6 Lunch conversation. I: Instructor; P: Parker ........................................... 142! Excerpt 7 Conversation at a party. H: Hua (level 5); P: Parker .............................. 148! Excerpt 8 Interview. A: Alison; R: Researcher ....................................................... 179! Excerpt 9 Interview. A: Alison; R: Researcher ....................................................... 182! Excerpt 10 Interview. R: Researcher; A: Alison ....................................................... 184! Excerpt 11 Lunch conversation. A: Alison; NC: Nicole (level 2); K: Ken (level 1); E: Ellen (a student in IT course) ........................................................ 187! Excerpt 12 Lunch conversation. NC: Nicole; I: Instructor; A: Alison; I2: Intern..... 190! Excerpt 13 Interview. R: Researcher; A: Alison ....................................................... 193! Excerpt 14 Interview. A: Alison; R: Researcher ....................................................... 198! Excerpt 15 Lunch conversation. A: Alison; P: Pablo (level 4); K: Kris (level 2); I1: Level 4 instructor; I2: Level 4 instructor; NC: Nicole (level 2) ........ 199! Excerpt 16 Conversation during Miyamoto-sensei’s office hour. M: Miyamotosensei; A: Alison ..................................................................................... 204! Excerpt 17 Interview. N: Naiya; R: Researcher ........................................................ 220! Excerpt 18 Interview. N: Naiya; R: Researcher ........................................................ 223! Excerpt 19 Interview. N: Naiya; R: Researcher ........................................................ 225! Excerpt 20 Lunch conversation. N: Naiya; K: Kevin (level 2); JN: Jen (level 3); A: Alice (level 4); L: Latasia (level 3) .................................................... 230! Excerpt 21 Lunch conversation (cont.). N: Naiya; L: Latasia; K: Kevin; A: Alice ........................................................................................................ 231 Excerpt 22 Lunch conversation (cont.). L: Latasia; N: Naiya; S: Scott (level 2) ..... 233! xiv Excerpt 23 Lunch conversation. N: Naiya; M: Mark (level 4); B: Brian (level 2); I: Instructor; IT: IT instructor ............................................................ 236! Excerpt 24 Lunch conversation (cont.). I: Instructor; B: Brian; N: Naiya; IT: IT instructor ................................................................................................. 239! Excerpt 25 Lunch conversation. N: Naiya; NK: Nick; S: Scott; I: Instructor ........... 242! Excerpt 26 Lunch conversation (cont.). I: Instructor; S: Scott; N: Naiya ................. 244 Excerpt 27 Dinner conversation. D: Director; L: Luke (level 2); N: Naiya; S2: Sunny (level 2) ........................................................................................ 247! Excerpt 28 Interview. N: Naiya; R: Researcher ........................................................ 250! Excerpt 29 Lunch conversation. N: Naiya; S: Scott (level 2); NK: Nick (level 4); Y: Yan (level 4) ................................................................................. 253! Excerpt 30 Lunch conversation. D: Danielle; P: Pablo (level 4); K: Kelli (level 4); EV: Eva (level 4) ............................................................................... 271! Excerpt 31 Breakfast conversation. D: Danielle; P: Pablo ........................................ 273! Excerpt 32 Conversation at the farmers’ market. D: Danielle; W: Female vendor at a cookie stand ...................................................................................... 274! Excerpt 33 Lunch conversation. J: Jennifer (level 2); D: Danielle; I: Ishidasensei (level 4 instructor) ........................................................................ 275! Excerpt 34 Breakfast conversation: J: Jennifer (level 2); D: Danielle; I: Instructor ................................................................................................. 278! Excerpt 35 Conversation in a classroom. D: Danielle; I: Instructor; NK: Nick ........ 283! Excerpt 36 Conversation after the rakugokai. D: Danielle; R: Researcher............... 286! Excerpt 37 Lunch conversation: D: Danielle ............................................................ 287! Excerpt 38 Interview. D: Danielle; R: Researcher .................................................... 289! Excerpt 39 Conversation in the level 4 instructors’ office. D: Danielle; I: Ishidasensei ....................................................................................................... 291! xv 1 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION Introduction As early as the beginning of the twentieth century, anthropologists such as Boas (1911) and Malinowski (1994)1 recognized the importance of local context in understanding a language. They argued that “language is essentially rooted in the reality of the culture, the tribal life and custom of a people,” and therefore, it cannot be understood “without constant reference to these broader contexts of verbal utterance” (Malinowski, 1994, p. 5). Their arguments influenced the formulation of subsequent theories of language and culture, including the ethnography of communication proposed by Gumperz and Hymes (1964, 1972). These later theories argue that each cultural group presets norms and rules of communication in its unique way, and such norms and rules are reflective of the social, cultural, historical, and ideological values of the group’s speech community. Therefore, the acquisition of language involves not only the acquisition of linguistic competence but also the acquisition of sociocultural competence, which is a speaker’s ability to use a language in socially and culturally appropriate ways (Hymes, 1972). The proposal of ethnography of communication has inspired researchers in various disciplines, including the field of second language acquisition (SLA). To gain a better understanding of how people learn a second language (L2), SLA researchers have investigated the process of L2 learning in its relationship to wider sociocultural contexts. This body of research has been conducted in the framework of L2 socialization. L2 socialization theory views L2 learning as a socially situated activity in a local community of practice. In light of L2 socialization, L2 learning is defined as a “process 1 The original publication appeared in B. Malinowski, “The problem of meaning in primitive languages,” in C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The Meaning of Meaning (pp. 146-152). London: Routledge, 1923. 2 by which novices or newcomers in a community or culture gain communicative competence, membership, and legitimacy in the group” (Duff, 2007, p. 310). From this perspective, L2 learning can be understood as a process of social participation in a community of practice (Duff & Talmy, 2011; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Norton & McKenny, 2011; Wenger 1998). As they learn to participate, L2 learners learn to appropriate a language in accordance with the sociocultural norms of a target language community, adopt normative practices, construct identity, and establish themselves as competent members of the community (Garrett & Baquedano-López, 2002). In L2 socialization studies, there are two primary areas of research: (a) examination of L2 learning in relation to the sociocultural values and norms of a target language and community and (b) examination of the role of social community in learning an L2. With respect to the former, previous studies have investigated how L2 learners acquire the social meaning of a particular linguistic sign in an L2 (Cook, 2011), how L2 learners acquire interactional competence in a target language (Kanagy, 1999; Ohta, 1999), and what sociocultural values, practices, and ideologies learners are socialized into through learning an L2 or additional language (Cook, 2006; Duff, 1995, 1996; DuFon, 2006; Fader, 2011; Friedman, 2009; Iino, 1996, 2006; Moore, 2006; Poole, 1992). With respect to the second area of research, previous studies have investigated how social communities afford (or do not afford) opportunities for learning for L2 learners. This line of research can be further divided into two types: (a) classroom-based studies (Atkinson; 2003; Duff, 2002, 2004; Harklau 2000; He, 2003, 2004; Miller & Zuengler, 2011; Morita, 2002, 2004; Talmy 2008; Willett, 1995) and (b) communitybased studies (e.g., Kinginger, 2004; Li, 2000; Norton, 2000; Polanyi, 1995; Siegal, 1995, 1996; Talburt & Stewart, 1999). The majority of the studies, regardless of the contexts of L2 learning, have shown that L2 learners are caught in the inequitable power relations of dominant communities, and their learning opportunities are severely hindered. 3 Although previous L2 socialization studies have uncovered various issues involved in L2 learning, what is not yet known is how L2 learners learn an L2 when social power relations do not constrain their L2 learning processes. Future studies need to examine how social communities afford learning opportunities for L2 learners, how L2 learners use the resources and opportunities made available to them, and how they become speakers of the language. Moreover, most previous studies have focused on L2 socialization either by a single learner or by a group of L2 learners as a whole. In the latter case, researchers have treated L2 learners as homogeneous groups, such as newcomers to communities or oldtimer ESL students. Consequently, the studies have lacked an individualized view of the L2 learning process (i.e., the different ways in which L2 learners are socialized into a target language community). Previous studies that focused on L2 socialization by individual learners have highlighted different ways in which L2 learners engaged themselves in the process of learning an L2 (Cook, 2006; Morita, 2002, 2004; Norton, 2000; Polanyi, 1995; Siegal, 1995, 1996). These studies have foregrounded the importance of conceptualizing L2 learners as “intentional human agents” (Dewaele, 2009, p. 638). L2 learners are not “uniform recipients of socialization” (He, 2003, p. 128) but are rather “agents in the formation of competence” (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011, p. 6) who “play a defining role in shaping the qualities of their learning” (Dewaele, 2009, p. 638). L2 learners do not passively emulate the normative practices of target language communities or accept undesirable social values and positions imposed on them; instead, they negotiate, resist, and ultimately shape their learning processes and experiences. The reconceptualization of L2 learners in SLA research has been called for by Firth and Wagner (1997, 2007). In their argument, Firth and Wagner criticized the uniform and inorganic representation of L2 learners in SLA research and emphasized the 4 need to enlarge our understanding of L2 learners as socially situated beings. Thorne and Black (2007) summarize Firth and Wagner’s point this way: In particular, they [Firth and Wagner] pointed out the issue of the representationally anemic research constructs that are used as proxy identities for human agents engaged in situated activity. Firth and Wagner (1997) succinctly described the problem as a “general preoccupation with the learner, at the expense of other potentially relevant social identities.” (p. 288) Current language socialization theories tend to view language socialization as a uniform linear process of emulation by focusing on the role of the experts who provide scaffolding for novices and guide them to become competent speakers of the language and successful members of the community (Haneda, 2006). Consequently, they lack the view that L2 learners are human agents who form their competence (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011) and “play a defining role in shaping the qualities of their learning” (Dewaele, 2009, p. 638). Thus, future L2 socialization research needs to adopt a more individualized approach to the examination of L2 socialization. L2 learner agency has become an important theoretical concept in SLA (Duff, 2012; Kinginger, 2004; Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001), particularly after the debate initiated by Firth and Wagner (1997). Yet, to date, no study has made L2 learner agency its central focus. In the current SLA literature, agency tends to be treated as an umbrella term of identity and investment associated with Norton (2000). Although the notion of investment well describes the socially situated nature of L2 learners’ desire to learn an L2, Kinginger’s (2004) study has suggested that L2 learners’ drive to learn an L2 cannot be explained by the concept of investment alone. The notion of investment may be able to capture the force for learning an L2 by certain types of L2 learners who are situated in certain social contexts; however, it may not be comprehensive enough to capture the force for learning an L2 by different types of L2 learners who are situated in different social contexts and construct diverse social identities. Hence, further research needs to examine the role of agency independently from the notion of investment. 5 In sum, although previous L2 socialization studies have provided various fruitful findings for the field, what they have not yet examined is the complex and individualistic process by which L2 learners exercise their agency to form their learning processes and experiences. The present study aims to fill the gap in the current L2 socialization research addressed above. Purpose of the present study The present study examines the processes of L2 learning by four advanced L2 learners of Japanese in the environment of a summer intensive full-immersion program in the United States. This study proceeds from two premises: (a) L2 learners are “intentional human agents” (Dewaele, 2009, p. 638) who actively engage in shaping their learning processes and (b) L2 socialization is a dynamic interactional process between L2 learners and social contexts. Based on these premises, this study examines the ways in which the four advanced L2 Japanese learners exercise their agency in pursuing their goals of learning Japanese by making deliberate choices, accepting or resisting, conforming or refusing, positioning themselves in certain ways, and eventually taking ownership of their L2 learning. Another goal of the study is to document how the different ways in which the four L2 learners exercise agency in learning Japanese form different trajectories of learning and create different experiences of L2 socialization during the nine-week summer program. The overarching research questions of this study are: (1) How do the four advanced L2 learners of Japanese exercise their agency in learning Japanese in a community of the summer intensive full-immersion program? (2) How do the different ways in which the four learners exercise their agency in learning Japanese lead to different trajectories of learning and result in diverse experiences of L2 socialization? 6 The first question focuses on the negotiation of meaning by the four learners in a new community. It documents and examines the ways in which the four learners understand the new world surrounding them, view themselves in the new social context, define the task of learning Japanese, relate to other members, and engage themselves in the community of practice. The second question examines how the different ways in which they exercise their agency form different learning processes and create different experiences of socialization both during the program and at the end. The term outcome is used to describe the result of individual learners’ negotiation of agency in the community to achieve learning goals—what they gain as a result of socialization through participation in a new community of practice. Organization of the remaining chapters Apart from this introduction, this dissertation consists of eight chapters that set out to explore and answer the questions that motivate this study. Chapter 2 begins with a historical overview of language socialization. I describe the aim, scope, and fundamental premise of language socialization theory and research. Then I describe the theory of L2 socialization and review the findings of previous studies. Following the literature review, I move into the specific issues related to L2 socialization research. Then I identify areas that still need to be investigated. At the end of the chapter, I describe the purpose of the study. Chapter 3 describes the methods used in this study. I first introduce the language program by describing the members of the program, the curriculum, and the language course in which the focal students of this study were enrolled. Then I describe my positioning as a researcher and a writer who has employed the ethnographic case study design, and I acknowledge personal biases that may affect the way I see and interpret the data. I next describe my role as the researcher in the research site, and I go on to explain the procedures for data selection, collection, and analysis. While explaining these 7 procedures, I also delineate the efforts that were made to establish the trustworthiness of the study. Chapter 4 describes and analyzes the social context. Applying the notion of community, I first describe the wider historical, social and, academic contexts of the research site and then move into a description of the more specific community of practice in which the present study was conducted. Followed this description, I analyze the community in terms of legitimacy and peripherality. Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 present the case studies of the four focal students: Parker (Chapter 5), Alison (Chapter 6), Naiya (Chapter 7), and Danielle (Chapter 8)2. The chapters highlight the different ways in which the four focal students engaged in a community of practice, negotiated the meaning of their participation, reconstructed their sense of self, and shaped their learning processes. The chapters also describe how the different ways in which these learners exercise their agency shape different trajectories of learning and create different experiences of socialization. Finally, Chapter 9 presents the conclusion of the study and discusses the implications for pedagogy and future research. 2 All proper nouns used in this study are pseudonyms except the University of Iowa and the researcher’s name. 8 CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Beginning with the historical overview of language socialization, this chapter describes the fundamental tenets and assumptions of language socialization theory and research. Then it moves to the theory of second language (L2) socialization and reviews the findings of previous studies conducted in the framework of L2 socialization. In doing so, it moves on to more specific areas of investigation by identifying the issues that have been raised by previous L2 socialization research. Finally, the focus of the study is discussed. Language socialization This section overviews the theory of language socialization originally proposed in the field of linguistic anthropology. I first discuss the aim, scope, and historical development of language socialization theory and research. Then I review the previous studies conducted in multilingual contexts. Aim, scope, and historical development Language socialization theory and research fundamentally concern two questions: (a) how people learn a language and (b) what it means to learn a language. Historically, studies on language socialization began with the inquiry into how children learn their first language. While linguists, such as Chomsky (1965), have viewed language as a linguistic competence with which children were innately endowed, linguistic anthropologists, such as Hymes (1972), have viewed language as cultural and social competences as well as linguistic—that is, an ability to use a language, participate in society, and function as a competent member of a sociocultural community. Thus, language socialization research primarily concerns the acquisition of language by children, including the acquisition of 9 culturally and socially requisite knowledge and skills for participating in a social community and using a language in socially and culturally appropriate ways. The foundation of language socialization studies was established in the early 1970s with the proposals of the ethnography of communication by Gumperz and Hymes (1964, 1972) and communicative competence by Hymes (1972). They argued that the acquisition of language encompasses sociocultural knowledge, as well as linguistic knowledge, which are necessary for members of a speech community to participate in socially organized activities and perform speech acts in socially and culturally appropriate ways. Ethnography of communication and Hyme’s notion of communicative competence have inspired researchers in various disciplines to investigate the complex interface between language and culture. Inspired by ethnography of communication, language socialization studies developed during late 1970s and early 1980s. One of the most influential contributions to the area of language socialization research was the work of Ochs and Schieffelin, who had conducted a field study on children’s language acquisition among Samoans and the Kaluli people of Papua New Guinea, respectively (Ochs, 1988; Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984; Schieffelin, 1990; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). Ochs and Schieffelin (1984) argued that the process of acquiring a language is embedded in and constitutive of the process of becoming socialized to be a competent member of a social community and, therefore, that socializing practices impact the acquisition of language. They observed that, in the process of acquiring a language, Samoan and Kaluli children did not receive simplified input in interaction with their caregivers. Samoan and Kaluli caregivers placed their children in the position of observers and overhearers of recurring social events, directed their attention to people and situations, and provided scaffolding for them rather than simplified input, namely a situation-centered orientation of language acquisition. Ochs and Schieffelin argued that the caregivers’ dispreference for formal simplification was consistent with their belief 10 that higher-status people do not provide accommodation to people of lower status. Furthermore, display of attention and respect for older people was a key to children’s social development in those communities. Similarly, they did not clarify children’s unintelligible utterances because in their culture, a person should not assert or guess another person’s unspoken thoughts or feelings. Based on their findings, Ochs and Schieffelin argued that simplified linguistic input was neither universal nor necessary for the acquisition of a language. Rather, what was necessary for the children’s language development was the situation-centered orientation that attuned children’s attention simultaneously to both linguistic forms and sociocultural practices of the local community. Their claim that local socialization practices organize language acquisition is a controversial one. Yet, their research demonstrated that the process of language acquisition was embedded in and constitutive of its local socialization practices. Ochs and Schieffelin (2011) state: Language socialization is distinctively local and situated. Thrown into social situations from birth, human beings become attuned to socioculturally saturated linguistic cues that afford their sensibility to a fluidity of contexts. Infants not only become speakers of languages; they also become speakers of cultures. (p. 8) Since the publication of the seminal work by Ochs and Schieffelin (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986), language socialization research has been conducted cross-culturally in various contexts, including infant-caregiver interaction, children’s acquisition of affect, socialization into cultural discourse of morality and shame, socialization into particular gender roles and expectations, children’s acquisition of pragmatic features of language, and so on (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011). Although the focus of these studies is predominantly on children’s acquisition of language, other studies have investigated language learning in multilingual communities. This body of research has explored the inquiry of what it means to learn one language over another (or 11 the others) in a multilingual community. Since the nature of inquiry overlaps with that of L2 socialization (what it means to learn an L2), I will review the findings of those studies in the next section. Language socialization in multilingual contexts In multilingual communities where two or more languages are used on a daily basis, language learning (what it means to learn a language) is tied to the ideology and/or identity of a social group (Duff, 1995, 1996; Fader, 2011; Friedman, 2009; Moore, 2006). Friedman (2009) uncovered that a language classroom can be a site for socializing children into dominant ideologies of the nation. She examined two fifth-grade Ukrainian language classrooms in central Ukraine. The Ukrainian language became a dialect of Russian under Russian imperial rule in the early nineteenth century and was banned from schools until the Russian Revolution. However, during the Soviet period, the Ukrainian language regained its status as the national language and was taught in schools again. Today, Ukrainian language is the only official language of Ukraine, what is called the “pure language” (p. 347) of the nation. The reality, however, is that not only is there a substantial Russian population in Ukraine, but also many Ukrainians speak Russian as their primary language. Furthermore, even Ukrainians who speak the Ukrainian language speak a hybrid variation, which is considered part of the “Russification” (p. 346) of the language. In people’s lives, Russian dominates popular culture and is associated with positive aspects of their lives, such as higher education, science, and government. Based on ten-month of ethnographic observations of two Ukrainian classrooms and the analysis of reoccurring interactional patterns between teachers and students, Friedman (2009) found that teachers’ corrective feedback targeted students’ use of Russian forms. The role of corrective feedback given in these two Ukrainian classrooms was not related to the teacher’s teaching philosophy or pedagogical effectiveness, but was embedded in the larger social, cultural, and political discourses of the nation. The 12 “linguistic correctness” (p. 347) that children were taught was tied to the national “ideologies of correctness” (p. 360) that view Ukrainian language as the “pure language” (p. 347) of the nation. Therefore, children in these two Ukrainian language classrooms were socialized to be correct speakers of Ukrainian language and correct citizens of Ukraine. Language education is loaded with sociopolitical values and practices of its social community. Duff (1995, 1996) reported the analysis of interaction among teachers and students in English-medium dual-language immersion classrooms in Hungary. She observed that the correcting behaviors occurred spontaneously among students during presentation activities. Some students even corrected their teachers’ language errors, which was unimaginable in traditional teacher-centered Hungarian classrooms. Duff argued that correcting behaviors found in these classrooms were a process of socialization—both students and teachers were becoming socialized into new ways of constructing knowledge and a new type of teacher-student relationship, which mirrored the on-going democratization and educational reforms (new language ideology) of postCommunist Hungary at that time. Moore (2006) found that repetition used in language classroom in Cameroon served as a way of socializing children to be participants in religious practices. Moore studied the language learning experience of Fulbe children in Northern Cameroon. Fulbe children learn Fulfulde at home as their ethnic language, French in public schools as their colonial language, and Classical Arabic in Qur’anic schools as their religious language. Qur’anic schools offer daily lessons to teach these children not only to respect God but also to develop an enduring emotional tie to the sounds of the Qur’an. Therefore, children do not need to comprehend the meaning of the Qur’anic text as long as they learn the text “by heart” (Moore, 2006, p. 100). Moore found that the classroom practice of guided repetition and recitation of the Qur’anic text was a way to prepare children for 13 participating in religious practice in the future and was the first step in building the foundation on which Islam’s moral, spiritual, and intellectual development was based. A similar finding was also reported by Fader (2011). She studied the socialization of children in a Hasidic Jewish community in Brooklyn, New York. Fader analyzed the social meaning of repetition observed in interactions between Hasidic caregivers and young children. According to Orthodox Jewish law, different Hebrew blessings must be said before eating, after eating, before going to sleep, after going to the bathroom, and so on. Although children are not responsible for fulfilling the ritual requirements until they reach certain ages, Hasidic caregivers and mothers start preparing their children from an early age. For example, Hasidic mothers trained children to say blessings in Hebrew by routinely prompting and repeating during mealtimes even before children started speaking the language. In one excerpt, a mother prompts twins, who are seated in high chairs, to recite (attempt to recite) a prayer in Hebrew before eating. The mother repeats the first word of a prayer as she feeds her twins spoonsful of baby food alternatively. She, regardless of the children’s response (lack of response), continues to prompt them to recite. Fader argued that mothers’ attempts to recite prayers were a way to associate eating and Hebrew prayer. “From the time a Hasidic child is eating solid food, eating and prayer go hand in hand” (p. 333). In sum, these studies illustrate that most mundane linguistic activities in children’s daily lives at home and in school, such as correction of language and repetition of text, can be the ways of socializing them into the values and ideologies of local social communities. For the children in those communities, learning a language occurred simultaneously with the process of acquiring the values and ideologies associated with the language. 14 Second language socialization Language socialization, as a paradigm or an approach to the investigation of second language (L2) learning, has been brought into the field of second language acquisition (SLA) by proponents such as Atkinson (2002), Duff (1995, 1996, 2002, 2007, 2008) and Watson-Gegeo (2004), among others. As Duff (2007) notes, research on L2 socialization is relatively new in the field of applied linguistics even though formal and informal socialization into more than one language, culture, and community are not new experiences for humans. In this study, following Zuengler and Cole (2005), L2 socialization refers to the process of learning a language by learners who are “neither monolingual nor proficient bilinguals, but who implicitly or explicitly, are still in the process of acquiring a second language” (p. 303). Since L2 socialization research concerns learning, the topic of investigation overlaps with that of education. Moreover, since L2 socialization research examines learners’ ability to use the target language, the topic of investigation overlaps with the topics of sociolinguistics and pragmatics. Furthermore, because L2 socialization research examines the process of constructing one’s social identity in a new community as part of the socialization process, the topic of investigation also overlaps with that of identity studies. Therefore, the review in this section includes studies from various fields. Like L1 socialization, L2 socialization is a two-fold process. That is, (a) L2 learners (novice) are socialized to the use of a target language (how L2 learners learn an L2) and (b) L2 learners (novice) are socialized through the use of a target language (what it means to learn an L2). L2 learners not only learn to speak a target language but also learn the sociocultural values, practices, and ideologies of a target language community. How L2 learners learn an L2 Kanagy (1999) studied L1 English kindergartners learning Japanese as an L2 in an immersion classroom. She examined the process in which young children, who 15 already had a sociocultural competence in L1, would acquire interactional skills in L2 within the context of an immersion classroom. She focused on the acquisition of the kindergartners’ interactional competence to initiate and respond to L2 discourse sequences. She found that the teacher’s consistent provision of scaffolding, such as modeling, repeating, and offering verbal and nonverbal cues, helped the children acquire interactional competence in Japanese. Ohta (1999) demonstrated the role of interactional routines to socialize adult L2 learners. She studied interaction among teachers and students in L2 Japanese classrooms in a university. She found that the Initiation–Response–Follow up (IRF) routine functioned as a tool to shape L2 learners’ ability to use the follow-up turn of the IRF routine to provide assessments of their interlocutor’s utterances. In the IRF sequence, the teacher initiates a question, the student responds to the question, and the teacher provides feedback or assessment on the student’s response. Although student participation was limited to the response turn, the teacher’s repeated production of assessment with the sentence-final particle ne, which functioned as an affective alignment, enabled students to produce extended assessment with the sentence-final particle ne over time. For example, a first-year Japanese language student, Candace, spontaneously produced ne-marked assessments not only during teacher-fronted activities but also during learner-learner activities by the end of the year through the repeated participation in interactional routines of the classroom guided by the teacher. Cook (2011) examined the process of acquiring the stance marker deshoo (similar to the English discourse marker “you know”) in Japanese by adult L2 learners. Stance makers, such as deshoo, are used to express the speaker’s self-positioning in communication. Self-positioning or stance is explicitly and implicitly tied to the sociocultural values and ideologies of a local community. There are several stance markers in Japanese. However, it is reported that it is not easy for adult learners of Japanese to learn their appropriate use (Yoshimi, 1999). What makes the acquisition of 16 stance markers difficult for L2 learners is, according to Cook, that the indexical relation between a linguistic code (such as deshoo in Japanese) and the social meaning indexed by the linguistic code is not a one-to-one relationship but a “one-to-many relationship” (p. 297). Thus, a type of stance marker can index a range of social meanings “depending on co-occurring linguistic and/or nonlinguistic features” (p. 297). Deshoo is usually taught to L2 learners as a form of copula that expresses probability or lack of certainty, which makes the question more indirect and polite. However, deshoo can also index that the “information falls into the speaker’s territory and that the speaker simultaneously assumes that the addressee shares the information” (p. 304). Since deshoo marks shared information within the speaker’s territory, the speaker is granted the authority over the knowledge. Thus, the use of deshoo indexes not only shared information between a speaker and a hearer but also the authority of the information. Cook studied interaction between L2 Japanese university students and their host families during dinnertime conversations. She found that host mothers used deshoo in assessing the taste of food that they prepared. First, a student eats the food, and then the host mother gives the first assessment of the food by saying “delicious deshoo.” In the third turn, the L2 learner provides the second assessment by saying “delicious” without the stance marker deshoo. Cook argues that this absence of deshoo in the second assessment by the L2 learners suggests that the L2 learners are not merely repeating the host mothers’ utterance. She further documented the use of deshoo by L2 learners in presenting the information that fell in their territory. For example, Skip, one of the study participants, replied to his host sister’s statement, “it [peanut putter] only had the taste of peanuts deshoo,” with the stance marker deshoo by saying, “That’s what is delicious deshoo” (p. 315). Cook argues that Skip’s use of deshoo “indexes that American peanut butter falls in his territory and that he as an American is rightfully an authority on American peanut butter” (p. 316). 17 In sum, concerning the question of how L2 learners learn an L2, Kanagy (1999) and Ohta (1999) have shown the important role of interactional routines that helped novices acquire interactional competence (Kanagy, 1999) and the sentence-final particle ne and its function of affective alignment (Ohta, 1999). Furthermore, Cook’s study (2011) has demonstrated that situation-centered input provided by Japanese host families directed L2 learners’ attention to the linguistic form and its social meaning simultaneously and helped them acquire the Japanese stance maker deshoo. The next section discusses the findings of previous studies related to the second question that L2 socialization research asks: What it means to learn an L2. What is learned through learning an L2 He (2003, 2004) and Poole (1992) document how L2 teachers’ values and ideologies compose classroom culture. He (2003, 2004) studied the teacher–student interaction in two Chinese heritage language schools offered evenings and weekends. These children were either born in the United States or immigrated with their parents at a very young age. Most of them attend local elementary schools. Some of them were English dominant, and others were bilingual. Parents send their children to these Chinese heritage schools to have them learn literacy skills in Chinese. In her analysis, He focused on the various participating roles of the students assigned by the teachers. She observed that the students were sometimes expected to be collaborative speakers and sometimes to be obedient listeners. In He’s words, classroom practice socializes the students into the participant roles of talking collaboratively and cooperatively, “appropriating or relinquishing authorship, withholding talk on a given moment, and listening between the lines and responding accordingly” (He, 2003, p.142). Furthermore, He (2004) brought readers attention to a teacher’s use of Chinese pronouns (we/us vs. they/them), which dichotomizes Americans as “they/them” and Chinese as “we/us.” She argues that the teacher’s use of Chinese pronouns indexes her 18 collective national identity as Chinese. It is her way of socializing students to be members of the Chinese community within the context of a Chinese heritage language classroom. The excerpt highlights the contrast between the teacher’s persistent use of “we/us” to refer to the members of the heritage language classroom and students’ use of “we/us” to refer to their identity as Americans. He (2004) notes: The students’ self-presentation appears to be multifaceted and fluid; they categorize themselves as members of simultaneously existing multiple groups and move in and out of groups with ease, aligning themselves at various points in time with Chinese language school, their daytime school, or their teacher, or all three. The teacher, on the other hand, appears to categorize the students solely as members of Chinese language school (p. 577). Poole (1992) examined the classroom interaction of a beginning-level English as a second language (ESL) classroom. Following Schieffelin and Ochs (1986), Poole investigated how white middle-class American (WMCA) ESL instructors in a beginninglevel US university ESL course socialized students through classroom interaction in English. Poole found that that the ESL teachers made various accommodations and mitigations of the status asymmetry between teachers and students. For example, the teacher used an inclusive first-person pronoun (we) when giving scaffolding and trying to jointly accomplish a task, such as by saying “describe the picture and see if we can make a story out of it” (p. 605, emphasis is mine). When evaluating the students’ accomplishment, the teacher used a second-person pronoun (you) to give credit to the students, such as by saying “Good work, you guys. That’s hard. You—you did a good job” (p. 605, underlines are mine). She also documented the avoidance of overt display of asymmetry by the teachers. For example, when a teacher tried to solicit an opinion from the students, the teacher said, “Where should we put the things in the room?” and “How should—how should we fix this room?” (p. 608) rather than use directives. Poole argued that ESL teachers’ beliefs about the importance of inclusiveness, positive feedback, and experience of success were manifested in the way in which they 19 used language and interacted with their students. She concludes that classroom teacher– student interaction encodes sociocultural values and ideologies of teachers, and hence, that “second language contexts include cultural dimensions that powerfully and necessarily affect both the teaching and learning processes” (p. 610). Akiyama’s (2003) findings echo Poole’s claim. Akiyama studied how L2 culture is represented and learned in a foreign language classroom, focusing on L2 Japanese students at a university in the United States. She observed daily classroom interaction between teachers and students in a summer intensive L2 Japanese classroom and examined how L2 learners perceived the Japanese culture presented in that foreign language classroom. Akiyama’s study revealed that learning Japanese culture (perceived by the students) was not limited to the culture “explained in the textbook and presented through gestures, word choices, or intonation” (p. 220) but was also constituted by mundane classroom activities, including the way the students were taught, the way they were treated, and how the teachers interacted with each other as well as with the students. Moreover, students were active rather than passive participants in the creation of the L2 classroom community. The classroom context was dynamically shaped by the L2 learners and, in turn, the classroom context shaped the composition of Japanese culture in the foreign language classroom Akiyama observed. In other words, the L2 culture that the students in that classroom perceived was the culture of their classroom as it was coconstructed by the members of the L2 community. As Akiyama puts it, “there was no ‘culture-to-culture’ instruction; there was an omni presence of multiple cultures” (p. 220). DuFon (2006) documented how L2 learners acquired different values on, views of, and practice with food through their experience of living and interacting with their Indonesian host families as they learned to speak Javanese. The study abroad students not only learned a variety of vocabulary and expressions related to food, but they also learned to understand food as pleasure or enjoyment of life. Prior to tasting a food, the host 20 family usually offered it to the novice (study abroad student) and encouraged the student to accept the offer. When the taste was spicy, a warning was given. After dinner was over, the host family commented on the food by complimenting or criticizing the taste and asked the student whether the food was good. Through this interactional routine over the dinner table, the study abroad students came to realize that eating dinner (tasting food) was a pleasure of their everyday life, and the host family was ensuring that the novices enjoyed the food. Through this socialization process, the students developed over time different views and values on eating and tasting food. One of the study abroad students commented: My eating behavior has changed. Now, I eat a lot in the morning, plus my eating etiquette has changed. Things that taste good taste really good. I kind of look at food differently, with more respect. (p. 117) In contrast, the American university students who studied abroad in Japan in Iino’s study (1996, 2006) had an experience that was quite different from those who studied abroad in Indonesia. Iino (1996, 2006), like DuFon (2006), examined the dinner table conversations of 30 Japanese host families and American university students. He found that the students were socialized into the Japanese host families’ folk beliefs about gaijin ‘foreigners,’ which were tied with the nihonjinron ‘theories of the Japanese or ideologies of the Japanese’ published in the 1970s. Nihonjinron emphasizes the uniqueness and particularity of the Japanese language and culture in relation to the western world in particular and presents a dichotomized view of Japanese and westerners (Yoshino, 1992). In nihonjinron, people believe that certain kinds of Japanese food are so unique that foreigners are not able to eat them and that the Japanese language is so unique and difficult that no foreigners are able to master it (Miller, 1982). Iino found that the Japanese host families perceived the American students as gaijin and so set different norms and expectations when speaking and interacting with them. As a result, the students were socialized into the role and identity of foreigners who 21 would not be able to eat Japanese food or to learn to speak the Japanese language. Consequently, the students learned to “do foreigners” when communicating with Japanese people. One of the students stated, “I played the role of gaijin [foreigners] in most situations” (Iino, 2006, p. 160). Iino also reports the case of another student who played the role of a sort of clown by pretending to be ignorant about the Japanese language and culture to preserve and present the image of a non-threatening gaijin. He stated: If I speak good Japanese, I thought they would not think me kawaii ‘amiable’ and expect me to use all the keigo ‘honorifics’ rules and manners. I don’t know much about keigo and I have no intention to be like a Japanese businessman. I didn’t feel it necessary to master the Japanese language unless you really want to live there for the rest of your life, and I don’t want to do that. (pp. 160–161) Cook (2006) also examined dinner table conversations between American university students and their Japanese host families. She found that folk beliefs based on nihonjinron was still pervasive at the dinner tables; yet, she also observed occasions when the students challenged the host family’s folk beliefs and, as a result, both the student and the host family co-constructed modified stories. For example, when Alice’s host mother explained the Japanese custom of cherry blossom viewing, Alice challenged the host mother’s explanation of drinking sake ‘rice wine’ while viewing cherry blossoms. The Japanese host mother went on to argue that it was a Japanese custom that everyone observed. Alice challenged her again expressing disbelief and suggested reading a book instead of drinking. Although the host mother continued to emphasize the difference between Japanese culture and American culture, she agreed with Alice that reading a book under cherry blossoms would be more romantic than drinking sake. Cook argued that episodes like Alice’s offers opportunities for the Japanese host family to reexamine their own cultural assumptions and become aware of a different perspective. In doing so, they may discover what they believed to be true may not be true. Cook concludes that dinner table conversations between the study abroad students and 22 their host families served as an “opportunity space” (Ochs, Smith, & Taylor, 1989, p. 238) for them to co-construct shared perspectives. Summary L2 socialization research reviewed in this section uncovered various aspects of L2 learning. Poole (1992), for example, demonstrated that the theory of L1 socialization put forth by Ochs and Schieffelin could be applied to L2 learning that took place in school classrooms by analyzing the interaction between L2 teachers and adult L2 learners. Moreover, Poole’s (1992) study showed that L2 classroom culture was composed by L2 teachers’ beliefs and values. Akiyama’s (2003) study echoed Poole’s claim and provided further evidence that L2 classroom culture was constructed by both teachers and students through daily interaction and mundane classroom activities. He (2003, 2004) also documented how an L2 teacher’s representation of ethnic and national ideology and identity constituted the way in which Chinese was taught in a Chinese heritage language classroom. Kanagy (1999) and Ohta (1999) highlighted the powerful role of interactional routines in L2 classrooms in the acquisition of appropriate ways to participate in a social community within the context of L2 classrooms, focusing on both young (Kanagy) and adult L2 learners (Ohta). Cook (2008, 2011), DuFon (2006), and Iino (1996, 2006) have expanded the horizon of L2 socialization research beyond L2 classroom contexts. While Cook (2008, 2011) and DuFon (2006) demonstrated that dinner table conversation with host families in study abroad contexts could be rich a site of L2 socialization, Iino (1996, 2006) highlighted the issues of ideology that underlie host families’ beliefs and dinner table conversations. These studies together have demonstrated that L2 learning entails not just learning a language. L2 learners, in an L2 classroom or at a dinner table with a host family, learn more than just a language. They learn teachers’ beliefs and ideologies as well as 23 sociocultural practices and ideologies of a target language community. Importantly, L2 learners are not passive recipients of information; they may challenge experts’ views and actively engage in shaping the process of their own learning. In the next section, the focus of the review shifts to the role of social contexts that plays in L2 socialization. In language socialization, communities play a central role in learning an L2. I first discuss a theory of community and then review the findings of previous community-oriented studies within the framework of L2 socialization research. Community of practice Social community plays a central role in language learning. Language learning does not take place independently of its social context, but is situated in the local community of practice (Gumperz & Hymes, 1964, 1972; Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). Earlier work was situated in the traditional framework of language socialization study (e.g., ethnography of communication and speech community), but more recent studies have adopted the framework of community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). Community of Practice is a social theory of learning originally proposed by Lave and Wenger (1991). In the following section, I describe the theory of community of practice. Then I present a review of L2 socialization studies that have adopted a community of practice perspective. Community of practice as a theory Community of Practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger 1998) views learning as a situated process composed of four elements: community, practice, meaning, and identity. In this section, I first describe the premise of Community of Practice (CoP) as a social theory of learning. Then I explain the key concepts of CoP. Through these two processes, I intend to explain what it means to say that learning is constitutive of four elements: community, practice, meaning, and identity. 24 Premise The fundamental question that CoP asks is what it takes for learning to happen. Learning does not happen just by living in a community (e.g., classroom community or new country). It requires meaningful social participation in a community of practice. Wenger (1998) defines participation as follows: I will use the term participation to describe the social experience of living in the world in terms of membership in social community and active involvement in social enterprises. Participation in this sense is both personal and social. It is a complex process that combines doing, talking, thinking, feeling, and belonging. It involves our whole person, including our bodies, minds, emotions, and social relations. (pp. 55–56) Meaning, in this sense, refers to the meaning as the experience of living in the world. By living in the social world, we try to make sense of ourselves and our actions through interacting with other people in a community and engaging in social activities. Meaning is not a static or preexisting entity, but rather is located in the “process by which we experience the world and our engagement in it as meaningful” (p. 53). Wenger refers to this process as negotiation of meaning. This is the very process in which we define who we are, what we do, and how we interpret what we do. CoP assumes that learning takes place as we participate in a community of practice and find our existence and actions meaningful in that community. Community What exactly does a community consist of? In the ordinary sense, a community implies geographical boundaries such as a neighborhood where people live. However, a community in the CoP framework does not necessarily imply a social group that is delimited geographically. What determines a specific social group as a “community” involves: (a) mutual engagement; (b) a joint enterprise; and (c) a shared repertoire. By living in the social world, we all belong to a community of practice. In fact, we belong to 25 multiple communities of practice simultaneously at any given time at work and in our personal lives. One example of a community of practice is family. Families establish habitable ways of life. Families develop their own unique ways of doing things, routines, rituals, artifacts, stories, and histories. When we visit and stay at other people’s homes, we get a sense that each family operates in a different way. Family members, whether they agree or disagree and whether they live together or live separately, engage in their family practice together (mutual engagement) and try to keep their family going (a joint enterprise). Over time, the joint pursuit of enterprise creates artifacts, symbols, stories, and rituals that have become part of their community of practice (a shared repertoire). Communities of practice are a “social configuration” (Wenger, 1998, p. 5) in which we negotiate meaning and define ourselves. In other words, without communities of practice, our actions and our sense of self have no meaning. Legitimate peripheral participation: Affordance of opportunity for learning Finding our participation in a community meaningful involves mutuality. Members of a community are actively involved in mutual processes of making and negotiating meaning in the pursuit of their joint enterprise. When novices or newcomers join a new community, they learn to participate in such mutual processes of making and negotiating meaning increasingly over time. CoP specifically refers to this process as “legitimate peripheral participation” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 29). Legitimate peripheral participation is “structured to open the practice to nonmembers” (Wenger, 1998, p. 100). Peripherality and legitimacy are “two types of modification required to make actual participation possible” (p. 100). Peripherality provides novices an “approximation of full participation that gives exposure to actual practice” with lessened cost of error and risk. Legitimacy provides novices a 26 community’s recognition as competent members of that community. Hence, legitimate peripheral participation is best understood as a sort of necessary transition process for novices to eventually move toward the full participation in a community of practice as full-ledged members of that community. Peripheral participation with lessened cost of error and guidance from experts, combined with a sense of legitimacy as a member of a community, provides novices opportunities for learning to become full-fledged members of a community. Trajectories: Peripherality and marginality As we participate in a community of practice over time, our participation forms a trajectory. CoP identifies types of trajectories that lead novices either to full participation or to marginal position in a community. These trajectories are termed peripherality and marginality. The crucial difference between these two types of trajectories is that the former enables participation, thus opportunities for learning are available to novices, whereas the latter prevents participation, and opportunities for learning are not available to novices. Wenger (1998) explains the two types of trajectories as follows: In the case of peripherality, some degree of non-participation is necessary to enable a kind of participation that is less than full. Here, it is the participation aspect that dominates and defines nonparticipation as an enabling factor of participation. In the case of marginality, a form of non-participation prevents full participation. Here, it is the non-participation aspect that dominates and comes to define a restricted form of participation. (pp. 165–166, italics in original) As we participate in a community of practice, we locate ourselves in a social landscape, decide what to care about and what to neglect, and choose with whom we seek connections and with whom we do not. In other words, we negotiate meaning by selecting what to participate in and what not to participate in. Thus, non-participation is an inevitable part of life. Our experience of engaging in a community of practice involves both participation and non-participation. 27 With respect to the trajectories, although peripherality and marginality both involve a combination of participation and non-participation, they produce different experiences and outcomes of learning. When novices or newcomers are considered by the other members of a community to be included in full participation in the future, nonparticipation becomes, then, an opportunity for learning. Even though their trajectory remains peripheral, non-participation becomes an enabling factor for participation. In contrast, when participation is restricted by social forces and/or power relations, novices or newcomers are relegated to a marginal position in a community, and hence, nonparticipation prevents opportunities for learning. Nexus of multimembership By living in the social world, we simultaneously belong to multiple communities of practice. Some are old, and some are new. Some are more central, whereas others are peripheral. Regardless of the nature of our membership, various forms of participation contribute in some way to construct our social identities. Because identities are not something we can turn on or off as we cross the boundaries of communities, they are not formed in a linear manner in time and space. In other words, identity is not a single trajectory; rather, it should be viewed as a “nexus of multimembership” (Wenger, 1998, p. 159). A nexus does not mean that multiple identities that we construct in various communities of practice simply merge into one, nor does our identity decompose into discrete trajectories in each community of practice. But rather, in a nexus, multiple identities together constitute our identity. In this regard, identity is, at the same time, one and multiple. Hence, identity construction needs work. When we join and engage in a new community of practice, our identities need to be coordinated and reconciled. The work of reconciliation is an active, creative, and social process. In weaving multiple trajectories 28 together, we incorporate multiple perspectives in the process of negotiation of new meaning. The work of reconciliation, however, does not imply a harmonious process. It may involve conflicts and tensions that might not be ever resolved. Thus, the maintenance of identities across boundaries requires work. In sum, CoP views learning as foremost in the process of social participation in communities of practice by negotiating the meaning of our actions, constructing and defining who we are, and eventually establishing legitimate positions in new social communities. Community of practice-oriented research As Duff (2007) notes, early community-oriented L2 socialization research was situated in the traditional framework of the study of language socialization, but recent studies have adopted the framework of CoP (e.g., Miller & Zuengler, 2011; Morita, 2002, 2004; Norton, 2000). For the purpose of this literature review, I refer to the studies that adopted a perspective of community and focused on the role of social community to a greater extent in the process of L2 learning as community of practice-oriented L2 socialization research. In this section, I describe what is known about L2 learning in relation to the role of community. L2 socialization into a L2 classroom community Schools and L2 classrooms are, without doubt, social communities operated and maintained by their local community of practice. Much community of practice-oriented L2 socialization research examined how L2 classrooms, as social communities, afford (or do not afford) opportunities for learning for L2 learners. One of the early contributions was made by Willett (1995), who documented the process by which Xavier, a first-grader in a local elementary school in a small university town in the United States, was socialized into the identity of a needy dependent child. Xavier (a boy) was one of the four ESL students (along with three girls, Nahla, Etham, 29 and Yael) in Room 17. Nahla, Etham, and Yael were friends from the beginning. Their friendship had formed originally in their 30-minute pull-out ESL class. Mrs. Singer, the teacher in Room 17, allowed the three girls to sit together, and this seating arrangement made their friendship even more solid. Xavier, on the other hand, entered the community of Room 17 quite differently from these three girls. First, he was the only male ESL student in Room 17. Although Xavier was born in California, he was raised in a Spanishspeaking environment (his parents were immigrants from Mexico). Although many of the students’ parents had professional status in the local university, Xavier’s parents did not. Unlike the other three ESL girls, who were allowed to sit together as a group, Xavier was placed between two English-speaking girls. Xavier did not seek help from the girls, nor did the girls offer help to Xavier. Willett argued that this was because of the subcultures of boys and girls in Room 17. This seating arrangement increased Xavier’s need for help from the teacher and assistants. However, Xavier did not receive sufficient help because the teacher and assistants believed that every child deserved attention; hence, they could not spend much time with him. The three ESL girls worked together to complete class assignments, which appeared to the teacher’s eyes as if these girls were independent workers with no need of help. Xavier, in contrast, had to ask for help from the teacher and assistants more often and had to seek constant assurance that he was doing the work correctly. Consequently, Xavier started to be identified as a “needy child” (p. 497) who could not work independently. The teachers worried about Xavier and assigned him to additional ESL lessons. Furthermore, they had Xavier work in ESL workbooks rather than regular assignments. Xavier resisted working on the ESL workbooks. However, the more he resisted, the more the teacher thought of him as a problem child. This perception continued even after Xavier scored at level 4 (level 1 is the least proficient and level 5 is the most proficient) on the Bilingual Syntax Measure. The teacher decided that Xavier would benefit from continuous support and accommodations. In contrast, the three ESL girls, who had gained 30 the reputation of independent workers, exited from their ESL classes even though they scored at the same level Xavier did. Willett’s study demonstrates how an ESL student’s social identity as a “needy child” was constructed in a classroom practice, and such negative identity imposed on him interfered with his becoming a competent member of the classroom community. Atkinson (2003), Duff (2002), Harklau (2000), and Talmy (2008) also report that the discursively constructed social identity of L2 learners in classroom communities of practice resulted in marginalizing them from the mainstream classroom practice of their respective classrooms. Harklau (2000) documented the process of three immigrant ESL students transforming from motivated ESL high school students to deficient speakers of English in a local community college. The three female ESL students (Aeyfer, Claudia, and Penny) had lived in the United States for more than six years when the study began. They attended the same high school and community college. In high school, they were perceived as determined and hardworking students, who were an “inspiration for EVERYONE” (p. 46, capital letters in original). This representation was partly attributed to their hard work at school but mostly came from the institutional representation of immigrant students, who overcame hardship and obstacles to succeed. For example, for a classroom assignment, Aerfer wrote an autobiography in which she described a hardship she had experienced. In her last year in Turkey (her home country), she was forced to leave a school to work for her family. She prayed to Allah to send her back to school. It was her dream to attend a school, which would be attainable only in the United States. Her autobiography received sympathy, support, and admiration from her peers and teacher, and it was displayed on the classroom wall with a picture of Aerfer sitting between two flags, one Turkish and one America. After Aeyfer, Claudia, and Penny graduated from high school as successful immigrant students, they entered community college. Through college placement tests, 31 they were all identified as nonnative speakers of English. Although they were allowed to take three introductory college courses, they were placed in low intermediate- to advanced-level ESL courses. Initially, the three students expressed eagerness to begin their college career with ESL courses. They thought that the ESL courses would help them prepare for college-level academic work. However, the reality was different. The majority of the students in the ESL courses were those who had arrived in the United States not long before. Aeyfer, Claudia, and Penny soon realized that the ESL courses would not help them succeed in college. In these courses, the students were often asked to discuss or write about such topic as, “my country,” “my hometown,” and “food in my country.” These assignments were not problematic for those who were new residents of the United States. However, for Aeyfer, Claudia, and Penny, who had lived in the United States for many years and whose cultural affiliations and identities were situated in multiethnic contexts, those assignments were not as simple as they appeared. Their countries and hometowns that the teacher expected them to write about existed only in their remote memories. For example, in response to the assignments “Return home,” Penny, who had just become a United States citizen, wrote a “detached and speculative composition” (Harklau, 2000, p. 55), which made her teacher question the truthfulness of the content. As the semester progressed, their initial eagerness and motivation deteriorated as they were constantly positioned as deficient English speakers and cultural novices in the United States. Over the course of one year, they were identified as unsuccessful immigrant students and, more importantly, they decided to drop out of college. Talmy (2008) studied the production of social identity by old-timer high school ESL students in Hawaii. Talmy found that the local ESL students who had lived in Hawaii for many years were constantly positioned as “FOB (fresh off the boat)” (p. 626) and were given an identity of newcomers in their high school classroom community. 32 Such an institutionally conceived representation placed constraints on the way they were taught, what they were taught, and eventually what they were socialized into. Duff (2002, 2004) also reported that old-timer ESL students, in this case in a Canadian high school, were positioned as Asian immigrants in a mainstream classroom despite the fact that they had been living in Canada for many years. This practice silenced the students and took away their opportunities to participate in classroom activities. Miller and Zuengler (2011) document a negative consequence of classroom practice. May, an ESL student in a U.S. high school, was picked on by her ESL teacher and was forced to speak up in class. In response to being forced to leave her peripheral space in the classroom community, she resisted speaking English. Miller and Zuengler argued that May was being forced into a false legitimacy as a member of the classroom community. This classroom practice negatively affected May’s desire to speak English. In addition, Atkinson (2003) reported negative consequences of an institutional practice, which he named “dys-socialization” (p. 147). He documented the process by which students who had lower socioeconomic status and did not come from an English speaking background in an Indian college became identified as unsuccessful students. In an English-medium college in southern India, two groups of students were enrolled: traditional students who were considered elite students and non-traditional students who were considered newcomers. Those non-traditional students were Tamil and did not come from an English-speaking background. Even though the school became more accessible to non-traditional students, actual school practice marginalized them by reinforcing the values and practice of elite English higher institution. Consequently, non-traditional students, instead of being successfully socialized into becoming L2 English speakers and competent members of the school, were socialized into a feeling of inferiority and an identity of non-English speakers. Morita (2002, 2004) also studied the socialization process by university students. She examined how the local community of practice afforded legitimate peripheral 33 participation for Japanese female graduate students at a Canadian university. For example, in the case of Rie, one of the study participants, her multilingual and multicultural background (she was a zainichi ‘a Korean who is a permanent resident of Japan’) were viewed as an asset in one course and thus, she was able to gain legitimate membership in that course. She stated, “I could feel my own presence in this course” (Morita, 2004, p. 592). However, in a different course, she struggled to gain legitimacy. Rie believed it was “important to claim [her] right to learn” (p. 593); therefore, she expressed her needs as an L2 English speaker in class and also through e-mail to the instructor of the course. She asked the instructor to understand her situation and make certain accommodations in her teaching. The instructor, however, did not agree to make accommodations for her. Instead, she described Rie’s English ability as a “language barrier” (p. 593) and told her that it was difficult to adjust the course content for a “non-English speaker” (p. 593) and she could not do much without “slowing down the rest of class” (p. 593). According to Morita, “although Rie projected herself as a legitimate but marginalized participant, the instructor constructed Rie essentially as someone with a deficit” (p. 593). Atkinson (2003), Duff (2002, 2004), Harklau (2000), Miller and Zuengler (2011), Morita (2002, 2004), Talmy (2008), and Willett (1995) have highlighted the important roles of L2 classroom communities. The studies have shown that the local community of practice (within the contexts of L2 classroom or school) and the underlying social and power asymmetry between L2 learners and the members of the dominant community position L2 learners in a marginalized space within the community and, consequently, the students were not given the opportunity to participate in the community of practice with legitimacy. In light of CoP, legitimate peripheral participation was not afforded to the L2 learners whom they studied. While the majority of previous community-oriented L2 socialization studies have limited their scope of investigation to L2 classroom communities, there are some studies 34 that have examined L2 learning process in the wider conceptualization of local communities. The next section reviews the findings of those studies. L2 socialization into a local community Probably the earliest study that sought to connect L2 learning and a community is that of Schumann (1978). Schumann studied the L2 development of a 33-year-old, working class Costa Rican male, Alberto, for ten months, and he found that Alberto showed very little progress in learning English. Schumann attributed Alberto’s lack of progress to the social and psychological distance between Alberto and the people in the target language community. For example, Alberto was unwilling to take an ESL class because he perceived social and psychological distance from the target language community, and consequently, his English use became functionally restricted and eventually pidginized. Based on his findings, Schumann proposed the acculturation model of L2 acquisition, in which he claimed that “the degree to which the learner acculturates to the TL (target group) will control the degree to which he acquires the second language” (p. 34). Schumann’s acculturation model of L2 acquisition was criticized for its simplistic linear view of L2 learning and lack of consideration of social power structure. For example, Schmidt (1983) pointed out that Alberto’s unwillingness to take an ESL class could be attributed to other sources, such as a previous negative school experience and the demands of a busy life. Thus, he claimed that it was important not to automatically consider lack of formal study an evidence of high social and psychological distance from a target language community. Norton (2000) argued that Alberto’s lack of progress in learning English was due to his lack of opportunities to practice English. She suggested the possibility that “the dominant power structures within society had relegated Alberto to a marginalized status” (p. 116). Regardless of the limitations of his model, Schumann 35 was probably the first SLA researcher who attempted to integrate the roles of sociocultural contexts and individuals into L2 learning. Two decades after Schumann’s proposal of the acculturation model of L2 acquisition, Norton (2000) also sought to explain L2 learning in relation to its social contexts. She combined perspectives of feminist poststructuralist theory (Weedon, 1997) and Community of Practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) and documented the L2 socialization process of four immigrant women in Canada. One of the most important findings of her study was to uncover that opportunity for learning was not a privilege given to L2 learners, but a right that L2 learners had to claim by negotiating their social identities and resisting the marginalizing practice of the dominant community. The case of Martina, one of her study participants, well illustrates this point. Martina had immigrated to Canada from Eastern Europe for a better life for her children. Because she was not a proficient speaker of English, she was unable to find a job in her profession and instead was employed in a fast food restaurant where she worked with young L1 English speakers. In restaurant was working a lot of children but the children always thought that I am—I don’t know—maybe some broom or something. They always said, ‘Go and clean the living room’, and I was washing the dishes and they didn’t do nothing. They talked to each other and they thought that I had to do everything. And I said, ‘No’. The girl is only 12 years old. She is younger than my son. I said, ‘No, you are doing nothing. You can go and clean the tables or something.’ (Norton, 2000, p. 99) To resist being positioned as something invisible like a “broom,” Martina reframed her relationship with her co-workers as a domestic, repositioned herself as their mother rather than a powerless immigrant or a “broom,” and she claimed her “right to speak” (p. 8). Katarina, too, struggled to find her place in a new community. She was a Polish immigrant who had a master’s degree in biology and had 17 years of teaching experience in her home county. She was also a fluent speaker of other European languages besides 36 Polish but had spoken no English. Because of her low English proficiency, Katarina was constantly positioned as an “unskilled and uneducated” (p. 142) immigrant woman in the new community. Instead of accepting a new identity as an “unskilled and uneducated” immigrant woman, Katarina sought her place in an 18-month computer course. In order to (re)gain her legitimate membership as a professional individual in the new community, she dropped out of her ESL course and started to work as a part-time homemaker to afford the educational expenses. She stated, “I choose computer course, not because I have to speak, but because I have to think” (p. 91). Polanyi (1995) and Talburt and Stewart (1999) examined how study abroad experience in a target language community affords opportunities for learning for L2 learners. They found that gender was an important factor to decide whether study abroad experience becomes fruitful. The young female American university students in Russia (Polanyi, 1995) and in Spain (Talburt & Stewart, 1999) found themselves humiliated by constant sexual remarks and flirtation by male members of a target language community. Such undesirable humiliating social encounters limited their opportunities to have meaningful interaction with people in a target language community. In the case of Misheila in Talburt and Stewart’s study, her study abroad experience ended her desire to learn Spanish. Similarly, Teutsch-Dwyer (2001) found that the L2 socialization process was mediated by gender. Teutsch-Dwyer studied Karol, a 38-year-old male Polish immigrant in the United States for a period of a year. His L2 socialization process was simultaneously the process of (re)construction of his masculinity in a new social community. Because of his limited English ability, Karol was not able to present himself appropriately within the male discourse of the United States. His brother-in-law had opened his home to Karol and had initially welcomed Karol into his family; however, he soon found that Karol lacked the qualities of appropriate maleness and masculinity. Karol, too, knew that his limited English proficiency and his social and socioeconomic status in 37 the United States did not meet his brother-in-law’s standards of “what constituted an appropriate male conversation partner” (p. 188). Consequently, Karol started to form a social circle with three female co-workers (one of them later became his girlfriend and they started to live together) at their workplace. With his friendly manner, his jokes, and his funny stories, which his brotherin-law regarded as a lack of appropriate male qualities, he became a popular man among these three women in the Unites States. His new social reality and position (re)granted Karol the “right to speak” (Norton, 2000, p. 8), and he felt that “his position was elevated to the position of an equal in conversations” (p. 190). Like Norton, Siegal (1995, 1996) adopted a perspective of feminist poststructuralist theory (Weedon, 1997) and documented study abroad experience by two Caucasian women learning L2 Japanese (Siegal, 1995, 1996). Although much community of practice-oriented L2 socialization research examines the role of community in terms of affordance structures (how a social community affords opportunities for learning for L2 learners), Siegal examined how L2 learners perceive and respond to the local community of practice through their participation in a target language community. Siegal reported different ways in which the sociolinguistic competence of the two learners was manifested in their L2 Japanese use. Learning to speak Japanese in accordance with the sociocultural norms of the Japanese community was a challenge for the two learners. Although they were both caught between their ambivalent feelings about the use of certain sociopragmatic forms (e.g., the use of honorifics) and conflicting pragmatic and social needs to engage in normative practice of the Japanese community, the two learners faced the conflict and task of learning Japanese in different ways. For example, Arina, a 25-year-old native of Hungary and a scholar of Japanese literature, initially expressed her negative feelings about the use of honorific language. In her perception, honorific language was associated with Japanese women’s humble speech, and she did not care for a language style that was “too humble” (Siegal, 1995, p. 234). At 38 the beginning, she did not understand the pragmatic meaning of shifting speech styles according to contexts. However, Arina began to realize the relevance and necessity of using honorific language in order to maintain a desirable image (e.g., a competent learner of Japanese and a scholar of Japanese literature) in Japanese. Siegal explains that, “she formed an appreciation for the concept of a changing self mirrored in language to suit different situations” (p. 234). Siegal identified four significant social events in which Arina participated and that affected her language attitude. One of them was, for example, participating in an “Uma club (a businessman’s club)” (p. 236) annual meeting where she, along with other foreigners, was asked to talk about her negative experiences of living in Japan. Although Arina was specifically asked to talk about her negative experiences, she was aware that the members of the Uma club did not want to hear serious criticism of Japan. Therefore, Arina did not include any negative incident that had happened to her. According to Siegal, her speech was “appropriately humble” (p. 239), including the humble forms sasete itadaki (lit. ‘to receive the humbly exalted favor’), o kiki itadaki (lit. ‘receiving a favor of listening’), the self-deprecating formula watashi no tsutanai hanashi (lit. ‘my stupid speech’), and the formal expression makoto ni arigatoo gozaimasu ‘thank you very much.’ In describing Arina’s sociolinguistic competence at the end of her last year in Japan, Siegal said that she “finally acquiesced to a characteristic of Japanese language: formulaic phrases and honorific language have their place in certain contexts” (p. 239). On the other hand, Mary, a 45-year-old native of New Zealand and a high school Japanese language teacher with a graduate degree in applied linguistics, did not experience the same “transformation” (p. 241) as Arina did. As a Japanese language teacher and also a professional with a graduate degree in applied linguistic, Mary addressed the importance of speaking a language in a socioculturally appropriate manner. Regardless of her recognition of the sociocultural significance of politeness in speaking, 39 Mary appeared massively inappropriate in her conversation with a male Japanese professor (in his 30s), who functioned as Mary’s advisor while she was studying abroad in Japan. Mary visited the professor’s office to receive his hanko ‘his official seal, an equivalent of his signature’ on a university document (this was what Mary had told the professor when she set an appointment with him). However, the real purpose of the visit was to inform him that she would be leaving Japan to attend a conference in the United States. Since she had just returned Japan from her vacation in New Zealand, Mary deliberately planned the organization of the conversation to establish herself as a professional individual who was familiar with the area of applied linguistics and to position herself as equal to the professor. Siegal argued that this linguistic practice was necessary for Mary because she needed to justify the fact that she would be leaving Japan again shortly after she had just come back from her trip home. The conflicting pragmatic needs to present herself in a polite demeanor in speaking to the professor and simultaneously to establish herself as an applied linguistics specialist made Mary consciously and unconsciously position herself as having the same social and professional status as the male professor. Consequently, Mary’s language use appeared massively inappropriate in conversation with the professor. In her conversation with the professor, Mary used various linguistic devices to display her polite demeanor, including the use of “singing voice” (Siegal, 1996, p. 367), vowel lengthening, and the use of the epistemic stance marker deshoo. The singing voice and vowel lengthening (e.g., ma in gozaimasu [polite form of copula]) are usually associated with cheerfulness; however, they are inappropriate when used in conversation with a professor. Moreover, Mary used the epistemic stance marker deshoo ten times in the conversation. Siegal argues that because Mary was not confident with the use of honorific language, she used deshoo in lieu of honorific language. As discussed in Cook (2011), deshoo can mitigate the force of utterance, when used in a question, by making 40 the question more indirect. However, the use of deshoo indexes the authority of the information (i.e., the information falls in the speaker’s territory, which indexes the speaker as the authority over the information); therefore, the use of deshoo can be considered a possible face-threatening act when used in conversation with a social superior. Thus, Mary’s effort to present a polite demeanor as a professional individual in front of the professor resulted in a massive pragmatic failure. Summary: Community of practice-oriented research In this section, I have reviewed the previous L2 socialization studies that adopted a community of practice perspective and focused on the role of social communities in L2 learning to a greater extent. What follows is the summary of the findings of the previous research. (1) The previous community of practice-oriented L2 socialization research has predominantly focused on L2 classroom communities. (2) The previous classroom-based L2 socialization research has overwhelmingly shown, in a sense, unsuccessful outcomes of L2 socialization. The studies have demonstrated that discursively constructed negative social representations or identifications of L2 learners, such as “needy child” (Willette, 1995, p. 497), non-English speakers (Atkinson, 2003), “someone with a deficit” (Morita, 2004, p. 593), and Asian students (Duff, 2002, 2004), positioned L2 learners in a marginalized space of the community; thus, L2 learners were not able to participate in their classroom community of practice. In the light of CoP, legitimate peripheral participation was not afforded to L2 learners. (3) Similar findings have been reported in community-based L2 socialization research. Because of the social and power asymmetry between L2 learners and members of the target language community, L2 learners were positioned as illegitimate speakers and illegitimate members of the community. Therefore, L2 learners were not able to 41 participate in the community of practice in a meaningful way. In the light of CoP, legitimate peripheral participation was not afforded to L2 learners. (4) It is suggested that a gender may be a factor that mediates L2 socialization. The image associated with a particular sex in a target language community might constrain L2 learners’ opportunity or desire to participate in the community of practice. (5) It has been shown that L2 learners do not passively accept their marginalized position in a new social community. When they are positioned negatively, such as “someone with a deficit” (Morita, 2004, p. 593), Asian students (Duff, 2002, 2004), or “unskilled and uneducated” immigrant women (Norton, 2000, p. 142), they negotiate and resist the undesirable social reality. In other words, L2 learners exercise their agency to act on the social reality. (6) L2 learner agency has been also reported as a form of resistance to accept a sociocultural practice of a target language community. When L2 learners find a conflict between their belief and a normative practice of a target language community, they resist emulating it. (7) The studies have collectively shown diverse outcomes of L2 socialization process. That is, the studies suggest that the process of L2 socialization is not unidirectional but multidirectional. (8) Morita (2002, 2004), Norton (2000), and Siegal (1995, 1996) have shown the contingent and idiosyncratic nature of L2 socialization and highlighted individual differences in the ways in which L2 learners exercise their agency and shape their own L2 learning trajectory. In the current SLA literature, individual differences have been discussed in terms of various L2 learner characteristics such as aptitude, age, working memory capacity, motivation, learning strategy, cognitive style, and other factors that reside inside L2 learners themselves (see chapters in recent SLA handbooks such as Dewaele, 2009; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Ellis, 2008; Skehan, 2012). Morita (2002, 2004), Norton (2000), and Siegal (1995, 1996) have shown that the different ways in 42 which L2 learners exercised their agency also shaped the process of L2 learning and outcome. Multidirectionality and agency in language socialization This section discusses an emergent issue related to the (re)consideration of language socialization theory: (a) multidirectionality and diverse outcomes of language socialization and (b) the place of agency in language socialization research. In the remainder of this section, I discuss these two issues in turn. Multidirectionality in language socialization Outcomes of language socialization have been a topic of discussion in language socialization research. For example, He (2003) states: Research drawing upon this model [language socialization theory proposed by Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986] tends to emphasize the efforts made by the experts (e.g., mothers, other caregivers, teachers) to socialize the novices (e.g., children, students). Less visible are the reactions and responses of the novices. Consequently, the process of socialization is often characterized as smooth and seamless, and novices are often presumed to be passive, ready, and uniform recipients of socialization. (p. 128) He’s (2003) point is more prominent in L2 socialization. Unlike L1 socialization, which can assume the presence of cooperative experts (e.g., children’s mother) who take an active role of socializing novices (e.g., L1 children) into a social community of practice, L2 socialization does not guarantee the presence of such cooperative experts. Moreover, because of the social and power asymmetry between novices and experts, previous studies have shown that L2 learners are not given the same access and legitimacy as L1 counterparts are given. Consequently, L2 learners do not achieve the same outcomes as L1 counterparts might achieve. In addition to the issues related to a target language community of practice mentioned above, there is an issue related to L2 learners themselves. Unlike L1 children, 43 L2 learners already possess a “repertoire of linguistic, discursive, and cultural traditions and community affiliations” (Duff, 2007, p. 310). Thus, it can be said that L2 socialization adds layers of complexity to L1 socialization. Moreover, even within the L1 socialization literature, multidirectionality and diverse outcomes of language socialization have become a topic of discussion (Garette 2004; Kulick & Schieffelin, 2004). Kulick and Schieffelin (2004), for example, argue that the goal of language socialization research is to document diverse outcomes of language socialization. Echoing Kulick and Schieffelin (2004), Talmy (2008) has called for “dynamism” (p. 622) in L2 socialization research. Talmy argues that L2 socialization research needs to conceptualize the socialization process not as a seamless and unidirectional process but as a dynamic process that may lead L2 learners in different directions of socialization and bring diverse outcomes. Locating agency in L2 socialization research Another issue raised by He (2003) with respect to the (re)conceptualization of language socialization is the agency (or the lack of agency) of novices. A similar argument has been made by Haneda (2006), who criticized the current conceptualization of unproblematic and undifferentiated view of language socialization process and has argued that language socialization research needs to view learners as individual participants in a social community of practice. Polanyi (1995) has also identified the importance of a diverse view of L2 learners. She argued that “ultimately, every language learner is alone with a unique experience, an experience tailored to, by and for that individual” (p. 287). The arguments made by Haneda (2006), He (2003), and Polanyi (1995) have been supported by Morita (2002, 2004), Norton (2000), and Siegal (1995), who have highlighted different ways in which L2 learners became socialized into an L2 community. For example, Morita (2002, 2004), who documented the socialization processes of 44 Japanese female graduate students participating in Canadian university courses, has illustrated how the socialization process of each Japanese student was shaped by contingent factors, classroom practice, and individual learners’ desires. The Japanese female graduate students, who appeared to be a group of homogeneous international students, negotiated their participation in the classroom community of practice in different ways. Most recently, Ochs and Schieffelin (2011) specifically mentioned the dynamism of the socialization process and agency of novices. They state: Regardless of when it transpires across the life course, language socialization is best viewed as an interactional rather than unidirectional process. . . . That is, all parties to socializing parties are agents in the formation of competence. (pp. 5–6, italics are in original) Agency in SLA research Agency has become an important theoretical concept in SLA (Duff, 2012; Kinginger, 2004; Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001; Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000). It reflects the view that L2 learners are not passive participants in the process of learning an L2 but individuals who can make deliberate choices and “play a defining role in shaping the qualities of their learning” (Dewaele, 2009). Duff (2012) defines agency in this way: People’s ability to make choices, take control, self-regulate, and thereby pursue their goals as individuals leading, potentially, to personal or social transformation (p. 417) From this perspective, agency can be viewed as a fundamental force of humans to act on the social world. In Ahearn’s words (2001), agency is the “socioculturally mediated capacity to act” (p. 112). A sense of agency enables individuals to imagine, perform, accept, refuse, and resist: in other words, agency enables individuals to make choices with regard to how they relate themselves with the social world, to take ownership in the pursuit of their enterprises in their lives, (e.g., learning an L2), and to create opportunities for self-transformation. 45 From the perspective of activity theory, Lantolf and Pavlenko (2001) view agency as “mediated relationship” (p. 148) between individual learners and the social world. Even though L2 learners are engaging in the same activity, socioculturally, they are not all engaging in the same activity because individual learners’ relationships to the social world are not the same. Therefore, the meaning or the “significance” (p. 148) that individual learners construct through the engagement in a particular activity is not the same for all learners. What they find meaningful or significant in the process of engagement is mediated by individual learners’ personal histories, goals of learning, beliefs, and their relationship to the social world in which they live. Lantolf and Pavlenko argue that it is this “significance” (p. 148) that ultimately shapes the “individual’s orientation to learn or not” (p. 148). Despite the increasing recognition of importance of agency in L2 learning, agency has not gained a central focus in SLA research. This is mainly because in the current SLA literature, agency is associated with studies on identity and treated as a sort of umbrella term for identity. Especially after the publication of the groundwork by Norton (2000), which has foregrounded the important role of identity in L2 learning, agency has been, in a sense, placed in the shadow of identity and has not gained a central focus as a topic of investigation. However, I argue that agency deserves to be an independent topic of inquiry in SLA research. In the following, I argue why it might so. Identity and investment Norton (1995, 2000) argued that the theories of SLA (at that time) did not adequately address the socially situated nature of L2 learning and proposed a theory of identity that foregrounded the “profoundly social nature of language learning” (Norton & McKenny, 2011). Norton’s study of four immigrant women in Canada highlighted the struggles that they faced to gain access and legitimacy as a member of a new community by being caught in inequitable power relations. For them, the only way to gain access to a new 46 community of practice and claim their legitimate position was to negotiate their identities—the one that was imposed on them by the dominant society and the one that they wanted to project. Thus, Norton, in her theory of identity, has put forth the centrality of L2 learners’ identity in the process of L2 learning. Norton (2000) defines identity in the following: I use the term identity to reference how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed across time and space, and how the person understands possibilities for the future. (p. 5) In this sense, identity is understood as a person’s potential force or possibilities for change. In order for potential force or possibilities to become an actual force, it requires L2 learner agency, which Norton (2000) defines as “investment” (p. 10). Norton has argued that when L2 learners learn an L2, they do so with the understanding that “they will acquire a wider range of symbolic and material resources, which in turn increase the value of their cultural capital” (p. 10). She explains the concept of investment as follows: The concept of investment, which I introduced in Norton Peirce (1995), signals the socially and historically constructed relationship of learners to the target language, and their often ambivalent desire to learn and practice it. It is best understood with reference to the economic metaphors that Bourdieu uses in his work—in particular, the notion of cultural capital. Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) use the term ‘cultural capital’ to reference to the knowledge and modes of thought that characterize different classes and groups in relation to specific sets of social forms. They argue that some forms of cultural capital have a higher exchange value than others in relation to a set of social forms which value some forms of knowledge and thought over others. If learners invest in a second language, they do so with the understanding that they will acquire a wider range of symbolic and material resources, which in turn increase the value of their cultural capital. Learners expect or hope to have a good return on that investment—a return that will give them access to hitherto unattainable resources. (Norton, 2000, p. 10) In this sense, L2 learners’ investment is considered a primary force to act on and change the social reality, and identity is the fundamental source of their investment. 47 Norton’s notion of investment is drawn from the economic metaphor proposed by sociologists Bourdieu and Passeron (1977). Bourdieu was, in particular, influential in the formation of the theory of social reproduction and change in a community. According to Bourdieu, social structure is maintained, reproduced, and changed based on people’s negotiation of symbolic power manifested in various forms of symbolic capital, including economic capital (e.g. cash and assets), social capital (e.g. membership, reputation, and social status), and cultural capital. Drawn from this economic metaphor, Norton argues that the purpose or the goal of L2 learning by L2 learners is to gain or increase cultural capital that has a higher exchange value. What, then, exactly, does cultural capital entail? According to Bourdieu (1991), cultural capital is “knowledge, skills and other cultural acquisition, as exemplified by educational and technological qualifications” (p. 14). Consider the case of Katarina in Norton’s study (2000). She stopped investing in learning English (even though she could have continued to take the class for free) when she realized that she was positioned as an “unskilled and uneducated” (p. 142) immigrant woman in a new social community because of her limited English ability, despite all the high qualifications that she had earned in Poland. Instead, she decided to invest in learning computer skills because she believed that the acquisition of computer skills would give her better “return” than learning English, which would allows her to “access to hitherto unattainable resources”—that is, for her, gaining the social identity of a skilled and educated woman. Norton’s conceptualization of investment has opened a new way of looking at L2 learners and L2 learning in SLA research. However, the important question still remains. Do all L2 learners learn an L2 with the desire, hope, expectation, goal, and/or purpose exemplified in the economic metaphor proposed by Norton (1995, 2000)? To date, no SLA research has investigated the validity or the applicability of the notion of investment as a force or drive for L2 learning. 48 Agency, identity, and investment Although agency, defined by Ahearn (2001), Duff (2012), and Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000), like Norton (1995, 2000), is understood as a socially mediated construct, researchers have not viewed L2 learning as an invested interest of L2 learners. To illustrate this point, I review a study that highlights the transformation process of an L2 French learner, Alice. Kinginger’s (2004) traced the learning experience of Alice, an American university student who was learning French as an L2, over a period of four years including two years of study abroad. Alice came from a working-class family. Her mother was single and had a peripatetic lifestyle. Alice and her younger sister had moved continually. Therefore, much of Alice’s schooling experience took place in a home school program. When she was 15 years old, Alice finished the home schooling high school program, enrolled in a regional college, and began studying French. Alice was enthusiastic about learning French. By the time she began her study abroad program, she had reached and exceeded the third-year level of college French education. According to Kinginger, Alice’s motivation to study French arose from the image of France created by the American mass media. There is no poverty in France. People live in mansions. They sit in cafés and order wine. They appreciate impressionist arts. For Alice, France was the country of her dreams. She imagined herself being in France and interacting with French people with higher cultural awareness. Alice also dreamed of becoming a French teacher. She imagined herself as a teacher who was committed to the role of language teaching and promoting intercultural awareness and social justice. In the fall of 1998, Alice departed for France. Facing the social reality of living in France, “her image of France and of herself as a student and a speaker of French were repeatedly challenged” (p. 232). For the first year, she lived in a university residence hall. Like other participants in the study abroad programs, Alice had access to a group of 49 fellow students. However, Alice’s position within the group was unique because she was older than the others and because she had grown up poor and, at time, homeless; she had an “acute awareness of the privileges afforded to her as a study abroad participant, and fewer material resources” (p. 232). Alice’s initial experience of living in France was unproductive and frustrating, and she became progressively depressed. Moreover, she even became more depressed as she was convinced that her French was inadequate. Even as Alice faced the challenge of living in her new social reality and attaining advanced language proficiency, she continued to try to gain access to French people and to practice French. She deliberately situated herself in the social networks that she developed by hanging out in local hotels and “making the rounds of rooms in the residence hall where students gathered to eat and drink” (p. 236). During her study abroad years in France, Alice continuously reconstructed her motivation to learn French. By the end of her study abroad program in France, Alice became aware of the complexity of language and the serious effort required to attain advanced proficiency in French. Moreover, Kinginger argues that her years of language learning had taught Alice not only the ability to communicate in French but also “to stick with things” (p. 238). In deciding each day to continue reaching for her dream despite many obstacles, Alice had in fact learned how to overcome her “previous general tendency to abandon difficult pursuits” (p. 239). When she returned to her university in the United States to complete her degree, Alice was no longer the same Alice she had been before, but rather had been transformed into a different Alice, one who pursued her goal of becoming a language educator. During the course of three years, what made Alice commit to and continue the study of French was her aspiration for personal transformation to become the ideal person who existed in her imagination. It was this aspiration of Alice that made her engage in the pursuit of enterprise of learning French regardless of the obstacles and challenges that she had faced, rather than her invested interest of increasing her cultural capital (“knowledge, 50 skills and other cultural acquisition, as exemplified by educational and technological qualifications,” Bourdieu, 1991, p. 14). Unlike the case of Katarina in Norton (2000), who had a clear expectation of receiving a “good return” on her investment of learning computer skills, it is possible to interpret that Alice’s primary force for learning French was her aspiration of personal transformation—from a young woman from a workingclass single-mother family to a “person who she can admire” (Kinginger, 2004, p. 240). For Alice, becoming a speaker of French was a “way of reorienting herself in the world— a ‘mission’” (p. 240) rather than an “investment.” In short, Kinginger’s case study has suggested two things: (a) the notion of investment alone may not be comprehensive enough to explain L2 learners’ diverse drives for learning an L2, and (b) other forms of L2 learner agency, such as aspirations and imagination, may play a powerful role in shaping learning processes and outcomes. Although Kinginger argued Alice’s socialization process from the perspectives of her negotiation of identities (class and gender) and her investment (desire to gain cultural capital), it opens the possibility that the notion of investment alone is not comprehensive enough to capture the contingent and idiosyncratic nature of L2 learners’ social and personal desires for learning an L2. More research is needed to examine (a) the applicability of the notion of investment to various types of learners situated in various social contexts and (b) how might other forms of L2 learner agency play a role in shaping learning processes and the nature of outcomes. Agency in L2 socialization research In the L2 socialization literature, L2 learner agency has been reported as (a) a form of resistance and (b) a form of non-participation. In the remainder of this section, I will discuss these two forms of L2 learner agency in turn. 51 Resistance Previous L2 socialization research has identified two types of resistance: (a) resistance to accepting or taking on the social role or identity constructed by a dominant language community (Atkinson, 2003; Duff, 2002; Harklau, 2000; Morita, 2002, 2004; Norton, 2000; Talmy, 2008); and (b) resistance to adopting and conforming to normative practices of a target language community (Siegal, 1995, 1996). The term resistance is used in this study to describe the oppositional feelings and actions of people (Ahearn, 2001). The first type of resistance is observed when a particular social position or identity in a new social community is imposed on L2 learners, who resist accepting their new position as an illegitimate member of a community. For example, the non-traditional students (in Atkinson, 2003; Duff, 2002; Harklau, 2000; Talmy, 2008) showed their resistance to the marginalizing practice of the school by displaying destructive and/or undesirable classroom behaviors. Morita’s (2002, 2004) Japanese student’s silence in Canadian university classrooms was a form of resistance to being marginalized as an incompetent non-native speaker of English. When Matina, in Norton’s (1995, 2000) study, realized that she was positioned as something invisible like a “broom,” she resisted accepting her new position. Arina’s initial resistance using Japanese honorific expressions (Siegal 1995, 1996) was an example of the second form of resistance. Mary, too, resisted conforming to the sociocultural norms of the Japanese language when she faced conflicting pragmatic needs to present herself as a scholar of applied linguistics. Non-participation Morita (2002, 2004) and Norton (2000, 2001) have reported that L2 learner agency can be manifested in a form of non-participation in particular social practices. When L2 learners face a new social reality that is undesirable for them, they choose not 52 to participate in that practice. For example, Katarina (Norton, 2000, 2001) stopped attending her ESL class when she realized that she was positioned as a powerless immigrant woman but instead, she decided to take a computer course to (re)gain her legitimacy. She reoriented her investment to becoming an educated professional rather than to becoming a proficient speaker of English. Her agency (desire) made her decide not to participate in a certain practice (learning English as an “unskilled and uneducated” immigrant woman) but made her decide to participate in another (learning computer skills an educated individual). Rie (Morita, 2002, 2004) also decided to reorient her goal of study. After making fruitless efforts to negotiate her marginal position in the classroom community, she decided not to participate in some aspects of classroom practice but selectively participated in different aspects that were relevant to her learning. Summary of this chapter: What is known and what is not known This chapter began with two fundamental questions that language socialization research ultimately aims to answer: (a) how people learn a language (how people are socialized to the use of language) and (b) what it means to learn a language (what people are socialized to through the use of language). Since the publication of the seminal work by Ochs and Schieffelin (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986), studies on language socialization have been conducted in various contexts, including L2 learning. Although the history of L2 socialization research is not long, studies on L2 socialization from the past two decades have uncovered various issues related to L2 learning. Language socialization theory posits that language learning is a “process by which novices or newcomers in a community or culture gain communicative competence, membership, and legitimacy in the group” (Duff, 2007, p. 310) through participation in a respective community of practice. Hence, in the light of language socialization, social 53 participation in a community is a fundamental process for language learning to take place. Community of Practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998), in particular, sets forth the notion of legitimate peripheral participation, which grants novices peripherality and legitimacy, as a type of modified participation necessary for learning to take place. Previous studies on L2 socialization have shown that social participation in a target language community is a challenge for L2 learners. These studies have foregrounded two issues: (a) difficulty gaining access to participate in a target language community of practice; and (b) difficulty gaining legitimacy as a member of a target language community. Because of the social and power asymmetry between L2 learners and experts (people in the dominant community), L2 learners are positioned in a marginalized space of a target language community by being identified as illegitimate speakers and members of a community. Hence, learning opportunities (participation in a social community of practice) are not afforded to L2 learners. This was the case for both L2 classroom learners and adult learners in a community. Moreover, this tendency was more prominent for English language learners in a dominant community (e.g., ESL students in a mainstream classroom in U.S.). Previous studies on L2 socialization have also shown that study abroad contexts set different challenges for L2 learners. For example, the female university students who became victims of sexual harassment in Spain and Russia had to face the sexual representation of gender in the target language community, and their humiliating experience had a negative impact on their desire to learn the target language and interact with the people in the target language community. American university students who studied abroad in Japan faced another challenge. Japanese host families’ folk beliefs about gaijin (foreigners), which was influenced by the ideology of nihonjinron (theories of the Japanese or ideology of the Japanese), which emphasizes the uniqueness and particularity of the Japanese language and culture in relation to the western world in particular, was so pervasive that L2 learners were socialized into the role and identity of 54 “foreigners,” and consequently, they were neither given access to the community of practice nor legitimacy as members of the community. Furthermore, diverse outcomes and multidirectionality of L2 socialization have become emergent issues in language socialization research. These research findings are particularly important because they have advanced the existing theory of language socialization by calling for theoretical (re)consideration of language socialization. Some researchers (e.g., Haneda, 2006; Kulick & Schieffelin, 2004; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011; Talmy, 2008) argue for a more dynamic view of language socialization. The reconsideration of language socialization theory has identified another issue—the place of agency in language socialization. Agency has been argued as an important factor in L2 learning (Duff, 2012; Kinginger, 2004; Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001; Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000). In the L2 socialization literature, the agency of L2 learners has been found in forms of resistance and non-participation. When an undesirable position or identity is imposed on L2 learners, they exercise their agency to resist it. When they find a conflict between their beliefs, wants, and needs and the normative linguistic practice of a target language community, they resist conforming to the normative use of language. Furthermore, such feelings of resistance may lead L2 learners to choose not to participate in certain aspects of a target language community of practice. However, much is still left unanswered. The majority of L2 socialization research conducted to date has limited its scope to classroom contexts and interaction between L2 learners and classroom teachers. L2 classrooms are part of a larger social institution, and social institutions are situated in social, cultural, historical, and political contexts of their local communities of practice (Tobin, Hsueh, & Karasawa, 2009). L2 socialization research focusing on institutional settings needs to expand the concept of community beyond L2 classrooms. Moreover, the majority of the previous classroom-based studies have focused on either L2 socialization by a single learner or by a group of L2 learners as a whole. In the 55 latter case, researchers have treated L2 learners as a group of homogeneous students, such as oldtimer (Talmy, 2008) or ESL students (Harklau, 2000; Talmy, 2008) Consequently, their studies have overlooked individual differences of L2 learners in terms of different ways in which they were socialized into the target language community. The studies that focused on L2 socialization by individual learners have highlighted different ways in which L2 learners engaged themselves in the process of learning an L2 (Cook, 2006; Norton, 2000; Morita, 2002, 2004; Polanyi, 1995; Siegal, 1995, 1996). The overwhelming majority of L2 socialization research examines L2 socialization by English language learners, and the majority of them are ESL students in a mainstream classroom in a dominant community. English language learning in a dominant community inherits an evident power asymmetry between newcomers and oldtimers as demonstrated by previous research. More studies are needed to examine L2 socialization by learners of other languages, which do not involve an evident power asymmetry. The previous studies that examined L2 socialization by learners of Japanese, Javanese, Russian, and Spanish in study abroad contexts have uncovered different challenge that L2 learners faced. When L2 learners learn an L2, they also learn the sociocultural values, practice, and norms of a target language community. Hence, different languages set different challenges for L2 learners. The majority of the previous L2 socialization studies have shown how the target language community did not afford opportunities for learning for L2 learners. However, an important question still remains unanswered: How do L2 learners learn to become a competent and legitimate member of a new social community? The majority of the previous studies have focused on L2 learners’ access to target language communities of practice. However, very little is known about their trajectory of learning over time. The trajectory of learning is a dynamic process shaped by L2 learner agency and the affordances of social communities. To date, L2 socialization research has paid much attention to the affordance structure of social communities. However, it has paid less 56 attention to individual L2 learners as agents. More research is needed to examine how individual L2 learners respond to affordances, confront (or do not confront) and solve (or do not solve) conflict, use (or do not use) resources, make sense of self and actions, and construct the process of their learning. Despite the recent recognition of the important role of L2 learner agency, to date, no study has examined L2 learner agency as a central focus of the inquiry. In the current SLA literature, because agency tends to be treated as an umbrella term that encompasses identity and investment associated with Norton (1995, 2000), the role of agency has not yet been fully understood. Kinginger (2004) has suggested a possibility that the concept of investment alone is not comprehensive enough to explain L2 learners’ complex, idiosyncratic, social, and personal desires for learning an L2, and that other forms of L2 learner agency may play an influential role in learning an L2. More research is needed to examine (a) the applicability of the notion of investment to various types of learners situated in various social contexts and (b) how might other forms of L2 learner agency play a role in shaping learning processes and the nature of outcomes. Present study The present study intends to fill a gap between what is known and what is not known in the L2 socialization literature. Joining the line of research that has shown the dynamic role of L2 learner agency in the process of L2 learning (Cook, 2006; Kinginger, 2004; Morita, 2002, 2004; Norton, 2000; Polanyi, 1995; Siegal, 1995, 1996), this study examines the different ways in which L2 learners exercise their agency in a process of L2 learning in a social community. It focuses on adult L2 learners of Japanese and expands the notion of community beyond the L2 classroom. The goal of the study is to describe and analyze different ways in which L2 learners exercise their agency in pursuing the enterprise of learning an L2 by making choices, accepting or resisting, conforming or refusing, positioning themselves in certain ways, relating themselves with other members 57 of a community, making sense of self and actions, and taking ownership of their own L2 learning. As Ahearn (2001) defines it, agency is the “socioculturally mediated capacity to act” (p. 112). This study examines the dynamic interplay between community and L2 learner agency in L2 learning. The present study is different from previous L2 socialization studies with respect to the context of learning. It studies a social community where the majority of the members are newcomers. It is a community created for the purpose of learning an L2. A group of L2 learners gathers in this community, lives together, studies together, and interacts with each for a certain period of time for the purpose of learning an L2. In this community, L2 learners are required to communicate only in the target language that they are studying while they are staying there. Although this immersion environment is similar to the one in study abroad contexts, it is different in several ways. One significant difference is that the native speakers of a target language in this community are all L2 instructors. During the duration of their stay in the community, L2 learners and instructors reside in the same place and interact with each other in the target language through participation in the daily events and activities for the sake of learning an L2. By studying this community, the present study intends to examine (a) whether the findings of previous studies conducted in L2 classrooms or study abroad contexts are applicable in this hybrid social community, and (b) whether a new phenomenon emerges. Furthermore, the present study intends to contribute to a theoretical reconsideration of L2 learners’ force for learning an L2. It explores (a) the applicability of notion of investment proposed by Norton (2000) to L2 learners in a language immersion environment and (b) other forms of L2 learner agency that might play an influential role in L2 learning process and outcome. Finally the current study intends to contribute to a greater understanding of how individual differences of L2 learners, defined as different ways in which L2 learners engage in the community of practice and exercise their agency, form different trajectories 58 of learning and result in different experiences of socialization at the end. The previous studies on individual differences in L2 learning have tended to focus on L2 learners’ internal factors to explain diverse outcomes of L2 learning. This study intends to expand the horizon of that research and explore how different ways in which L2 learners engage in the social world will form different learning processes and result in diverse experiences of socialization. Research questions The overarching questions that guided this study are: (a) How do the four advanced L2 learners of Japanese exercise their agency in learning Japanese in a community of a summer intensive full-immersion program? and (b) How do different ways in which the four learners exercise their agency in learning Japanese form different trajectories of learning and result in diverse experiences of L2 socialization as outcomes? The first question aims to examine the dynamic interplay between social context and L2 learners in a social community. Conceptualizing L2 learners as agents, the question explores the different ways in which L2 learners understand the new world surrounding them, view and position themselves in a new community, perceive and negotiate the meaning of mundane events, interpret and construct the meaning of what they do, understand the task of learning Japanese, use social, cultural, and linguistic resources of the community, seek connection with other people, solve the conflict that they face, steer their learning, and work to achieve the goal of their enterprise of learning Japanese. The second question aims to trace the process of learning by L2 learners. The questions concerns how different ways in which L2 learners exercise their agency form different learning processes and result in diverse experiences of socialization. 59 CHAPTER III: METHODS Introduction This chapter describes the methods employed in this study. The chapter begins with the description of the research site and introduces the focal participants in the study. Then it describes the research methods, including the researcher’s bias and assumptions. Finally, the data sources and collection for this study and data analysis are described. Research site The data collection was conducted in the summer 2010 session of the Japanese School at Greenville College in New England in the United States. The Japanese School was one of ten Summer Language Schools that it hosted in that summer. In the context of foreign language education, Greenville College is known for its summer intensive immersion foreign language programs, which are grouped under the general name of the Greenville Summer Language Schools. Every summer since 1915, the college has hosted the Summer Language Schools in various foreign languages. With the opening of the Hebrew School in 2008, it now offers the Summer Language Schools in ten languages, including Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. These ten Language Schools together enroll more than 1300 students every summer. Greenville College is located in the town of Greenville, a traditional New England town with a population of approximately 8,500 according to the city homepage. The 350 acres of the college campus are located on a hill west of the center of town. Crossing the stone bridge over the Cedar Creek River, which runs through downtown Greenville, and walking toward the north, the road will take you to the east end of the college campus, a gateway to the Greenville College community. Community is one of the central foci of this study. Therefore, I will describe and analyze the community of Greenville College and the practice of the Japanese School to a greater extent in the following chapter. In this section, I describe the curriculum of the 60 school, the staff, the director, and the level 4 course in which the focal students of the study were enrolled. Staff of the Japanese School In the summer of 2010, the Japanese School enrolled 88 students and had 27 staff members including the director of the school, the coordinator, 19 Japanese language instructors, three interns, two bilingual assistants, one instructor for the three-week instructional technology (IT) course, and the rakugo3 ‘traditional comic storytelling’ performance event staff. The IT instructor stayed at the Japanese School for three weeks from the sixth week through the eighth week. The rakugo performance event staff stayed at the Japanese School for a few days during the fourth week, which was when the event took place. All of the Japanese language instructors had earned an advanced degree in the field of applied linguistics, foreign language education, Japanese language pedagogy, or linguistics. The majority of them were full-time Japanese language instructors at a university or a college in the United States during the regular school years when the study was conducted. Two of them were doctoral students in the related area. Two were assistant professors at universities in the United States (one instructor was starting his assistant professorship from the upcoming fall). The majority of the instructors had taught at the Japanese School prior to the summer of 2010. Three interns were graduate students in a master’s program in Japanese language pedagogy. They all had experience teaching Japanese at the postsecondary level in the United States. All members of the teaching staff were native speakers of Japanese except for one instructor in level 1. The information on the Japanese school staff is summarized in Table 1. 3 For the notation of the Japanese words and sentences, I will use romaji ‘roman alphabet.’ However, the quotations of what people said in Japanese will be written in Japanese followed by the English equivalent provided by the researcher. 61 Table 1 Staff of the Japanese School Status in in the School Level Gender First language Years taught in the School Status during the regular years Length of residence in the U.S. Instructor Level 1 F Japanese 9 Instructor >10 years (Head) (Beginning I) Instructor Level 1 F Japanese 2 Instructor 5–9 years F Japanese 3 Instructor 5–9 years M English 2 Instructor >20 years F Japanese 2 Instructor 5–10 years F Japanese 2 Instructor 1–4 years (Beginning I) Instructor Level 1 (Beginning I) Instructor Level 1 (Beginning I) Instructor Level 2 (Head) (Beginning II) Instructor Level 2 (Beginning II) Instructor Level 2 (in Japan) F Japanese 2 Doctoral student 5–9 years M Japanese First time Doctoral student 5–9 years (Beginning II) Instructor Level 2 (Beginning II) Instructor Level 3 (Head) (Intermediate I) Instructor Level 3 (in Canada) F Japanese 10 Assistant professor >10 years F Japanese 4 Instructor 5–9 years F Japanese First time Instructor 5–9 years M Japanese First time Instructor 5–9 years M Japanese 16 Director >20 years M Japanese First time Assistant professor (starting from the upcoming fall) 5–9 years (Intermediate I) Instructor Level 3 (Intermediate I) Instructor Level 3 (Intermediate I) Instructor Level 4 (Head, Associate director) (Intermediate II) Miyamotosensei Instructor Level 4 Ishida-sensei (Intermediate II) 62 Table 1 Continued Instructor Level 4 Matsuda-sensei (Intermediate II) Instructor Level 4 Noda-sensei (Intermediate II) Instructor Level 5 (Head) (Advanced) Instructor Level 5 M Japanese 2 Instructor 5–9 years F Japanese 2 Instructor 5–9 years F Japanese 2 Instructor 5–9 years (in Japan) F Japanese 5 (Advanced) Intern Level 1 Level 2 F Japanese First time Master’s student 1–4 years F Japanese First time Master’s student 1–4 years F Japanese First time Master’s student 1–4 years (Beginning II) Intern Level 3 1–4 years (in Japan) (Beginning I) Intern Instructor (Intermediate I) Bilingual assistant N/A F English Former student in the JPN School Recent B.A. from Greenville College 5–9 years Bilingual assistant N/A M English Former student in the JPN School Doctoral student >20 years IT instructor N/A M Japanese Former instructor in the JPN School Assistant professor (in Taiwan) 5–9 years Rakugo event staff N/A F Japanese N/A >20 years English Former bilingual assistant Coordinator N/A F English First time Greenville College employee >40 years N/A M Japanese 6 Professor >20 years Mary Director Kitano-sensei 63 Director The director of the Japanese School is Dr. Kitano, a professor of Japanese at a university in the Midwest during the academic year. He is the sixth director in the history of the Japanese School. The summer 2010 session marked the end of his second term and his sixth year as director. There is no doubt that the director’s teaching philosophy, positioning, and personality influence school policies, curriculum, and management. The associate director of the Japanese School, who had worked with previous directors, has observed that the atmosphere of the Japanese School changes depending on the director. Dr. Kitano has a great sense of humor. The very first time he showed his sense of humor in public was at the Language Schools’ opening convocation. The opening convocation took place on Sunday evening, the third day after the students’ arrival. The students and faculty of the nine-week programs (Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Russian) and administrators of the Language Schools all gathered in the chapel. The students were seated in groups by the language school that they attended. After opening remarks by Dr. McDowell, the vice president of the Language Schools, the president of Greenville College gave a speech. Following the president’s speech, Dr. McDowell introduced each language school’s director and coordinator. When introduced, the directors stood up, approached the podium, and said a few words in their languages. The Japanese School was the third to be introduced. Each time a school was introduced, the students who belong to that school gave a loud cheer for their school director. Since I do not understand Russian or Chinese, the response of the students to the remarks by the directors of those schools created for me an impression of propaganda. When the Japanese School was introduced, the students gave a loud cheer, just like the students of the previous two language schools students had. Dr. Kitano approached the podium. Instead of saying some words, he took out a pair of sunglasses from his suit pocket and put them on. He also took out a table knife from his pocket, placed it in front of his face, and started to lick it. After a short silence, the chapel 64 filled with laughter. I realized that his performance was a parody of a scene from a Japanese film that students in the Japanese School had watched the previous night. In that particular scene, the main character, in the movie, pretending to be a hired killer, is showing off in front of Japanese gangsters by licking his knife. After the laughter, Dr. Kitano told the students, ９週間がんばりましょう‘Let’s work hard for the nine weeks.’ Applause and a louder cheer arose from the students. On another occasion, a male student raised his hand, stood up, and asked, “What can I do to become funny in my second language like Kitano-sensei4?” It was during the question session after a lecture given by an invited professor. The lecture was entitled, “What Can You Do to Facilitate Your L2 Learning?” The male student looked very serious, but the auditorium filled with laughter. Dr. Kitano describes his relationship with students this way: “I try not to create distance between students and me. It’s maybe because of my personality. I candidly approach students and enter their circle” (interview, original in Japanese and translated by the researcher). He sits with students at the same dining table, eats meals with them, chats with them, and tells jokes to them. He sometimes plays basketball with students. He sits on a bench and chats with students when he has time. While Dr. Kitano makes great efforts to keep connections with students, he tries to create and provide learning opportunities for students. おもしろければ学生はやる ’If it is omoshiroi ‘interesting,’ students will do [study].’ I heard the director make this statement multiple times in both formal and informal occasions. Omoshiroi is an adjective to describe something that is exciting, fun, and interesting. If students find the Japanese School omoshiroi, they should be able to overcome hardship and continue to invest effort to accomplish whatever the goal they had set for themselves before coming 4 Sensei literally means ‘teacher’ in Japanese. It is also used as a suffix (e.g., xxx-sensei) to address teachers. 65 to Greenville. The director’s job is to create as many opportunities as possible and provide omoshiroi experiences for the students during their time in the Japanese School. Omoshiroi does not merely mean something that is fun; it also means something that evokes, stimulates, and challenges one’s intellect. The director’s philosophy that the Japanese School should be an omoshiroi place for students is reflected in the Japanese School curriculum. Various events are held every week as co-curricular and extra-curricular activities in addition to the daily classroom language learning. The curriculum of the Japanese School is described in the following section. One of the instructors, who had worked with previous directors and returned to the Japanese School in 2010, described the Japanese School as 日本語学校は進化したと 思う ‘I think the Japanese School has evolved.’ She continued, 要らないものがなくなっ て、いいものだけが残ったっていう感じ ‘It feels like unnecessary things are gone, and only the good things have remained.’ The sophistication of the curriculum is not merely due to the process of natural selection over several decades of the history of the Japanese School but also due to the resourcefulness and passion of the director. Since Dr. Kitano was appointed as the director of the Japanese School in 2005, the enrollment in the school has increased dramatically. In order to accommodate the growing needs, in 2009 the Japanese School relocated to Greenough Hall, which can house 164 people, from Hollis Hall, which housed 120 residents. Moreover, the Japanese School has been ranked as one of the top schools among the ten Language Schools in terms of the students’ satisfaction, according to the director. Curriculum The Japanese School is a nine-week program. During these nine weeks, the members of the Japanese School, including both instructors and students, live in the same dormitory, dine in the same cafeteria, and participate in the same activities in accordance 66 with the policy of the Greenville Summer Language Schools5. Furthermore, during those nine weeks, students are required to communicate only in the language that they are studying. The curriculum covers eight semester-hours worth of content materials. Therefore, the daily teaching/learning load is, without a doubt, intense. The curriculum of the Japanese School consists of (a) daily lessons, (b) co-curricular activities, and (c) extra-curricular activities. In the morning, students have four sessions of Japanese language lessons. In the afternoon, on a weekly basis, they participate in a club activity of their choice: tea ceremony, martial arts, rakugo ‘traditional Japanese comic storytelling,’ karaoke, or news club. In addition to this co-curricular activity, students have the option to participate in extra-curricular activities, such as dance, soccer, volleyball, and/or an a cappella choir. On weekends, the Japanese School hosts various events, including a sports event (week 1), the rakugo week (week 4), the Summer festival (week 4), a karaoke party (week 6), a talent show (week 7), and movie nights. Besides the school-hosted activities and events, the Japanese School invites specialists from various fields to give lectures for students. In the summer of 2010, three specialists were invited, including two professors from the fields of second language acquisition and political science, respectively and an atomic bomb survivor. During the lectures, the Language Pledge was suspended and students were able to ask questions and engage in discussion in English. Inviting an atomic bomb survivor to the Japanese School to share his/her experience with students has become an annual event under Dr. Kitano’s directorship. The summer of 2010 marked the fourth visit of a survivor of the atomic bombing. 5 In the summer of 2010, a few instructors lived in a house located on campus. 67 Level 4 course (Intermediate II course) The focal students who participated in this study were all students in the level 4 (Intermediate II) course. In this section, I describe the course organization and the other students in the course. The level 4 course is the second most advanced in the Japanese School (from the level 1 through level 5). It roughly corresponds to the levels of Intermediate Mid through Intermediate High of the ACTFL oral proficiency guidelines at the beginning of the summer session. For students to be placed in the level 4 course (based on the results of the placement test), six semesters of Japanese language study (or equivalent) are usually necessary. In the summer of 2010, the curriculum of the level 4 course consisted of four components: reading, grammar, conversation, and video (narratives). Reading was usually taught in the first and fourth periods of the daily class hours by the head instructor of the course. During the second and third sessions, the students were divided into two sections and studied other language skills. The course had four instructors and enrolled 15 students. The instructors of level 4 were Miyamoto-sensei (the head instructor, male), Ishida-sensei (male), Matsuda-sensei (female), and Noda-sensei (male). Miyamoto-sensei was also the associate director of the Japanese School. Matsuda-sensei and Noda-sensei were teaching in the Japanese School for the second time and were teaching level 4 for the first time. For Ishida-sensei, it was his first time teaching in the Japanese School. Of the 15 students, eight were undergraduates, three were graduate students, two had just earned their B.A. degrees, one was a high school Japanese language teacher, and one was a working professional. The majority of the students were in their early 20s. The two youngest students had just finished their first year in college. The oldest student was a high school Japanese language teacher in her early 50s. The gender ratio was eight females and seven males. The racial make-up was 11 Caucasian students, two AfricanAmerican students, one Asian student, one half American and half Japanese student, and 68 one half Austrian and half Filipino. Two students in level 4 were from outside of the United States. Focal students Considering the purpose of this study, I chose an ethnographic case study design as my research method. An ethnographic case study allows me to examine the process of L2 socialization by individual learners in depth. Furthermore, in order to obtain narrative data in Japanese (due to the Summer Language School policy, all communication with the focal students needed be conducted in Japanese), study participants needed to have a higher level of Japanese language proficiency. Therefore, I recruited the study participants from the students in level 4 (Intermediate II) and level 5 (Advanced) courses. Initially, four students from level 4 and one student from level 5 had agreed to participate in the study; however, toward the end of the sixth week, the student in level 5 withdrew from the study. Therefore, the four students from level 4 remained as the focal students in this study. They are Parker Stewart, Alison Beil, Naiya Williams, and Danielle Sanders. Chapter 5 through Chapter 8 focus on each focal student in depth: their backgrounds, purpose for coming to Greenville, the nature of my relationship with them, and their perspectives. Therefore, in this section, I present the basic demographic information for each focal participant. Parker had just finished his junior year in university when I met him in the Japanese School. He was studying economics and Japanese. Parker had lived in Japan for five years when he was a child. His family had relocated to Tokyo due to his father’s job assignment. Parker was one year old at that time. Parker and his older brother attended an international school and therefore, he had not learned Japanese. He had begun his formal Japanese language study when he entered the university. He came to Greenville to improve his Japanese language skills. 69 Alison was a doctoral student in post-war Japanese literature at a university in Germany. She was working on her doctoral thesis when I met her in the Japanese School. It was her first time in visiting the United States. She received a fellowship from her graduate program and was planning to go to Japan to do research at the International Research Center for Japanese Studies in Kyoto after Greenville. Alison had lived in Japan for three years when she was a child because her parents had taken teaching positions in a German School in Tokyo. While she was living there, her younger sister and she had attended the German School and, therefore, she had not learned Japanese. It was after she entered her university that she began studying Japanese. She came to Greenville to improve her Japanese language skills, especially her speaking skills. Naiya had just finished her junior year in college when I met her in the Japanese School. She was majoring in Japanese. She had studied abroad in Nagoya, Japan during her sophomore year. She was born and raised in New York City. However, her parents lived in Trinidad. Naiya had lived with her grandmother since birth. She was one of the eight African-American students in the Japanese School. She came to Greenville to improve her Japanese language skills. Danielle was a certified high school Japanese language teacher in her 50s when I met her in the Japanese School. She received a master’s degree in secondary education with a focus on Japanese at a university in the Midwest in 1997. Prior to her graduate study, she had lived in Japan for three years due to her boyfriend’s (now husband’s) relocation to Japan. They lived in Ibaragi, a prefecture in north of Tokyo. During the time when Danielle lived in Japan, she taught English to Japanese people at an English conversation school in the local community. She came to Greenville to refresh and improve her Japanese language skills. When I met her at Greenville, she lived in a midsize city on the East Coast with her husband. 70 Ethnographic case studies In this section, I describe the research methods used in this study. This study employs an ethnographic case study approach to the investigation of the research inquiries. To understand the role of L2 learner agency in the process of L2 socialization, this study has focused on a small number of L2 learners and has explored in depth their experiences of learning Japanese in the context of one summer session of the Japanese School at Greenville. In the remainder of this section, I first explain some of the fundamental principles of ethnographic case studies. Then I describe types of ethnographic writing. At the end, I state my positioning as a researcher and writer who has adopted an ethnographic case study approach for this dissertation. Fundamental principles of ethnographic case studies Ethnographic case study is a methodological approach that combines ethnographic methods with the case study design. To examine the contextually bounded nature of human activities and social phenomena, ethnographic methods have gained popularity in social science and humanities research, including the field of second language acquisition. Ethnographic methods are the research techniques originally developed and used among ethnographers who study the other and the other culture (Peacock, 2001). “The other” can be an exotic ethnic group living in a remote area, which cultural anthropologists would be interested in. “The other” can be a social group that forms its subculture found in our community or elsewhere, which sociologists would be more interested in. “The other” can be also a school, a classroom, or a group of students, which educators would be more interested in. Regardless of the topics of research inquiry, the goals of ethnographic studies are two-fold: (a) to understand “the other” and (b) to convey researchers’ understanding in writing to the audience whom researchers have in mind. Since in ethnographic studies, a researcher is the only tool of data gathering and analysis, understanding is achieved 71 through the lens of the researcher. Thus, understanding involves researchers’ interpretation (Geertz 1973) or translation (Clifford, 1986) of “what was presumably witnessed and understood during a stay in the field” (Van Maanen, 1988, p. 3). Fieldwork is the epistemological ground of ethnographic studies. Through the engagement in the lives of others over a long period of time, researchers first gain access to the natives (the people whom they are studying) and gradually become a participant in their lives. A challenge for researchers is to maintain the objectivity–subjectivity balance during the period of their stay in the field. If they are involved in the natives’ lives too much, researchers will lose their objective stance. If they detach themselves from the natives, researchers will not be able to gain insider perspectives. On the one hand, researchers detach their subjective feelings and personal experiences from their ethnographic lens; on the other hand, their personal experience and feelings shape their ability to understand a practice of the natives (Rosaldo, 1989). Thus, ethnographic studies are, no doubt, experiential and idiosyncratic. Ambivalence between objectivity and subjectivity, detachment and attachment, and outside and insider perspectives are inherent parts of ethnographic studies, and most importantly, researchers need to live with such ambivalence. Sunstein and Chiseri-Strater (2007) state: As a fieldworker, you will conduct an internal dialogue between your subjective and objective selves, listening to both, questioning both. You combine the viewpoints of an outsider stepping in and an insider stepping out of the culture you study. (p. 9) In the field of humanities research, to gain in-depth understanding of the other people whom researchers are studying, ethnographic methods are often combined with the case study design. Case study is the “study of the particularity and complexity of a single case, coming to understand its activity within important circumstances” (Stake, 1995, p. ix). In a case study, researchers are “interested in understanding the meaning people have constructed, that is, how they make sense of their world and the experiences 72 they have in the world” (Merriam, 1998, p. 6). Hence, a case study aims to understand and gain an emic perspective on “what it means for participants to be in that setting, what their lives are like, what is going on for them, what their meanings are, [and] what the world looks in that particular settings” (Patton, 1985, p. 1). This study is rooted in the position that L2 learning is a socially situated activity arising from the dynamic interplay between individual learners as agents and social contexts. Therefore, the aim of investigation is to understand individual learners’ lived experience of learning an L2 in a particular setting (the Japanese School at Greenville) in a particular time period (the 2010 summer session). The ethnographic case study approach allows me to examine the dynamic, situated, and relational nature of L2 learning and describe diverse portraits of L2 learners. Ethnographic writing Ethnographic studies consist of two processes: (a) fieldwork and (b) writing up the researchers’ interpretation of what they saw and understood during the fieldwork. In ethnographic writing, researchers are no longer fieldworkers but they become authors (Geertz, 1988). It has long been a topic of debate whether the authors’ voice should or should not be present in the text. In historical structural anthropology, an ethnographic study would pursue a scientific truth that presumably could be replicated, and therefore, it is considered that the author’s voice should be eliminated. But, another approach proposed by some influential ethnographers (e.g., Clifford, 1986; Geertz, 1988) broke the expository conventions of ethnographic writing and began to write about their field experience vividly with their voices present in their texts. Van Maanen (1988) identifies three subgenres of ethnographic writing today: (a) realist tales; (b) confessional tales; and (c) impressionist tales. Realist tales are the traditional style of ethnographic writing. The major characteristic of realist tales is the complete absence of an author’s voice. The goal of realist tales is the presentation of 73 uncolored description (authenticity) of cultural practices of the natives conveyed by the text. The description is often characterized by thorough documentation of mundane details of everyday life among the people studied. In confessional tales, contrasting sharply with realist tales, the author’s voice plays a major role in representing the people and culture studied. The major characteristic of confessional tales is “their highly personalized styles and their self-absorbed mandates” (p. 73). The pursuit of the authenticity is not the goal of confessional tales. Instead, the emphasis is placed on the authors’ subjective responses in understanding a particular cultural phenomenon in their fieldwork. Impressionist tales take an alternative approach to ethnographic writing. Van Maanen uses the term impressionist tales as an analogy to impressionist paintings during the late 19th century. As impressionist paintings startled viewers, accustomed to older forms, with innovative use of their materials—color, light, brush strokes, hatching, and so forth, impressionist tales startle readers with their materials—words, metaphors, narratives, and fieldwork experiences. In impressionist tales, authors unfold event by event and reconstruct the tale of the field in a dramatic form. In this sense, impressionist tales are often considered literary works (Clifford & Marcus, 1986; Geertz, 1988). The task of impressionist tales is to show the transparency and concreteness, “immediacies” in Geertz’s word, of the experience in the field and thus draw the readers into the story as if they were being there. The goal of impressionist tales is, like realist tales, the pursuit of the authenticity of the culture studied. However, impressionist tales conceptualize authenticity in a different way from realist tales do. Given the diverse styles of ethnographic writing, on what basis do ethnographers choose one style over the others? This has long been a topic of debate, and in short, there is no single answer to this question. For more experienced ethnographers, it has to do with their beliefs as an ethnographer and an author of ethnographic texts, combined with 74 their experience in the field. For novice ethnographers, the choice has largely to do with the discipline they are studying and the training they received, as well as their beliefs. My study, by following the notions that ethnographic writing is a literary work and ethnographic writers are the authors of their texts, adopts a style of impressionist tale and attempts to provide immediacies of events and experiences from a field. Positioning as a researcher and a writer More specifically, this study adopts a narrative nonfiction, essayistic style. Based on my fieldwork experience, I attempt to reconstruct a story of the field, in which there are five main characters: the four focal students and myself. The goal of my ethnographic writing is, nonetheless, to provide an authentic representation of my research inquiry. Following the positioning of Clifford (1986) and Geertz (1988) as ethnographic writers, I consider myself as part of the study and understand that my relations to the participants and subjectivities are relevant to the nature of my understanding and interpretation of the data. Therefore, I choose to disclose my personal lens as part of my ethnographic lens. This is one effort that I make my epistemological stance transparent. Interpretations that researchers draw from their data unavoidably involve interpreters’ biases regardless of the absence or presence of their voices in the text. In order to establish the trustworthiness of studies, researchers employ various techniques. Two most important techniques that researchers employ are (a) triangulation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and (b) thick description (Geertz, 1973). Triangulation is the ground for researchers to make assertions by collecting multiple sources of data and examining emergent themes from multiple perspectives. Writing a thick description is another way to establish the credibility of studies by providing contextualization and the complexity of human behavior and thoughts. Thick description provides the ground for readers to make inferences. Drawing from their knowledge, personal experience, and intuition, readers 75 relate what is described in the texts to their perspectives and lives (Patton, 1990; Stake, 1995). Duff (2006) argues that the aim of research is to “generate new insights and knowledge” (p. 66). In ethnographic case studies, “new insights and knowledge” are generated through thick description, contextualization, triangulation, prolonged observation, and researchers’ objective–subjective lenses. Ethnographic studies are studies of human beings by another human being. The nature of studies is relational, reflexive, and idiosyncratic. Moreover, and most important, there is no way researchers can totally capture the lives of others. Ethnographic realities are always partial, incomplete, and plural (Clifford, 1986; Duff, 2006; Geertz, 1973; Wolcott, 2008). As Duff (2006) puts it, “there are multiple possible ‘truths’ to be uncovered or (co-) constructed, which may not always converge” (p. 75). The goal of my ethnographic text is to offer my interpretation of what I saw and what I understood through my fieldwork conducted in the summer of 2010 at Greenville. I attempt to establish the trustworthiness of the study by employing various techniques suggested in previous studies, including the engagement in prolonged observation, writing thick description, triangulation, and disclosing my personal lens and making transparent the process of coming to know what I claim to know. The interpretation I offer in this study is, however, my version of reality. This is only one way to conduct and write an ethnographic case study, but this is the way I have chosen, aiming the study to be well grounded in the contemporary traditions and research conventions of anthropology, sociology, and education. Researcher As I have argued in the previous section, researchers play a central role in ethnographic studies since they are the only tool for collecting and analyzing the data and writing up its interpretation. Therefore, it is important that researchers make their 76 assumptions and positioning clear. Researchers’ subjectivities and personal history inevitably interact with the way in which they view and interpret the data. In this section, I first describe my bias as a researcher. I then describe the role I played in the research site. Researcher’s bias I am a Japanese language teacher Becoming a teacher was the last thing I ever wanted to do when I was growing up. I still remember some of the events in my childhood that made me dislike and mistrust my teachers. One day in my preschool, a cup of warm skim milk was served as part of the afternoon snack. I didn’t like skim milk and told my teacher that I did not want to drink it. My teacher told me that I was not allowed to leave the table until I finished my milk. I stayed at the table alone staring at the cup of cold milk while my friends were outside playing. I don’t recall the rest of the story. I don’t recall whether I finished the milk. I probably stubbornly refused to drink it. The only lesson that I learned from this event was I would never drink skim milk again in my life. When I was a first grader, my middleaged female teacher tied my thighs and my chair together with a rope. She told me that I caused too much disturbance by walking around the classroom while I was supposed to be sitting down and studying quietly. My sixth-grade young male teacher relied on his physical strength to overpower students who disobeyed his rules and orders. Watching my classmates being punished in front of everyone in class left me nothing but a feeling of resistance against power. Mistrust for teachers in my early days developed into aversion to the absolute authority and power of teachers. It is ironic that I now consider myself a teacher. I teach Japanese as a foreign language at the post-secondary level in the United States. It took me a while to accept the fact that I became a teacher by my own choice. Yet, some sense of awkwardness still exists in my mind no matter how hard I try to get rid of it. 77 As a teacher, I constantly doubt whether I am good enough, in various respects, to teach something to other people. I constantly doubt whether I deserve to be a language teacher, especially a foreign language teacher. In foreign language teaching and learning contexts, where the exposure to the target language and culture is limited, foreign language classrooms become the predominant site of target language exposure for learners. Consequently, foreign language teachers are expected to play the role of a national representative, an expert in the culture, and an ideal speaker of the language. I am not and I don’t want to be considered a representative of Japan, an expert in the Japanese culture, of an ideal speaker of the Japanese language. Regardless of my uneasiness and uncertainty, my daily teaching practice requires me to play the role of an authority of the Japanese language and culture nonetheless. Looking back at my 40 years of life, I identify several turning points. One of them was the opportunity to volunteer in Thailand. I applied for the Seinen Kaigai Kyouryokutai, which is the Japanese equivalent of the Peace Corps in the United States, after I graduated from college. In the application, I had to specify the area or the skill which I could make a contribution. I glanced at the categories—system engineers, village development, agriculture, etc. Then I found “Japanese language teacher” in the category of education. At that time, I thought this would be something I could do. I was delighted. I successfully passed several examinations, completed the three-month training, and I took off for Thailand in 1995, where I was assigned to work for two years. I soon, of course, discovered that I had been naïve and ignorant. Teaching Japanese as a foreign language was not as easy as I had initially thought. I faced daily challenges and struggles. What I struggled with most was indeed to know the Japanese language not from my perspective but from non-native speakers’ point of view. After I completed my assignment, I decided to follow my interest. For the first time in my life, I thought I wanted to become a teacher, a Japanese language teacher. 78 In my earlier endeavor to become an L2 Japanese language teacher, I tried to watch and imitate what experienced teachers do in their classroom. My goal was to become one of them. At that time, I never questioned myself about what being a good L2 teacher really meant. As almost a decade has passed, I have now started to wonder what good L2 teachers really are, what the role of L2 teachers is, what the role of L2 classroom instruction is and, most important, what kind of a Japanese language teacher I want to be. In most L2 Japanese classrooms, the focus of classroom instruction seems to be the acquisition of linguistic codes and how to use them properly in accordance with the rules and norms of Japanese society. Learners are strictly taught not to violate the rules, so that they can avoid the risk of negative evaluations once they are out in the speech community. This practice is, in a sense, an emulation process. We teach our students to speak and behave like native speakers. For example, in the third-year Japanese conversation class, I taught aizuchi. Aizuchi is a linguistic communication device that listeners use in conversations to display their attentiveness to the speaker. Absence of aizuchi in Japanese may signal a lack of interest in conversation and eventually may hinder communication (Maynard, 1993; Mizutani & Mizutani, 1987). One day, one of the students used the aizuchi, aa sou desu ka ‘Oh, is that so?’ where native speakers would probably say something more sympathetic such as ee? sore wa iya desu ne ‘Oh, no! That’s unpleasant’ to the speaker to show their empathy (thus, being a good listener). I shared my professional opinion with the student. However, her aa sou desu ka ‘Oh, is that so?’ was more congruent with her personality. Should I, as a Japanese language teacher, tell her to comply with the Japanese way and disregard her English self when she speaks Japanese? Should I tell her it is all right to deviate from the Japanese communicative norm, taking the chance that she might come across as aloof? I feel my professional knowledge is useless when I see my students caught between two languages. 79 One reason I am hesitant to prescribe pragmatic rules of the Japanese language for my students is connected with my experience as an L2 speaker of English in the United States. I know I sometimes violate sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic rules of English, but I am fine with that. I am fine with signaling my non-nativeness as a Japanese person. My goal in learning English is not to emulate American norms and rules but to attain competence to use English to be myself. Of course, I have the privilege of living in an academic community where people are more sensitive and open to linguistic diversity. I feel my professional knowledge is counterfeit because I find a contradiction in myself—I teach my students pragmatic rules of Japanese; at the same time, I, as an L2 speaker, find myself disobeying pragmatic rules of English. Japanese School at Greenville College The research site, Greenville College, holds a special place in my mind. The first time I taught in the Japanese School at Greenville College was the year after I had finished my master’s degree. I was a fresh, young, and naïve L2 teacher. Working with many experienced Japanese language teachers for nine weeks, I found myself overwhelmed and incompetent. In the summer of 2005, I was given the opportunity to return to Greenville as an instructor. It was the same summer that I moved to Iowa City to start my Ph.D. I was invited back, and in the summers of 2005 through 2008, I worked with wonderful colleagues and friends and met inspiring students in the Japanese School. However, the experience of the summer of 2009 was different. I had felt that I failed miserably. I blamed my immaturity and inability as an L2 teacher for not being able to respond to some of the students’ needs and make their Japanese language experience as meaningful as it should have been. Graduate students, including me, hold a liminal status in academic discourse. At the University of Iowa, I am a graduate teaching assistant (TA). Students see me as a graduate student at the same time they see me as a teacher. However, in the Japanese School at Greenville College, I was a person who had 80 authority and power even though I positioned myself as a non-authoritative egalitarian. As a TA, I get to listen to students’ discourse, just as Rebekah Nathan experienced in her ethnographic study of being a freshman in a university (Nathan, 2005). I had not realized until that summer that it was indeed a privilege to be a TA, given the unique status of being both a student and a teacher. It was a shame. I disliked and mistrusted teachers’ authority and power so much. However, in that summer, I was exercising my authority and power to justify my actions and decisions. When I left Greenville, I also left there my emotional burden—regret, anger, and a sense of guilt. With my terrible summer still on my mind, I was not as excited in June 2010 as I should have been as a novice researcher about to head out to her first major project involving fieldwork. I was more scared and uncomfortable with the fact that I was going back to the place where I had left all sorts of feelings, mostly unpleasant, the previous summer. My experience in the summer of 2009 humbled me as a teacher. I also felt a growing desire to know my students, not superficially from my teacher’s point of view, but from their point of view. I wanted to earn my privilege to hear their voices. I wanted to regain my confidence as an L2 Japanese teacher. I am an L2 learner As much as I consider myself an L2 Japanese teacher, I consider myself an L2 learner. I was born and grew up in a monolingual and monocultural environment in a rural area in Japan. I always had the ambition to leave my small town and live in different places. As soon as I was old enough to be on my own, I traveled to different countries with a backpack and the Japanese version of Lonely Planet. Although I was not particularly interested in learning English, I soon realized that a working knowledge of English was essential. My desire to visit and see different places eventually brought me to the University of Iowa to pursue an advanced degree in the field of SLA. 81 As a graduate student, I need to read and write in English every day as part of my academic life. Yet, I feel that I have L2 literacy dysfunction, particularly in writing. When I talk about my frustration and inability to write in English, my professors tell me, “Chie, your writing is fine.” I am aware that the word “fine” pragmatically means “not excellent but acceptable.” Reading and writing used to be my good friends. I was thrilled by the bedtime stories that my grandmother read to me every night when I was small. After I learned how to read, I would sneak into my brother’s room to borrow his books, one by one, from his bookshelf. He is nine years older than I. While I was enjoying reading his childhood books, he was fascinated by the Beatles and by playing his electric guitar. In high school, I continued to enjoy reading. I found it more interesting to read than to sit in a language arts class and listen to the teacher. While my friends were busy studying for the university entrance exam, I checked out books from the school library and read them at home. I don’t recall many of the writing activities that I did in high school. I don’t think Japanese schools explicitly taught us how to write. The assumption was that we should be able to write if we were able to read. Thus, my L1 literacy development was mostly through reading. The only writing activity that I persistently did in high school was to write letters to a midnight radio program, hoping that my letters would someday be read by my favorite radio host. The “someday” actually came earlier than I thought. I still remember the joy, excitement, and embarrassment I felt while listening as my letter was read by my favorite person in the world (at that time), and was broadcast all over Japan. I survived academic writing in college. After I became a college student, I stopped writing for pleasure partly because my lifestyle changed drastically, and also because I lost the motivation to write. The first time after becoming a college student that I felt urge to write was shortly after graduation. I sent my writing to an essay contest sponsored by the local newspaper. To my surprise, my essay was awarded first prize. My 82 essay along with my photo, an interview, and a critic’s comments on my essay were printed on the newspaper. Neighbors, relatives, and friends of my parents who read the newspaper called to congratulate them for their daughter’s accomplishment. When I hear my professors say that my English writing is “fine,” I am reminded of my incompetence to write in my L2, and I am deeply disappointed with myself. The most frustrating thing about L2 writing is the process—the limited repertoire of vocabulary that I rely on, the simple sentences and discourse structures that remind me of my childhood writing, and the inability to express my myself in text. Writing has become nothing but frustration and disappointment since I started my graduate study in the United States. I have forgotten the joy and excitement of composing texts. It is an irony that I proposed an ethnographic case study of L2 Japanese learners as my dissertation study. Writing is the skill that I feel the least confident and comfortable with among other English skills. I am an L2 learner of English. I still struggle to express myself in English. I still sometimes feel lost between two languages. I often face the divide between my Japanese self and my English self. This study has a parallel structure in two ways. The researcher who struggles between English and Japanese challenges herself to step into the world of L2 Japanese learners who struggle between Japanese and English. The L2 Japanese teacher who has lost connection to L2 learners gives herself a second chance to regain what she has lost by studying L2 learners who try to gain their connection to the world of Japanese. Researcher’s role I was very conscious of my role at the research site. Considering the fact that I am a native speaker of Japanese and I had also been one of the instructors in the Japanese School for the previous years, I was particularly cautious not to play a teacher’s role. I, as a novice fieldworker who determined to see the world of Japanese language students and understand their perspectives, did not want students to look at me as a teacher. Therefore, 83 I made every effort not to look like a teacher, act like a teacher, and talk like a teacher. I dressed casually with a T-shirt, jeans, and sneakers. Furthermore, as my effort to gain access to students, I joined a group of smokers. Several female students who looked older than the majority of the undergraduate students got together at certain times, smoked, and chatted in front of Greenough Hall. One day, I approached them and asked if I could have a cigarette. Since that day, I identified myself as a smoker and was gradually able to gain membership status in that group. I was pleasantly surprised that my old habit helped me gain access to a group of female students. My membership in the group grew stronger as time passed. All those years I had been a teacher in the Japanese School, no students had cried when saying goodbye to me. But, Sarah, a member of the smokers’ group, was crying when seeing me off on the day I left the site. I told her, from my car window with tears in my eyes, that we would see each other again soon, knowing that it would probably not happen, at least not in the near future. Despite my deliberate efforts to present myself not as a teacher but as a graduate student who was working on her research, the majority of the students had no doubt that I was one of the teachers. I defended my position as a student countless times by saying 私 は先生じゃないんですよ ‘I am not a teacher, don’t you know.’ I was as confused as students were when they asked me, え、じゃあ、あなたは何？ ‘Ha? Then what are you?’ Later, when my status in the Japanese School became a little more visible, some students started to address me as “Muramatsu-san6” instead of sensei ‘teacher.’ Those with whom I built closer relationship called me “Chie-san” with my first name. Toward the end of the program, I felt confident that I had been able to establish my status as a graduate student researcher and gain access to students, especially to the students in level 4. However, it proved to be wrong. I was reminded that I was just naïve 6 San is a suffix that is attached one’s name. It is the equivalent of Mr. or Ms. 84 and optimistic. At the talent show held at the end of the seventh week, the level 4 students presented skits. One of the skits was about revealing my true identity in the Japanese School. It was an honor that they created a skit based on me. However, I was overcome by a sense of hopelessness after seeing my identity depicted as the director’s spy, who would sneak around the school and watch the students who broke the Language Pledge. I was reminded, after all, that there was an insurmountable wall between the students and me. My biological category as a native speaker of Japanese, my demeanor as a teacher (even though I worked hard not to behave like one), and probably my age placed me in the other side of the wall from the students. Not only in the students’ eyes but also in the teachers’ eyes, I continued to exist as a teacher. Many of the teachers addressed me “Muramatsu sensei.” Moreover, in the earlier communication with the director and also at the first staff meeting, the director mentioned that my role was to be an “invisible wall.” His belief that ethnographers needed to be an “invisible wall” in order to collect unbiased data influenced, to a certain degree, the way in which the instructors in the Japanese School viewed what my role was in the school. My outside observer status (from the instructors’ view) combined with my effort to keep distance from them probably constructed my identity as someone who was distant and aloof. Hence, my role at the research site was somewhat combination of a participantobserver and an observer. Moreover, as a novice fieldworker, I was overwhelmed by the number of tasks to manage simultaneously, gaining access to students, building meaningful relationships with the focal students while I was at the research site. Stepping in and out—this is an essential technique of fieldworkers. Researchers need to place themselves both inside and outside of the field in order to make familiar things unfamiliar and unfamiliar things familiar (Sunstein & Chiseri-Strater, 2007). However, it is a challenging task to “step out” once a researcher stepped in. I constantly questioned 85 whether I was able to be seeing things through ethnographic eyes rather than just hanging out at the site. My fieldnotes are filled with the footprints of my struggles as a researcher who went out in the field for the first time. Data This section describes the types of data I collected during my fieldwork. Also, it describes how those data were collected and analyzed. Data sources and collection The primary data sources for this study consist of (a) my observations, (b) interviews with the focal students, (c) audio-recorded conversations of the focal students with other members of the community, and (d) various artifacts, such as the Summer Language Schools student handbook, the Greenville College website, the welcome letter to Language Schools students, the focal students’ tests, quizzes, and assignments, the class handouts, and printed and physical objects. The researcher’s observations aimed to examine multiple things: (a) how the community of the Japanese School is formed and operated; (b) the nature of the community of practice of the Japanese School; (c) how the Japanese School grants (or does not grant) legitimacy and peripherality to its students; (d) how the focal students engage in the daily activities and events of the Japanese School; (e) how they relate themselves with other members of the community; and finally, (f) what the focal students do to make sense of themselves and actions in a new community of practice. The observation began from the day when the staff of the Japanese School arrived at Greenville and continued to the end of the program. During that time, I stayed in the same dorm as students and instructors, participated in the same school activities as the members of the school, and dined in the same cafeteria where the members dined. I also obtained permission from the three instructors of the level 4 course to sit in on at least two sessions each day. 86 Interviews with each focal student were conducted approximately once a week, starting from the end of the second week for Alison, Danielle, and Naiya and from the end of the third week for Parker. Alison, Danielle, and Naiya volunteered to participate in this study. I recruited Parker by approaching him and inviting him to participate in the study. All four focal students signed the consent form. Although at the beginning of the study, the researcher and each focal student agreed to meet once a week, it did not sometimes happen because of various reasons. However, both the focal students and I made efforts to meet regularly and talk about the focal students’ experiences in the Japanese School. The total amount of interview time varied considerably across the four focal students; approximately 3 hours 20 minutes for Parker, 7 hours 30 minutes for Alison, 6 hours for Nayiya, and 2 hours 14 minutes for Danielle. Each interview lasted from 20 minutes to 40 minutes on average. Sometimes we talked over one hour. The variation in the total time of the interviews with the focal students had various causes. In the case of Danielle, she and I kept close contact on a daily basis; consequently, the time I spent interviewing Danielle was less. Also, she became ill during the third and fourth weeks, and we were not able to meet. In the case of Parker, he joined the study a week after the other three focal students did. Moreover, I felt that it would be intrusive to ask him to take his time for my interviews because he was always busy doing the tasks that he created for himself (details are described in Chapter 5). Consequently, the time I spent interviewing Parker became less. The interviews were audio-recorded (with some exceptions due to technological problems) and were later transcribed by me. The collection of the conversation data from the focal students began at the end of the sixth week after consent was obtained to place audio-recording devices in public areas, such as the dining hall and a seminar room. I asked the focal students to carry MP3 players and audio-record their conversations whenever possible as long as the other party was comfortable with being recorded. The focal students started to audio-record their 87 mealtime conversations in the dining hall. I also requested that they audio-record their conversations when they talked or studied in a group, or when they chatted with someone during free time or study breaks. Parker produced 50 hours 44 minutes of audio-recordings in total; Alison produced 13 hours 57 minutes; Naiya produced 15 hours 29 minutes; and Danielle produced 31 hours 51 minutes. I broke down the total hours of audio-recorded conversations into three categories: (a) cafeteria conversations in which a focal student is talking in a group during a mealtime, (b) conversations in which a focal student is talking to another student or teacher (one-to-one conversation), and (c) conversations in which a focal student is talking to multiple people (not at the cafeteria or in class) such as in a study group meeting or a group gathering in their free time. The breakdown of the audiorecorded conversation by each focal participant is summarized in Table 2. Each focal student was paid 80 dollars at the end of the study. Table 2 Total hours of audio-recorded conversations by the focal students Cafeteria (group) Conversation One-to-one Conversation Other occasions (e.g., study group) Total Parker 6 hours 26 min Not recorded 44 hours 18 min 50 hours 44 min Alison 7 hours 20 min 1 hour 9 min 5 hours 28 min 13 hours 57 min Naiya 11 hours 3 min 1 hour 33 min 2 hours 53 min 15 hours 29 min Danielle 20 hours 44 min 5 hour 20 min 5 hour 47 min 31 hours 52 min Data analysis Following the tradition of qualitative research, data analysis in this study was conducted inductively (Merriam, 1998; Patton, 1990). The themes in this study have emerged from the data, and the assertions are grounded in multiple sources of the data 88 that I collected. In analyzing the data, I first transcribed the interviews that I conducted with the focal students. Then I tried to find some consistent patterns in their comments. If necessary, I created categories and organized their comments into those categories, so that it made it easier for me to understand what they were trying to communicate with me. For example, Naiya produced six hours of interview data. As I read her comments, I identified some patterns and grouped her comments into three categories: (a) social, (b) personal, and (c) academic. It turned out that Naiya produced far more comments that fell in the “social” and “personal” categories than the “academic.” Since each focal student had different patterns, there was no single analytic procedure that could be applicable for everyone. Then, I listened to the conversations that the focal students had audio-recorded. I also transcribed parts of the conversations to receive feedback on my initial analyses from my dissertation co-chairs. As suggested by Dr. Sunstein, who has overseen the methodology of this study, instead of transcribing entire conversations, I logged each recording with the information about the participants, topic, length, and place along with my comments. I also logged the time of each topic, so that I was able to go back to the particular segment of the conversation later if needed. Next, I compared the interview data with my fieldnotes to identify what was consistent and what was not consistent. If I found a consistency between my observations and a focal student’s comments, I went back to the conversation data in search of evidence to support my finding. If I found an inconsistency, I went back to the interview data, reanalyzed it, and modified my interpretation. The entire procedure of the data analysis consisted of recursive examination of different sets of the data that I had collected. All methodology textbooks say that themes will emerge from the data. To identify emerging themes from the data, I had to read, reread, analyze, reanalyze, interpret, and reinterpret the different sets of data at both macro and micro levels. 89 It is an inefficient and time-consuming process to examine and reexamine multiple sets of data repeatedly without pre-established categories or procedures; however, this process is necessary to establish the trustworthiness of the researcher’s claims. In ethnographic studies, the trustworthiness of the researcher’s interpretations can be achieved only by triangulating the data. In this study, I collected data from multiple sources, analyzed the data both separately and together to reach my conclusions. 90 CHAPTER IV: COMMUNITY Introduction In this chapter, I examine the social context in which the study took place. Applying the notion of community to the context of the Greenville Summer Language Schools, I describe and analyze what constitutes the Japanese School as a community of practice. In doing so, I first describe the wider academic, social, cultural, and historical contexts in which the Summer Language Schools are embedded. Then I present my analysis of the Japanese School as a community of practice. What is Greenville? Its historical, social, cultural, and academic contexts “Is that Greenville in New England?” A receptionist in a dentist’s office in Iowa City asked me, looking at my sweatshirt. The businesslike tone of her voice turned into a more personal tone. “Yes. I was there last summer,” I said. “My friend lives there. Oh, it’s a beautiful place,” she replied, placing an emphasis on the word “beautiful.” She started to talk about her visit to Greenville. Yes, indeed, Greenville is a beautiful town. On another occasion, when I was strolling around the farmers’ market in Iowa City with my Greenville T-shirt on, a lady approached me and asked, “Did you go to Greenville College?” I could hear an excited tone in her voice. I knew my answer would disappoint her, but I said, “No” and continued, “but I taught Japanese in the summer school there.” Then we began a Greenville talk. “Lucky you! It’s a great school,” she said and started to talk about her friend’s daughter who had graduated from Greenville College. Greenville means different things to different people. To those who spend their vacations in northern New England, Greenville is one among many small yet beautiful historical towns. To those who know someone who attended a private liberal arts college in New England, Greenville is one among many great schools. 91 Greenville is a town in New England. Its population is approximately 8500 based on the 2010 census as reported in Wikipedia. Cedar Creek, the longest river in the state, divides the downtown into the east and the west. From the Center Avenue bridge that connects the two sides of downtown, you can look over Cedar Creek. Along the creek, there are restaurants where you can dine outside with a view of the flowing river. If you take a small alley to the right after crossing the Center Avenue bridge from the east and walk down the hill, you come to a suspension bridge, which only pedestrians can cross. If you walk out to the middle of this bridge, you can see the Cedar Creek waterfall as it splashes down right in front of you. If you continue across the suspension bridge, you get to a district called Marble Place. At first glance it looks like an old warehouse, which is not far off the mark. The building was originally constructed as a gas works in the first half of the nineteenth century, according to the information found in the local museum, located just a couple of blocks away. Marble Place now houses restaurants, shops, and offices. On Saturday mornings, the parking lot is taken over by the farmers’ market. Fresh vegetables, fruits, bread, pastries, cookies, cheese, jam, honey, maple syrup, soaps, crafts, pottery, flowers and many other things are sold there. After walking through the Marble Place district and taking a small alley on your right, one arrives at the east end of the downtown. There is a rotary where two major state highways cross. At the park next to the rotary, various local performances and events are held on weekends. If you follow one highway toward the south for about an hour, you will reach the mountain range that runs from the south to the north of the state. If you follow the other highway toward the north for about 40 minutes, you can visit the state’s largest city. If you follow Center Avenue, cross the bridge over Cedar Creek, and take a right onto College Street, you arrive on the campus of Greenville College. 92 Greenville College Greenville is also known for its college, a small liberal arts institution founded in the early nineteenth century. In its earliest days, Greenville, like many other colleges and universities built during that era, was devoted to training young men for the ministry. In late nineteenth century, the college became a coeducational institution and, in the early twentieth century, continued to grow in terms of student enrollment, facility size, faculty number, curriculum breadth, and endowment value. Greenville College is now known as one of the leading liberal arts colleges in New England. The campus is located on the hill of the valley between the two mountain ranges: one at the west side of the state and another at the east side. The main campus, with its 350 acres and 2,200 trees, provides a home for the Greenville students and faculty. The Facilities Services Office oversees the maintenance of all the facilities and the landscape of the campus, including academic and business buildings, residence and dining halls, faculty/staff rental properties, the athletic field, sidewalks, roads, parking lots, trees, and so on. Especially in summer, the maintenance of the lawns becomes the Office’s daily job. In fact, the campus is so large that it takes seven people mowing seven hours a day for three days to complete one mowing cycle. Adirondack chairs are placed here and there, so that people can sit and talk, take a nap, read, or just enjoy being outside. Old limestone buildings and modern architecture are well blended and create a rigorous yet relaxing atmosphere. Coexistence of old and new One of the prominent characteristics of Greenville College is the coexistence of old and new. When you arrive at Greenville College from Center Avenue, the first building that comes into your sight is Pennypacker Hall, named after the first African American who graduated from a college in the United States. I remember the first impression I received when I entered the building for the first time in 2005—spooky. The 93 building looked like someone’s residence rather than a school building. Classrooms were located upstairs and equipped with tables, chairs, a blackboard, an overhead projector, and a window air conditioner. The old style architecture, squeaky stairs, and dark hall way reminded me of an old house that I had seen in old movies. One day, I noticed some pictures of a black person on the wall with a note saying, “Class of 1823.” I later learned that those were the pictures of Mr. Pennypacker, after whom the building was named. After passing Pennypacker Hall and following the street, one comes to a road named Castle Road on the left hand side. If you enter Castle Road, the first building that appears is Straus Hall, an old stone building built in 1815. Straus Hall was named after the initial founder of Greenville College. It is now known as the oldest college building in the state. After passing Straus Hall, you will see an old chapel built in 1836, which served as classrooms for a century. It now serves as administrative offices. After passing the old chapel, one encounters a brand-new facility named the Alexander Center. “Have you gone to the Alexander Center yet?” I was asked several times in conversation with Greenville College staff and students when they found out that I was a visitor during the summer. When you step inside the building, you understand what motivated this question. In a sense, like Pennypacker Hall, the Alexander Center does not look like a college facility. With large glass windows, high ceilings, a lot of open spaces, and a large reading room equipped with chairs, sofas, and a portrait of Mr. Alexander, the person after whom the building was named, the building looks like the lobby of a modern hotel. “Wow” was my, and perhaps many others’, first impression of the Alexander Center. According to the college website, the Alexander Center is equipped with “state-of-the-art classrooms and offices” and received the Boston Society of Architects’ Sustainable Design Award in 2009 for its integration of history, modernity, and sustainability. For the Summer Language School students, the Alexander Center is the very first college building that they step into when they arrive on the campus and the very first face of the Greenville College that they see. 94 The most familiar college facility for the summer Language School students is Jefferson Hall. It stands on the hill of the valley at the northeast edge of the campus and overlooks the college campus on one side and the beautiful mountain valley at another side. This large building was built in 1999, probably with the use of the most advanced and innovative technology at the time. The building features various science facilities, including laboratories, a science library, and a rooftop observatory, as well as lecture halls and classrooms. During the summer of 2010, most of the language classes were held in this building. The lobby, located in the middle of the building, was used for school events and ceremonies. The rooftop observatory was open to the students and became a popular nighttime attraction among students. The back area of the building also became a popular place for students to watch beautiful sunsets against the mountains. Environmental stewardship Another face of Greenville College is its environmental stewardship. The college’s efforts on behalf of environmental sustainability are manifested in various forms. One such effort is the reduction of food waste. In the summer of 2010, the students in the nine Language Schools dined at three dining halls. Due to the Language Pledge that the students sign at the beginning of the program, the dining halls and mealtime schedules were assigned according to the languages that they speak, with the exception of breakfast. For example, the students in the Japanese School had their lunch and dinner in Maclean Dining Hall from 12:30 to 1:30 and from 5:30 to 6:30 respectively. During that time, only the students and faculty in the Japanese School were allowed to enter the dining hall, so that they could communicate only in Japanese during their mealtime. Maclean Dining Hall is located at the southeast edge of the campus. This large oval-shaped dining hall, consisting of triple-panel glass windows and high ceilings, provides natural light and a view of the college campus for diners. Maclean seats 225 95 people and features open cooking, where diners can see how food is prepared as they pass through the food serving area. Since Greenville College has adopted a no-tray policy, the students take a plate and proceed to the food section. “Your eyes are bigger than your stomach,” the note in the dining hall says. According to the college website, every year, the college composts 300 tons of food waste through their composting program. “Come back for more,” another note says. Maclean Dining Hall also features a hearth oven. The pizza that is served right from the stone oven is, of course, everyone’s favorite. Students patiently wait in a line to get slices. There is also a salad bar. Various kinds of desserts, ice cream, and fruit are also served daily. Freshly picked blueberries and Ben and Jerry’s ice cream are the students’ other favorites. Twenty-five percent of the food at Greenville College is supplied locally according to the college’s website. The college purchases food from 47 local food producers and also procures small amounts of fresh produce from the student-run organic garden. In contrast to the sophisticated look of the inside, Maclean Dining Hall looks odd from the outside. The roof is sloped and covered with shrubs and grasses. Maclean was built in 2005 and, at that time, the college decided to adopt a sustainable design to build its new dining hall. The green roof covered with shrubs and grasses reduces heat loss in winter and lowers heating costs. In summer, excess heat is absorbed and reradiated, which lowers the costs of air-conditioning. Greenville College: History, tradition, and modernity As the Summer Language Schools progress, the participating students, even without any prior knowledge of Greenville College, gradually become aware of of the various faces that the college represents and the practice that make up the academic culture of Greenville College. As symbolized in various buildings on campus, the prominent characteristic of Greenville College is the amalgamation of two elements— history and foresight, tradition and modernity, locality and globalization, and rigor and 96 flexibility—and these elements are melded together to make up the core practice of the Greenville College community. Although most of the Summer Language School students and faculty are not affiliated with Greenville College, they quickly learn the community of practice of Greenville College through participation in the daily activities of the Summer Language Schools. Summer Language Schools The bell of the Memorial Chapel rings out proudly once the convocation ceremony is over to announce that the Summer Language Schools have now officially begun. Hundreds of students are walking out of the Chapel. Everyone’s face is glowing with excitement and pride. Tonight, the nine-week programs in Chinese, Japanese and Russian have started. The convocation reminded me of J. K. Rowling’s fantasy novel, Harry Potter and Philosopher’s Stone, particularly the scene of the opening ceremony at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Whereas Hogwarts consists of four Houses, Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, and Slytherin, the nine-week program of the Summer Language Schools consists of three, Chinese, Japanese, and Russian. It is perhaps the atmosphere of Memorial Chapel that contributes to creating this illusion. The chapel was built in 1914 and rises on the highest point of the campus. The building has a white marble structure. The facade is a Greek revival colonnade. The interior is Georgian style. Its spire rises straight up into the sky. As I sat in the chapel, listened to the speech given by Dr. McDowell, the vice president of the Language Schools, and heard students clap, whistle, and stamp their feet, my reality—the world where I had come from and I had belonged to—gradually started to fade. “Welcome to Greenville.” Dr. McDowell’s voice started to overlap with that of Albus Dumbledore, the head master of Hogwarts School. I found myself gradually getting absorbed into that otherworldly bubble that I think of as “Greenville time.” 97 The Language Pledge The Greenville Summer Language Schools are summer intensive foreign language programs. The majority of the students and faculty in the Language Schools are not affiliated with Greenville College. They gather at Greenville College from all over the United States (U.S.) and some travel from outside the U.S. for the time the Language Schools are in session and return to their home institutions after the session ends. Why do students choose to come to Greenville to study a foreign language, travelling all the way to a small town of New England? The coordinator of the Japanese School says that it is because of the schools’ reputation. Greenville has the reputation for being sort of the original immersion program where students take the Language Pledge and would be immersed in the particular language that they are studying. So, for some people, it’s the premier program. The reputation for coming to Greenville is significant. This is the ultimate language immersion program. (Interview with Mary, the coordinator of the Japanese School, 07/25/2010. Original in English) The Greenville Summer Language Schools adopt a total immersion approach. Students and faculty of each school live together in the same building and dine together at the same dining hall for the duration of seven or nine weeks. During that period, the only language that they speak is the language they study or teach. All students are required to sign the Language Pledge, a promise that they will communicate only in the language of their school for the duration of the program. The Student Handbook explains the Language Pledge as follows: The Language Pledge, a formal commitment to speak the language of study as the only means of communication for the entire session, is required for all summer language students. The Language Pledge plays a major role in the success of the program, both as a symbol of commitment and as an essential part of the language learning process. Violation of the Language Pledge deprives both you and your fellow students of an important opportunity. The Language Pledge requires that you not speak, read, or hear English or other foreign languages at any time, even off campus. This means that you should have no contact with students and faculty of another School, even if you speak the language of that School. You will be 98 given a verbal warning for the first violation and a written warning for the second violation. Subsequent violation will be considered grounds for expulsion. This Pledge has been a major key to the success of the Greenville Language Schools for almost 100 years. We are confident that you understand its importance and will adhere to it. (Greenville Language Schools 2010 Handbook, p. 5) In the explanation, the words “commitment” and “success” appear twice. Your commitment to “speak the language of the study as the only means of communication for the entire session” will be a major key for you to succeed in the program. The Language Pledge is a “symbol” of your commitment and has been a “major key” to the success of the Greenville Language Schools. Although the handbook does not explain what it means by “success,” the message is clear. The Language Pledge is very important. You had better adhere to it while you are at Greenville. Dr. McDowell told a joke about a former student in the Japanese School at the convocation. The student took the Language Pledge so seriously that he refused to speak English in the emergency room at the hospital. Dr. McDowell assured the students that some exceptions would apply for some situations. For example, the Language Pledge is waived in emergency situations, when speaking to people in business offices and stores (it is impossible for them to understand and speak ten languages), and in keeping in touch with family members. In such cases, however, the handbook states that students should keep the use of English to the “absolute minimum that you feel you need.” That will be hard… No English. (A male student) I am really excited and partially terrified ahh, but um I think the idea of it is fantastic, and I had a colleague come here and really learned, so I am looking forward to that. (A female student) The language pledge means that I only speak Chinese for 9 weeks . . . Once I start speaking Chinese, after a couple weeks, I’ll start thinking in Chinese and dreaming in Chinese. By the end, it would be hard to switch back to English. (A female student) These are some of the students’ responses to the Language Pledge posted on the Summer Language Schools’ homepage. I found these comments in the fall of 2010. 99 These students had been probably interviewed in the Alexander Center when they first arrived on the campus. Feeling “excited and terrified” is probably true for all students. It is exciting because taking the Pledge and adhering to it for nine weeks may push you to think in the language and dream in the language. At the end of the program, it would be hard to switch to English because you would have been immersed in the language so intensively. At the same time, it is terrifying because taking the Pledge means that you will give up the right to speak your own language for the time you are at Greenville. Miracle Giving up the right to speak one’s native language and place oneself in the immersion environment where only the target language is allowed to speak require an enormous commitment. In return for such serious commitment, Dr. McDowell assures the students of a remarkable outcome—what he calls a “miracle.” Every summer, students and teachers, scholars and artists, entrepreneurs and political leaders from around the world gather at the Greenville Language Schools. They apply their considerable efforts to one goal-creating the richest, most effective languagelearning environment on earth. Within this environment, a miracle occurs: in just seven or nine weeks of study, newcomers to a language gain a remarkable level of fluency. Those who arrive with basic language skills expand them dramatically, allowing them to engage with native speakers in an informed discussion of cultural, political, or social issues. (Welcome letter from Dr. McDowell, the Vice President for Language Schools) The “miracle” is only possible when students’ serious commitment and efforts are combined with the Greenville Language Schools’ rich academic environment, namely the “one goal-creating the richest, most effective language-learning environment on earth.” According to Dr. McDowell, what facilitates such a magical outcome of study is the Language Pledge, because the Language Pledge provides students opportunities to create a “solid foundation in language—reading, writing, listening, and speaking” in class and opportunities to “foster meaningful engagement and fluency acquisition” outside the classroom. 100 The catalyst for this miracle is the Language Pledge, a promise made by students, faculty, and staff to communicate solely in their language of choice for the duration of their time in the program. Within the classroom, the Language Pledge supports the creation of a solid foundation in language -reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Outside the classroom, the Pledge fosters meaningful engagement and fluency acquisition, as students participate in a vast range of cocurricular activities, all of which happen in language . . . While this powerful formula has remained consistent throughout our history, the Language Schools have also experienced continuous change and growth. (Welcome letter from Dr. McDowell, the Vice President for Language Schools) The words of Justin Baker, a former student in the Japanese School in 2007 and 2009, echo Dr. McDowell’s statement. What really makes Greenville the best is that you don’t just memorize words and grammar to put into use at a later date; you take what you learn in class and immediately apply it in real time, to real-life situations, in order to bring your goals to fruition. (Greenville: Language Schools and Schools Abroad, 2010, p. 9) The formula of “students + regular learning environment” produces regular learning outcomes. However, the formula of “students’ serious commitment (symbolized as a form of the Language Pledge) + ‘one goal-creating the richest, most effective languagelearning environment on earth’” makes it possible to produce a magical learning outcomes. From the administrator’s point of view, Dr. Kitano, the director of the Japanese School, states that the Language Pledge has a dual function. One is the catalyst for the magical outcome of the study as Dr. McDowell states. The other is an institutional and administrative strategy to make Greenville’s language programs distinctive and competitive among many other summer language programs offered all over the world, as well as in the United States. The costs of attending the nine-week programs at Greenville, including the tuition, room and board, school-hosted activity fees, and facility fees, were, in the summer of 2010, almost $10,000. These did not include the transportation costs and students’ own recreational expenses. In terms of the costs, studying Japanese at Greenville are not 101 necessarily less expensive compared to the costs of other study abroad programs in Japan. For example, attending the eight-week summer study abroad program sponsored by the Hokkaido International Foundation costs $5,500 for the tuition and homestay fee (for the 2013 session). Considering the other costs, such as the transportation costs from the United States to Hokkaido, Japan (Hokkaido is the northern island of Japan) and students’ recreational expenses, the total costs of the two programs would be comparable, or attending the Hokkaido program would be even less expensive than attending the Japanese School at Greenville. Thus, students have choices. Many students choose to study abroad because they believe that the best way to study a foreign language is to go to the country where the language is spoken and immerse themselves in the authentic linguistic and cultural environment. Then why do some students choose to study at Greenville? It is because of the reputation of Greenville Language Schools and its 100-year history of success. It is the “powerful formula” that the Greenville Language Schools offer to their students. It is the Language Schools’ endless effort to provide “the richest, most effective languagelearning environment on earth.” “No English Spoken Here”—this is the symbol of the Greenville Language Schools. Yes, they ask serious commitment from students. However, in return, they promise a magical outcome. 日本語で夢を見たくありませんか ‘Wouldn’t you like to dream in Japanese?’ Dr. Kitano says to his future students. Japanese School as a community of practice In this section, I describe and analyze what constitutes the Japanese School as a community of practice, focusing on three elements: (a) mutual engagement, (b) a joint enterprise, and (c) a shared repertoire. In doing so, I employ a form of narrative rather than discuss each element separately. My goal is that readers know, by the time they finish reading this section, how the Japanese School as a community operates and what constitutes it as a community of practice. 102 The geographical boundary: Greenough Hall In the summer of 2010, Greenough Hall was home to the students and faculty in the Japanese School for a period of nine weeks. Greenough Hall is a five-story symmetrical building constructed in 1916. It consists of 86 single rooms and 39 double rooms, and it accommodates 164 people. The top floor is the attic. Small windows protrude out from the roof. In the middle is a round cupola. The summer of 2010 was the second time the Japanese School was situated in Greenough Hall. The building had housed the Arabic School before that school moved to a new location in California. The gray brick symmetrical building with its cupola reminded me of an exotic palace that I had seen in a children’s book. I felt as if I would stray into Aladdin’s world as I passed through the entrance door. Only the Japanese national flag hanging at the entrance connects this building to Japan. The building has two entrances: the main entrance and the back entrance. The main entrance is located at the top of an ascending path and looks down towards the south campus. Two pillars and the arch between them silently claim that this is the main entrance of the building. The back entrance is located at the east side of the building. People in the Japanese School use this back entrance more often for functional reasons throughout the summer. Both entrances are secured by automatic locks. A Japanese School student or faculty identification card must be swiped to enter the building. Inside the back entrance, the first thing you will notice is the sign saying 日本語学 校へようこそ ‘Welcome to the Japanese Language School’ written in calligraphic ink. For the first few days, the characters 学校 ‘school’ were missing, which provided a conversation topic for students. From each end of the sign, a few sets of senbazuru ‘a thousand paper cranes’ are hanging. Each summer since 2005, the Japanese School has made two sets of senbazuru: one set to be sent out to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park before the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing on August 6 and the other to be kept in 103 the Japanese School as part of the school tradition. There are also bulletin boards on the wall in the hallway. Students check the schedule for the day and the week as they walk by. On the first floor, to the right of the back entrance, there is a lounge furnished with a dining table with eight chairs, two square tables, two large sofas, three loveseats, five soft chairs, a piano, a vending machine, and a fireplace. Besides the furniture, two televisions—one for watching TV Japan (a Japanese satellite program) and another for playing Wii—and several fans can be seen. Next to the lounge, there is a small kitchen with a small four-burner stove, a refrigerator, a microwave, some kitchen utensils, dishes, and silverware. Next to the kitchen, there is a small room named the “seminar room” with four dining tables, 10 chairs, a white board, and an old window air-conditioner. This room is the only public space equipped with an air conditioner in the entire building and used as a classroom for level 5 in the morning. The stairs in front of the kitchen take you to a wideopen space on the second floor, located above the lounge, called the Zoo. According to the college website, the room came to be known as Greenough Zoo because it had been used to display a collection of “hunting trophies” of Mr. Greenough, who had made a large donation to the construction of the building. More recently, it has been used as an informal performing space for theatre students. When the Japanese School is in session, it is used for club activities, workshops, and group activities and meetings. The south side of the building (the left side from the back entrance) is the residential area. There are an elevator and stairs in the middle. One wing stretches out toward the east and another to the west. At the end of each wing, there are two units, which are separated by a door. Each unit contains three separate rooms and a shared bathroom. It accommodates same-sex residents. Otherwise, all of the floors are co-ed. Teachers are placed in one of those units. Exceptions are the first and the fifth floor. The first floor serves as office space, including instructors’ offices, copy rooms, the director’s office, the coordinator’s office, and the bilingual assistants’ office. 104 The fifth floor is the attic. All of rooms on the fifth floor are singles. Each room is equipped with a portable air-conditioner. Male students live in the east wing, and female students live in the west wing. Also, the fifth floor is the only floor where no instructors live. The elevator of the building goes up only to the fourth floor. The residents of the fifth floor have to take stairs from the fourth floor to get to their rooms. Mary, the coordinator of the Japanese School, is the person who is responsible for the actual room assignments. Students request either a single room or a double room. If students request a double, they are asked to provide their roommate preferences. According to Mary, the students who are placed on the fifth floor are “older students” because she thought that they “deserve a quiet private space with air conditioning.” Air conditioning is indeed a privilege at Greenville College during a summer. No dorms are equipped with air conditioning. Although the summer at Greenville does not last long, it goes over 90 degrees Fahrenheit during the hottest days of the season. In the summer of 2010, due to the record-breaking heat wave that stayed in the East Coast, the Language Schools canceled classes for one day. During those hottest days, while younger students sought shelter on campus, the older students on the fifth floor stayed in their room comfortably. Practice: Mutual engagement, a joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire On the Sunday morning two days after the program started, there is a line of students in the hallway in front of the director’s office. One student comes out of the office. Another student walks in. A few minutes later, the student comes out, and another student walks in. “Have you taken the pledge yet?” became the greeting that Sunday morning. It was a line of students who were waiting to sign the Language Pledge. The Language Pledge is a sheet of paper. It is up to the director of each school to decide how students sign the pledge. Dr. Kitano, the director of the Japanese School, meets with the 105 students individually in person in his office and asks them to sign the pledge in front of him. It’s possible to make the students sign the pledge at a place like the opening ceremony where everybody is present. I have decided to have them sign individually because I thought that the seriousness [of signing the pledge] in terms of formality could be enhanced. Fortunately, the number of students is not too large. It’s like performing a ritual of preparing them for the beginning. I don’t know how seriously they take the ritual [of signing the pledge]. But, obviously, I think it will make a difference when they are asked to sign the pledge there [in the director’s office], compared to when they are asked to sign together. (Interview with the director, 07/24/2010. Original in Japanese and translated by the researcher) He believes that it is ultimately the students’ decision how strictly and how honestly they adhere to the Language Pledge while they are in the Japanese School. He is aware that every student has a computer and a cell phone, and that every room is connected to the internet. It is indeed up to each student to decide how strictly and how honestly they adhere to the Language Pledge during the course of nine weeks. He is also aware that the Language Pledge can be a site of struggle for students as the program goes on. By having students sign the pledge individually in front of him, Dr. Kitano expects and hopes that they will take the Language Pledge seriously. By making the pledgesigning activity a sort of “ritual,” he presents the Language Pledge as something sacred and profound, so that it becomes the students’ personal pledge rather than a school rule imposed upon them. “There are only two types of people here in the Japanese School: One is those who want to teach Japanese, and another is those who want to learn Japanese (original in Japanese and translated by the researcher).” This is how Dr. Kitano describes the members of the Japanese School. Those who want to teach Japanese are Japanese language instructors. They all have advanced degrees from a university in North America in Japanese pedagogy, second language acquisition, foreign language education, or applied linguistics. They all have experience teaching Japanese as a foreign language at 106 post-secondary level. In Dr. Kitano’s words, they are “Japanese language professionals.” This is one important point at which Japanese School’s immersion environment crucially differs from that of study abroad situations where students interact with ordinary native speakers of Japanese once they step out of the classroom. The instructors in the Japanese School are not affiliated with Greenville College. They all gather at Greenville for one purpose—to teach Japanese to these students. The other group of people is the Japanese language students. Although they differ in age, gender, academic and social backgrounds, reasons for studying Japanese, and reason for choosing Greenville, they all gather at the Japanese School for one purpose— to advance their competence in Japanese. They also made various investments (e.g., time, expense, energy, emotion, etc.) to come to Greenville to study Japanese. Moreover, they are all committed to speak only Japanese for a period of nine weeks to acquire higher Japanese language proficiency. The director’s description that the Japanese School has only “two types of people” accurately captures the characteristic of the members of the Japanese School. ここでの全ての活動は学生の日本語の向上のためにあると思ってください ‘Please keep in mind that all activities here in the Japanese School are for students to improve their Japanese.’ Dr. Kitano told the instructors at the very first faculty meeting. Besides regular classroom hours, the Japanese School implemented various cultural activities and events throughout the course of nine weeks. The primary purpose of these activities, according to the director’s policy, is not to provide opportunities for students to experience authentic Japanese culture, but to create opportunities for them to use Japanese through participation and engagement in various activities and events. The director states: It’s impossible to offer authenticity in a place like this [a small town in New England]. I don’t expect the instructors to be cultural experts, either. That’s simply not possible. (Interview with the director, 07/24/2010. Original in Japanese and translated by the researcher) 107 The Japanese School does not aim to provide firsthand experience of Japanese culture for students as study abroad programs do; instead, the Japanese School promises students to provide abundant opportunities and resources for using Japanese in real-life situations. The director also made two requests of the instructors at the first faculty meeting: 学生の間違いを直してください ‘Please correct students’ mistakes’ and 学生と友達にな らないでください ‘Please do not become friends with students.’ In the immersion environment like Greenville where students and teachers live in the same building, there are unlimited opportunities for students and teachers to interact with each other. Second language acquisition (SLA) research suggests that corrective feedback provided during real communicative events is likely to provide opportunities for acquisition (see special issue on the role of corrective feedback in Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2010 for more detail). As a specialist in the Japanese Language Education, the director assured that the instructors would not only provide opportunities to speak the language but also create opportunities for learning by providing corrections whenever they interact with students. Moreover, over the course of nine weeks, students and teachers get to know each other well. The director’s words, 学生と友達にならないでください ‘Please do not become friends with students’ remind the instructors of their responsibilities at Greenville as language professionals and maintaining professional codes, despite their close, daily association with their students. The Japanese School’s policy was presented to students in a form of a skit at the opening ceremony. In his opening speech, the director introduced the instructors to the students and told them what their life (living with language professionals) for the next nine weeks would be like. Then three instructors appeared onstage and started to perform a skit. Two of them were playing the role of students. The way they were dressed—bath towel around their head, bathrobe, and toothbrush—indicated that the action was taking place early in the morning. One student, half asleep, was walking toward the bathroom. An instructor, also half asleep, was walking from the opposite direction. They meet in the 108 middle of the hallway and exchange greetings. おはようございます ‘Good morning [polite]’ the student says, and the instructor replies, おはようございます ‘Good morning [polite].’ In the next scene, as before, a student who has just awakened walks toward the bathroom, meets an instructor coming from the bathroom middle of the hallway, and they exchange greetings. This time, the student says to the instructor, おはよう ‘Good morning [impolite]’ without using a polite form. The instructor dramatically expresses his disapproval and immediately corrects the student’s language. The student realizes that she has made a mistake and rephrases the greeting with a polite form. The skit communicated with students in two ways. One is that instructors offer corrections at any time, not only in classrooms. Another is that students are expected to use polite language whenever they speak to an instructor. In other words, the skit conveyed a message that the instructors in the Japanese School would not just chit-chat with students. As language professionals, they always watch students’ language and provide corrections when necessary. Furthermore, the student–teacher relationship is different from the student–student relationship. Although students and teachers live together, spend a lot of time together, and may even see each other only minutes after awakening, there is always a social status difference between students and teachers, which must be reflected in their language use. It was around eleven o’clock at night. I stepped out of Greenough Hall to smoke a cigarette. I lit it and looked up at Greenough Hall. About a half of the room lights were on, and I guessed that many students were still studying. I moved my eyes to the first floor where the instructors’ offices are located. About half of the room lights were on, a sign that many instructors were still working. I knew as a fact that the level 4 students were still working. They had to spend two hours that night after dinner watching a movie, which would be used as new instructional material in class in upcoming weeks. It was around 9:20 when the screening was over and they came back to Greenough Hall. As I 109 pictured the faces of the level 4 students, I recalled a small incident that had happened in class that day. When Miyamoto-sensei announced that the students would be required to attend the movie screening from 7:00 to 9:00 that night, the students started whining. After hearing students’ ええ ‘boo’ reaction, Miyamoto-sensei told the students, 今日はちょっと たくさん宿題がありますが、がんばってください ‘You have a lot of homework today, but please work hard.’ Danielle, seated in the very first row, responded to Miyamotosensei’s comment by saying, でも、時間がかかりますね ‘But, it will take time, you know’ with the sentence final particle ne, which seeks mutual agreement between the speaker and the hearer. Miyamoto-sensei looked at her and said, ここはグリーンビルで すね ‘This is Greenville, you know’ with the sentence final particle ne to seek mutual agreement. When she heard ここはグリーンビルですね‘This is Greenville, you know,’ Danielle stopped complaining. Instead, she told Miyamoto-sensei, 文句を言うのも練習で すから ‘Complaining [in Japanese] is also practice [to speak Japanese].’ ここはグリーンビルですね ‘This is Greenville, you know’ is a powerful statement. It reminds students of the purpose of coming to Greenville and of their commitments. “This is Greenville, you know.” “Work hard.” I could hear only the sound of sighing and silence in the classroom. Danielle later recalled this small incident and stated: アメリカで一番いい言語のプログラムだか ら、夜１０時まで映画を見て、その後宿題を して、小テストの勉強をして、睡眠が足りず に朝授業に行って、難しい単語を使って映画 の話をさせられるのは、腹も立つし、夜１０ 時に寝たかったんですが、仕方がないと思 う。 It grates on my nerves that we watch a movie until 10:00 at night and then do homework and study for a quiz. In the morning, we go to class without getting enough sleep and are forced to talk about the movie using difficult vocabulary. I wanted to go to bed at 10:00, but I think it’s unavoidable because [Greenville is] the best language program in the United States. (Interview, 07/14/2010) 110 The students might have to stay up late. They might not be able to get enough sleep. But, it is 仕方がない ‘unavoidable; cannot be helped’ because this is Greenville, and that is why they chose to come here. 全ての活動は学生の日本語の向上のためにある ‘All activities are for students to improve their Japanese.’ The Japanese School is made up of two types of people: those who are committed to teach Japanese and those who have committed to learn Japanese. In the environment with unlimited opportunities for learning situated in the historical context of the Greenville Language Schools, the students and teachers in the Japanese School make every effort to pursue their enterprise of learning Japanese. This is the community and the practice of the Japanese School. Legitimate peripheral participation: Peripherality and legitimacy In the theory of Communities of Practice (CoP), legitimate peripheral participation is the necessary condition that turns participation into opportunities for learning. In this section, I analyze the practice of the Japanese School from the perspectives of peripherality and legitimacy, concerning whether the practice of the Japanese School grants its students peripherality and legitimacy. Peripherality In applying the notions of peripherality and legitimacy to the practice of the Japanese School, important consideration needs to be made. That is the hybrid nature of the community of the Japanese School. One of the premises of CoP is that learners/novices are situated in the community of practice into which they wish to be socialized. In the context of L2 socialization, the communities of practice in which L2 learners wish to gain communicative competence and membership are the target language communities. Thus, for the students in the Japanese School, their target language community is Japan. 111 Unlike the study abroad situations where language-learning environments are situated in the target language counties, and learners have an actual exposure to the target language communities of practice as they participate in daily events and activities, the Japanese School is located in the United States and situated in the academic context of the Greenville Summer Language Schools. Therefore, it is not possible for the students in the Japanese School to have an actual exposure to the authentic sociocultural practice of Japan. As the director explained, authenticity is not the primary element that the Japanese School aims to offer for its students. Rather, what the school provides for the students are opportunities to use Japanese in real-life situations. The immersion environment that the students and instructors live together provides the students with the opportunities not only to speak Japanese but also to use Japanese socioculturally appropriate ways. Students (novices) sometimes receive explicit instructions from instructors (experts) on how the Japanese society operates and how certain sociocultural practice is reflected in language use. Furthermore, the students’ linguistic and pragmatic errors are expected and have no social consequences (e.g., a negative evaluation of the speaker). Through various modifications and accommodations, such as “lessened intensity, lessened risk, special assistance, lessened cost of error, close supervision” (Wenger, 1998, p. 100) and so on, the students are given “approximation of full participation that gives exposure to actual practice” (p. 100). In this regard, it can be said that the Japanese School itself is a peripheral community that prepares its students for full participation in the target language community of practice (Japan). However, whether or not full participation is actually realized as the outcome of the socialization in the Japanese School cannot be argued until students actually go to Japan and participate in the sociocultural practice of the Japanese society. 112 On the other hand, as discussed earlier in this chapter, the Japanese School forms its own community of practice. The two types of people—those who want to study Japanese and those who want to teach Japanese—gather at the Japanese School and make joint efforts to realize their enterprise of learning Japanese. Situated in the framework of the Greenville Summer Language Schools and the history of the Japanese School, the students and instructors mutually engage in the everyday activities of the school and jointly create the shared repertoire of the school practice. In this community, all members are expected to be active participants rather than stay in a peripheral space of the community. The only exception applied was for the level 1 students, who joined the Japanese School with no Japanese language background. Because of their limited language proficiency, they are given an option to stay in a peripheral space of the community. For instance, they sit together as a group during mealtimes and speak a limited amount of English quietly among themselves. For the first few weeks, level 1 students are given a status of legitimate silent speaker of Japanese; however, such accommodation is gradually taken away several weeks into the program. Legitimacy All students in the Japanese school join the community in “inbound trajectories” (Wenger, 1998, p. 154); that is they join the school “with the prospect of becoming full participants in its practice” (p. 154). Previous studies on community-oriented L2 socialization have found that legitimacy is not a privilege, but rather a right that L2 learners must claim and earn. Moreover, because of inequitable power relations between L2 learners and a target language group, gaining access to a target language community of practice has been found to be a struggle for L2 learners. In many cases, L2 learners became marginalized from the community of practice. In contrast to previous findings, in the case of the Japanese School, I have found that legitimacy and access are granted to the students from the beginning. Being a legitimate speaker of Japanese and being a 113 legitimate member of the community are, for them, both a privilege and a right, granted to them and protected by the institution. The students’ legitimacy as members of the community is initially established by the institutional practice of the Greenville Summer Language Schools and reassured through the practice of the Japanese School. For the Language Schools, their students are, in a sense, their guests. They went through the application procedures and were selected to become members of the community. In the summer of 2010, 95 students out of 240 applicants attended the Japanese School. Upon acceptance, they paid their tuition and room and board fees and officially established their institutional membership in the community. Upon their arrival at Greenville College, they are warmly welcomed by a bilingual secretary and/or the coordinator of the school in the gorgeous lobby of the Alexander Center. In accordance with the academic policies of the Greenville Summer Language Schools, their right to be legitimate members of the community is guaranteed and protected regardless of their ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, and levels of target language proficiency. Their legitimacy as members of the community is reassured as the students participate in the practice of the Japanese School. For example, at the end of the second week into the program, the director performs his儀式 ‘ritual.’ The ritual takes place during the lunchtime on Friday when everybody in the Japanese School gathers in the dining hall. He holds a microphone in his hand and calls each student’s name as he walks by each table. A few days prior to the performance of his ritual, a bilingual secretary announces to everybody that the director will memorize all the students’ names by Friday and demonstrate his accomplishment it in front of everyone at lunchtime. Cheers arise from the crowd each time the director finishes naming all of the students seated at each table. He moves from a table to table, and within five minutes, he successfully ends his ritual with big applause and cheers from the students and faculty. He tells the reason he performs this ritual every summer—that it is his effort, as an 114 administrator, to make connections with the students rather than to remain a distant administrator. His performance of calling each student’s name in front of everyone serves as another ritual for the Japanese School as a community. It officially (re)grants legitimacy for the new members of the community. The director’s performance reassures the students that everyone is given an equal degree of legitimacy as a member of the Japanese School regardless of the level of their language proficiency as well as their social, cultural, ethnic, and academic backgrounds. On another occasion, I heard big cheers arise from the crowd during lunchtime. Two level 1 students finished making an announcement in front of everyone in the dining hall. This lunchtime announcement serves as another form of acknowledgement of one’s legitimacy as speakers of Japanese. Every day at lunch, some students give oshirase ‘announcements’ about school activities and events, reminders, schedule change, and so on. Standing in front of everyone and making announcements in a second language with a microphone take some courage. At the beginning of the program, it was the bilingual assistants’ job. Then they gradually passed their job to students. The first student announcement was made by a level 5 student. Cheers arose from the students with envious gaze. As the program went on, more lower proficiency-level students started to make announcements. The lower the levels went on, the louder the cheers became. Then the loudest cheers were given to the level 1 students with a whistle of celebration. The students in the Japanese School are aware of the challenge that the lowerlevel proficiency students have faced. For those who are in higher-proficiency levels, it was the stage that they went through once before. With institutional legitimacy initially granted to the students by the Language Schools and the reassurance given through the practice of the Japanese School, I argue that legitimacy is both a privilege and a right granted to the students in the Japanese School. 115 Summary In this chapter, I examined the social context in which the study took place. I first described the wider historical, social, and academic contexts in which the Japanese School was embedded. Then I analyzed the Japanese School as a community of practice, focusing on the three elements: (a) mutual engagement; (b) a joint enterprise; and (c) a shared repertoire. Situated in the 100-year tradition of the Greenville Summer Language Schools and the rich academic environment of Greenville College, the Japanese School formed a unique community of practice. The uniqueness was the hybridity of the community. On one hand, it was a peripheral community of the Japanese society, which provided the “approximation of full participation” (Wenger, 1998, p. 100) into the target language community of practice; on the other hand, it was a community under the umbrella of the Greenville Summer Language Schools and operated in accordance with the regulations and policies of an academic institution in the United States. This duality in the community of practice afforded peripherality and legitimacy for the students. Overview of subsequent chapters Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8 present case studies of the four focal students: Parker (Chapter 5), Alison (Chapter 6), Naiya (Chapter 7), and Danielle (Chapter 8). The aim of these chapters is to describe and analyze the focal students’ socialization processes in the Japanese School, focusing on the ways in which they negotiated the meaning of their participation, related with other people, established their social positions, exercised their individual agencies, and achieved their goals of learning. Each chapter consists of four main sections: (a) Beginning, (b) Engagement, (c) outcome of L2 socialization (labeled under different headings), and (d) Discussion. In the first section, I recount the beginning of my relationship with the focal students, including how I met them, how they came to participate in the study, and what impression I initially 116 received from them. In the next section, I describe their engagement in the community of practice of the Japanese School. In doing so, I focus on the recurring themes and events that emerged from the data. Description in this second section is organized chronologically to trace the trajectories of learning by the focal students. In the following section, the focus of the description shifts to the students’ internal changes. Based on data drawn from multiple sources, I describe from an emic perspective what they gained or achieved at the end the summer session7. In the last section, I present the analytical discussion of the case study in relation to the research questions that I have posed in this study. In Chapter 9, reflecting upon the findings of this study, I reconsider the role of social contexts in L2 learning and locate agency in the SLA research. Then, I discuss implications for pedagogy. Finally, I present the limitations of the study and suggest the directions for future research. 7 In Chapter 7, this section is divided into two: (a) Facing and (b) Overcoming to highlight the process of Alison’s internal change. 117 CHAPTER V: PARKER LOST OPPORTUNITIES, RECONNECTION, AND TRANSFORMATION Beginning いいですよ ‘Yes, I can,’ Parker said as if he were agreeing to lend me a book. We were at the drink stand in a corner of the cafeteria. Parker looked at me with a glass of water in his hand. It was certainly an unexpected answer. I just asked if he was interested in participating in my study. He didn’t ask for any details. He just said,いいですよ ‘Yes, I can.’ It was almost the end of the third week. Considering the length of the program, I couldn’t wait any longer to find a fourth participant. I was glad that my recruitment was successful, but at the same time, I wanted to ask, “Don’t you want to know more about my study?” This was the beginning of my journey to get to know Parker and his experience of learning Japanese at Greenville. I became interested in Parker as a potential study participant because of the gap between the image that he projected and his enthusiasm to learn Japanese. In my eyes, he looked like a typical young Caucasian man who had been raised in an upper-class American family. He is from California. He likes to surf. In college, he studies economics. Nothing, at least on his surface, connects Parker to Japan. Yet, Parker was very eager to learn Japanese. More precisely, he was very eager to learn the Japanese way of speaking and behaving. Engagement Energetic student スチュワートさん、こんにちは ‘Hi, Stewart-san,’ I talked to Parker from behind. We were standing in line in the dining hall to get our lunch. Maclean Dining Hall adopts an open kitchen style. As we go through the food section, we can see through the kitchen. 118 One of the kitchen staff brought out a large tray full of French fries to the food counter. Today’s menu is hamburgers with French fries. The freshly made French fries smelled so good that they brought back my appetite. Parker looked back at me and said hi. His forehead was sweating. From his sweat, running shorts, and Nike sneakers, I guessed that he had just come back from running. Parker, Tuan, and other students—sometimes three or four people and sometimes just Parker and Tuan—run three miles almost everyday before lunch. Their class ends at 11:50 a.m., and the Japanese School lunch starts at 12:30 p.m. During the 40-minute break, some students go back to their rooms in Greenough Hall. Some stay in the lobby of Houghton Hall where their daily classes are conducted. Some wait in front of Maclean Dining Hall while chatting with other students. Considering the size of Greenville College campus (and the time to walk across the campus from one building to another), students quickly learn that 40 minutes is not long enough to do much of anything. Parker decided to use the time to go for a run. While we were getting food on our plates, Parker and I started to chat. I asked about his running route. He said he usually ran along the trail starting at the college’s golf course. To me, going to the golf course and coming back would already take 30 minutes. I expressed my admiration to him. Sally, who overheard our conversation, told me, スチ ュワートさんは日本語学校で一番元気な学生ですよ ‘Stewart-san is the most energetic student in the Japanese School, you know,’ and laughed. スチュワートさんは元気 ‘Stewart-san is energetic’ is probably the common view of Parker among members of the Japanese School. The conception of Parker that スチュワートさんは元気 ‘Stewart-san is energetic’ by other members of the Japanese School has a lot to do with Parker’s visibility in the school through his participation in school activities and events. Parker was, without a doubt, one of the most visible students in the Japanese School. His presence was everywhere. All of the students in the Japanese School joined at least one club as part of a co-curricular activity. Besides participating in a club activity, Parker joined three other 119 optional groups: yosakoi group (a style of Japanese group dance, combining traditional and aerobic dance movements and music), the volleyball team, and the soccer team. The volleyball and soccer teams participated in the Language Schools tournament and played against a team from a different Language School every week. Although winning the game was not the primary purpose of the activity, the fans of each team (including both students and instructors) cheered enthusiastically for the players during games. Moreover, because each team represented its Language School, the players on the team, in a sense, also represented their Language School. In the Japanese School, whenever the team won a game, the result was announced at the next meal in front of the students and instructors, and the players received big cheers and applause. Parker, as a member of the team, also received cheers and applause. Finding his place Parker’s visibility in the Japanese School also had to do with the ways in which he spent his free time. He spent almost all of his free time in the public area, except when he was sleeping in his room at night. I always knew where to find him—the lounge. Everyday after lunch, 寮のラウンジで２時から１２時までゆっくり勉強しています ‘I slowly study from 2:00 pm to midnight in the lounge,’ Parker said. He used the expression “slowly study” because between 2:00 pm and midnight, he not only studied but also did other activities, such as going to club meetings and practices, taking breaks, going to dinner, and visiting his instructors to ask questions. He used the lounge as a sort of home base and returned there after he finished other activities. The lounge had a large dining-style rectangular table where eight people could be seated, along with two other tables, sofas, loveseats, and chairs. The front left corner of the lounge, where the large table was located became Parker’s hangout place in the afternoons and at night. Besides Parker, there were always six to eight students studying together. 120 One night, I sat in a corner of the lounge. Eight students, including Parker, were seated at the dining table. Some students were staring at their computer screens. Other students were typing while looking at their textbooks. Some were writing something on a sheet of paper. Parker was watching his computer screen, wearing a headset. None of them were talking. They looked very serious. I moved my eyes to the other side of the room. Sofas, loveseats, and chairs were occupied with students. I looked at the small tables placed near the windows. They were also occupied. None of the students were talking. Only two fans placed in the front and back of the room were making sounds. Occasionally, a student walked into the room and bought a snack from the vending machine. The sound of vending machine resonated in the room loudly. I was sitting there awhile but I felt like a stranger. I stepped out of the building and took a deep breath. The cool air felt good. It was the beginning of July and the third week into the program. Early July in the Northern New England does not feel like the beginning of summer. I looked up the sky. It was dark. I took a box of Marlboro Lights out of my purse and tried to light up. Then, I noticed the sign saying, 建物の近くでたば こをすわないでください‘Please do not smoke near the building.’ I moved away from the ashtray mounted on the building wall, walked toward a bench, and sat in the dark. The routine that Parker had established at the beginning of the program never changed until the end, except for one thing— Parker and his study mates migrated to the seminar room when real summer visited Greenville. Beautiful stone buildings are good for winter but were not built for the summer heat, and students sought a cool place to study. Some went to the library. Some studied in the Alexander Center. Some tolerated the heat by running a fan. None of the older buildings on campus has air conditioning. The seminar room was the only public space with air conditioning in Greenough Hall. The room was used as a classroom for the level 5 course in the morning but was available to all Japanese School students for the rest of the day. Compared to the lounge, which was a big open space, the seminar room was an enclosed small space. Although 121 the room was available to any student in the school, it practically became a private space for Parker and his study mates. Tadaima ‘I’m home’ or ‘I’m back’ and okaeri ‘Welcome back’ are the expressions used among the regulars in the seminar room. なんか「お邪魔 します」って感じ ‘I feel like ojamashimasu’ (lit. ‘Excuse me for disturbing you,’ the greeting used when entering someone’s home) was how one of the non-regulars described how it felt to him to go into the seminar room. Students have their preferences and styles in terms of how and where to study. Some students prefer to study alone, and some study in a group. Some students prefer to study in their own rooms, and some like to study at a coffee shop. Parker says, 私にとっ ては、グループで言語を勉強するのは大切だと思います ‘For me, studying a language in a group is important.’ This was the reason he chose to study in the lounge. He thought it was important to study a language in a group because he believed that students could teach and learn from each other. 私にとって、グループで、言語を勉強するの は、大切だと思います。例えば、質問があっ たら、他の人、隣の人に聞けますが、でも、 一人で勉強しているのは、困りますね。それ と、勉強している間に、隣の人は時々質問が あったら、私に聞きます。それは、私はいい 練習だと思います。私はその質問の答えをわ かったら、教えられます。私はわからなかっ たら、私も誰かに聞きます。 For me, studying a language in a group is important. For example, if I have a question, I can ask other students, the students next to me. But if I study alone, it would be a problem. Also, other students ask me if they have a question. I think that’s a good practice. If I know the answer, I can teach. If I don’t know the answer, I also ask someone. (Interview, 07/02/2010) A frat boy who wants to speak Japanese When he applied to the Japanese School in January, Parker did not know about the Language Pledge. He chose to study at Greenville because he believed ミドルベリー は一流のプログラムです ‘Greenville is the first-rate program.’ He had known Greenville College for its reputation and strength in foreign language study. One day, after he was accepted in the Japanese School, he learned about the Language Pledge while he was reading the materials that he received from Greenville College. At that time he thought 122 that the pledge was a sort of gesture that なるべく日本語を話しましょう ‘Let’s speak Japanese as much as possible,’ and he did not realize that it was a serious commitment that 日本語だけ話さなければならない ‘You have to speak only Japanese.’ After spending a few weeks in the program, he came to believe that the Language Pledge was the best aspect of the program. プレッジは本当に重要だと思います。言語の勉強にとっ て必要だと思います ‘I think that the pledge is really important. It is necessary for language learning,’ Parker said. Parker thought that, because of the pledge, he had plenty of opportunities to speak Japanese not only in class but also outside of class, which he had never experienced anywhere—at his university or even when he was staying in Japan. 日本に行っても、他にアメリカ人や英語を話 せる外国人がいたら、まあ、多分、一般的に 英語を話します。例えば、私と他の英語を話 せる人が話している時に、何かわからなかっ たら、英語に変わって、英語で話します。そ れは母語ですから、困った時に英語に変えま すね。でも、それは、ここで、できない。 Even if I go to Japan, if there are other Americans or foreigners who can speak English, generally speaking, we probably speak English to each other. For example, while I am talking to another English-speaking person, if I don’t know how to say certain things [in Japanese], I will switch to English and start speaking English. It’s my mother tongue, so I will switch to English if there is a problem. But, I cannot do that here. (Interview, 07/15/2010) Parker lived in Japan for seven years. He was one year old when his family moved to Japan due to his father’s job assignment. 日本語は全然話さなかった ‘I didn’t speak Japanese at all,’ Parker recalls. His family lived in Tokyo, and his parents sent their children— Parker and his older brother—to an international school. ひらがなを勉強した のを覚えてる ‘I remember that I studied hiragana,’ Parker recalls the memories of learning Hiragana (one of the three scripts of Japanese) in the Japanese language class at his school. It was after going to college that Parker officially (re)started studying Japanese. In the summer after his sophomore year, he returned to Tokyo for the first time since his family had moved back to the United States when he was eight. Parker stayed in Tokyo for over two months and worked at a co-op in Tokyo as an intern through an 123 international internship program. Through the interaction with Japanese people, Parker quickly learned that living in Japan did not necessarily provide opportunities for him to speak Japanese. Japanese people wanted to speak English with him, and with his international friends, he spoke English. Blond hair, hazel eyes, gingham check shirt, cotton shorts, and sandals—nothing, at least from his appearance, connects Parker to Japan. He looks like a stereotypical upper-class young American man who would be, in my biased opinion, a more natural fit in a Spanish language class. “Frat boy,” Naiya describes Parker in a cynical tone. Naiya is always cynical, but her observations sometimes surprise me. Parker belongs to a fraternity at his university. I went to his Facebook page and peeked at his pictures. In his pictures, Parker was smiling with other Caucasian boys with their arms around each other’s shoulders. In another picture, he was smiling with a group of Caucasian girls who were wearing dresses straight out of an Abercrombie & Fitch catalogue. I went back to his main Facebook page and noticed that he had more than 800 “friends.” “Frat boy,” indeed, accurately captures a face of Parker. Who would imagine that this “frat boy” would want to learn and speak Japanese? Gambaru ‘Work hard’ Morning is not a good time to talk to Parker. He is walking with his eyes halfclosed. He usually skips breakfast at the dining hall and eats an energy bar as he walks to class. The choices that he made at Greenville cut down on his sleeping time. Parker has spent practically every afternoon participating in school activities, and consequently, the time for doing homework, studying for daily quizzes, and preparing for the next day lessons is reduced. As a result, he stays up late to finish what he needs to get done by the next morning. よし、がんばろう‘All right, Gambaro (‘work hard’ in volitional form),’ Parker tells himself in the seminar room. がんばるは、あなたのキャッチフレーズね 124 “Gambaru ‘work hard’ is your catch phrase, isn’t it,” one of his study mates teases him and laughs. Gambaru ‘work hard’ was indeed Parker’s motto at Greenville from the beginning until the end of the program. He repeatedly mentioned in our interviews that he had to 精一杯がんばる “Seippai gambaru ‘work hard as best one can.’” 日本語を話すの が上手になりたいのは、ここに来た理由 ‘I want to become better at speaking Japanese. This is the very reason why I came here,’ Parker looked at me. 日本語を話すのが上手になりたいのは、ここ に来た理由なんですが、だから、今は、ひま な時間があまりないんです。でも、それは、 仕方がなくて、精一杯がんばらなくちゃいけ ないんです。 I want to become better at speaking Japanese. This is the very reason why I came here. So, now, I don’t have much free time. But, it cannot be helped. I have to work hard as best I can, you know. (Interview, 07/02/2010) 精一杯がんばらなくちゃいけない ‘I have to work hard as best I can’—I was trying to comprehend the meaning of his words while I was nodding and watching his face. I once asked Parker if he had considered spending less time participating in the group activities, so that he would be able to spend more time studying and doing homework in the afternoons. Parker immediately said no. いつも人たちといるのは必要 だと思います。その時（人といる時）、日本語を話せて、進歩できます ‘I think it’s necessary to be with other people. At that time [when I am with other people], I can speak Japanese and improve my language.’ Parker believed that creating opportunities to interact with other people would simultaneously create opportunities for him to speak Japanese and improve his language skills. For Parker, participating in the club and group activities and interacting with other people were part of the process of gambaru ‘work hard’ to improve his Japanese language skills. Parker’s motto that seippai gambaru ‘work hard as best I can’ was manifested in various ways. Besides being involved in club and optional group activities, Parker actively participated in the events that the school hosted on weekends. At the athletic 125 event at the end of the first week, for example, he was seen in every activity. 全部のゲー ムに参加しました‘I participated in all of the games,’ Parker said. At the talent show at the end of the seventh week, he volunteered to be an emcee. He also joined the rakugo club after the midterm break and performed a kobanashi ‘comical short story’ in front of everyone at the talent show along with the other members of the rakugo club. 落語が特に 好きという訳ではないんですが、人たちの前で話す力がなりたいので、そのために、落 語は役に立つと思います ‘It is not that I particularly like rakugo but I am not competent at speaking in front of people. So, for that reason, I think rakugo is useful,’ Parker explained the reason why he joined the rakugo club in the second half of the program. In his personal life, he limited the time he spent checking e-mail messages and Facebook. He also limited the contact with his family. 無駄遣いしたくない ‘I don’t want to waste,’ Parker says. 朝から夜まで日本語だけ話して、そして夜の 時、３時間４時間英語だけ話して見て聞いて としたら、さっきの日本語だけ話すの、無駄 だと思います。せっかく、勉強した、かんば ったは無駄になると思います。 I speak only Japanese from the morning to night. If I speak, watch, and listen to English at night for 3 or 4 hours, my effort of speaking only Japanese would be wasted. My hard work would be wasted. (Interview, 07/23/2010) As his words described, Parker spent his time in the Japanese School speaking Japanese from morning to night until he went to bed. Languaging The seminar room served not only as a place for learning for Parker, but also as a place for socializing. He explained that one of the best aspects of the program was the other students. He hesitantly told me that he had thought 一般的に、日本語を勉強してい る学生は、たぶん、オタクっぽい人 ‘Generally, students who study Japanese are otaku ‘nerd or geek’-like students.’ However, Parker, through interaction with other students in the Japanese School, soon discovered that 全部の学生は、オタクというわけじゃない ‘It is not that all students [in the Japanese School] are otaku. 126 Although Parker interacted with various students at various levels, he became close to the “regulars” in the seminar room. The “regulars” in the seminar room consisted of several students from level 3 and level 4. Literally everyday, they gathered in the seminar room and studied together. While studying, they also talked about various things, such as the movies they had seen, music they liked, plans for going out on weekend nights, homework, assignments, complaints, and so on. Among many other activities that took place in the seminar room, one of the activities in which the “regulars” repeatedly engaged was talking about language. In the second language acquisition (SLA) term, it is called languaging (Swain, 2006). When L2 learners engage in using language to talk about problems that they encounter in a target language, such as appropriate word choice, better sentence structures to carry their intended meaning, or certain grammar points, they may come to a new insight and develop more accurate and complete understanding of how the language works. This “‘coming-to-know-while-speaking’ phenomenon” (Swain, 2006, p. 97) is defined as languaging in the SLA literature. According to Swain, languaging is the very moment in which learning is taking place. Students in the Japanese School often engaged in languaging while they were in class, having conversations in the dining hall, chatting during school activities and events, and walking to the dining hall or classroom. Yet, the occurrence of languaging is fundamentally incidental and unpredictable. Because Parker and other members of seminar room study group regularly met and studied together, languaging became more like a regular activity. It usually started with someone’s question and ended up in the discussion involving everyone in the room. Excerpt 1 shows one of such occasions. Parker is working on his assignment of describing a scene from a movie that level 4 students had seen in class. Parker encounters difficulty describing a particular scene. In that particular scene, Mr. Fujimoto (the main character of the movie), a government agent whose job is to deliver an important 127 government document in person, is visiting the home of Naoki, who is the recipient of the document. Suffering from some mental disorder, Naoki shuts himself off from society and stays in his room all day long. When Mr. Fujimoto rings the doorbell, Naoki does not answer. After a few attempts, Mr. Fujimoto gives up delivering the document and walks away, retracing his steps. At the last moment before he leaves the property, he looks back at the house and sees Naoki standing at the second-floor window and looking down at him. In the following excerpt, Parker is trying to solve a problem that he has encountered. The excerpt starts with Parker’s self-talk (line 1). He is probably trying to say, “Fujimoto saw Naoki who came out to the second-floor window” (underlining is mine). In line 1, however, he says, “[Fujimoto] saw Naoki in the second-floor window” (underlining is mine), which is grammatically incorrect. In line 2, Parker rephrases “in the second-floor window” as “from the window” (underlining is mine). It is likely that Parker meant “Naoki was watching Fujimoto from the second-floor window,” considering the fact that he was clearly aware that Fujimoto was standing outside and looking up at Naoki, who was inside the room and was watching Fujimoto through the window. However, Parker’s utterance “from the window” (line 2) can be interpreted as “[Fujimoto saw Naoki] from the second-floor window,” which would place Fujimoto inside the room. Eva, who is another level 4 student and a regular in the seminar room, notices the inaccuracy in Parker’s description (line 3). In line 9, however, Eva realizes Parker’s intent, and from line 10, Parker and Eva together try to come up with the appropriate description—Fujimoto is outside and looking up at Naoki and Naoki is inside the room watching Fujimoto through the second-floor window. However, they cannot come up with the appropriate way to express the spatial relationship, and at the end of the excerpt, Eva tells Parker that she needs time to think alone. 128 Excerpt 1 Seminar room conversation. P: Parker; EV: Eva (level 4) 1 P: じゃあ、もう一度。*２階の 窓に直樹を見る。(ひとり 言） 1 P: Well, then, one more time. *In the second-floor window, [Fujimoto] sees Naoki. (Talking to himself) (10 seconds) (Two other students are talking about something else.) (10 秒) (他の二人の学生が何 か話している) 2 P: あ、窓から xxx（ひとり言） 2 P: Ah, from the window xxx (talking to himself) 3 EV: 窓から？(笑い) 3 EV: From the window? (Laugh) 3 P: 窓からでしょ？ 4 P: From the window, isn’t it? 5 EV: 藤本は窓 5 EV: Fujimoto [topic marker] the window 6 P: いやいやいや 6 P: No no no 7 EV: どうぞどうぞどうぞ 7 EV: Please please please 8 P: 藤本は窓から 8 P: Fujimoto [topic marker] from the window 9 EV: でた、ああ、そんな「窓か らでた」か。 9 EV: Came out, oh, that “came out from the window,” I see. 10 P: 見た時に 10 P: When [Fujimoto?] saw [Naoki?] 11 EV: 大丈夫だよ。 11 EV: You are right. 12 P: xxx 藤本は、外、外で 12 P: xxx Fujimoto [topic marker] outside, at outside 13 EV: 外から見た？(笑い) 13 EV: Saw [Naoki] from outside? (Laugh) 14 P: どうやって言う？外で、２ 階、２階の窓、に？ 14 P: How do we say it? At outside, [Fujimoto saw] the second-floor, in the second-floor window? (８秒)（P と EV は何かボソ ボソと話している） 15 15 (8 seconds) (P and EV are mumbling something) 16 EV: ちょっと待って。 16 EV: Wait a moment. 17 P: ほんとに難しいよ。 17 P: It’s really hard. 18 EV そんなに難しくない。 18 EV: It’s not that hard. 19 P: じゃあ、お願い。 19 P: Then, please. 20 EV: ちょっと待って。 20 EV: Wait a moment. 21 P: じゃあ 21 P: Then 129 22 EV: Wait a moment. (Laugh) 22 ちょっと待って。(笑い) (07/21/2010) After three minutes, Eva started to talk to Parker, again. This time, she agrees with Parker and says, さっき言ってたことは正しいと思うよ ‘I think what you said a little while ago is correct.’ After hearing Eva’s statement, さっき言ってたことは正しい と思うよ ‘I think what you said a little while ago is correct,’ Parker expressed some upset feelings in a comical way, but soon they started to discuss their original problem (excerpt 2 below). Although Eva agrees with Parker’s description that “[Naoki who came out] from the window,” they are both aware that “from the window” (underlining is mine) is problematic (lines 11 and 12). Naoki did not come out of the window. He was inside the room, standing, and watching Fujimoto through the second-floor window. In the middle of the talk, Eva and Parker started to laugh. They started to laugh probably because they knew, in terms of linguistic structure, the sentence that they were trying to construct was not so complex; yet, they were unable to construct the sentence to express what they wanted to say. In line 10, Parker decides to draw a picture on the whiteboard. From lines 15 through 19, Parker and Eva (re)engage in talk to solve the language problem that they are facing. Excerpt 2 Seminar room conversation. EV: Eva; P: Parker; JN: Jen (level 3) 1 EV: 窓、窓、何だっけ、ええ と、窓から出た直樹と か。 1 EV: The window, window, what was it, uhm, “Naoki who came out from the window,” something like that. 2 P: 窓からでた時でしょ？ち ょっと、正しくないよ。 2 P: “When [Naoki] came out from the window,” isn’t it? It’s not correct. 3 EV: 窓にでた、窓にでてき た。 3 EV: Came out to the window, Came out to the window. 4 P: 例えば、なんか、あの、 ある人が、あの、家にい る、ね？でも、あの、じ 4 P: For example, uhm, some person, uhm, is home, right? But, then, I [watashi], wata, 130 ta ta be be, I [ore] (sound of hitting the desk with a hand) am outside, right? And then, that person [topic marker] ゃ、わたし、わたたた、 べべ、おれは（手の平で 机をたたく音）外にいる ね？そして、その人は 5 EV: (笑い) 5 EV: (Laugh) 6 P: (３秒)忘れちゃった、窓 から見た（笑い） 6 P: (3 seconds) I forgot [what I was going to say], saw from the window (laugh) 7 EV: (笑い) 7 EV: (Laugh) 8 P: 全然わからない。 8 P: I have no idea. 9 EV: (笑い)じゃあ、外に、外 に行ったら 9 EV: (Laugh) Well, when outside, [Fujimoto] went outside 10 P: (笑い)絵を書く、絵を書 く。 10 P: (Laugh) I will draw a picture, I will draw a picture. 11 JN: 言葉でできない？ 11 12 EV: (笑い)本当に説明できな い。ええと、外に行った ら２階の窓を見て、その 窓、その部屋で、誰かい て、ま、まど、外から、 その窓を見て、 12 EV: (Laugh) I really cannot explain. Uhm, [Fujimoto] went outside, looked at the second-floor window, that window, at the room, there was somebody, and from the wi, window, from outside, [Fujimoto] looked at the window, 13 P: よし、はい、はい（P は ホワイトボードに絵を書 き終わる） 13 P: OK, yes, yes (P finishes drawing a picture on the whiteboard.) 14 EV: (笑い) 14 EV: (Laugh) どうやって 15 15 You cannot explain in words? How 16 EV: どうやって説明する？ 16 EV: How do we explain? 17 P: どうやって文を作る？ 17 P: How do we make a sentence? (Laugh) (笑い) 18 EV: (笑い) 18 EV: (Laugh) 19 P: Okay, この人は、A さんと B さん。A さんは B さん を見た。 19 P: Okay, these persons are Asan and B-san. A san saw B-san. (07/21/2010) When Parker and Eva (re)started discussing their language problem, Sally came in the seminar room (excerpt 3 below). Sally is a level 5 (the highest proficiency level) 131 student and the mother of two children. As Jen (a level 3 student, another regular in the seminar room) explains in line 1, Sally was considered sempai (one’s senior usually in school or company) by some students in the Japanese School. Although Sally was not a regular in the seminar room study group, she sometimes came by and chatted with whoever was in the room. As soon as Sally comes in the seminar room, Parker asks Sally for help. Parker says to Sally, 全部忘れちゃった ‘I have forgotten all [my Japanese]’ (line 2). “全部忘れ ちゃった ‘I have forgotten all [my Japanese]’” is an exaggeration. Parker, of course, has not forgotten all the Japanese that he learned in the past. He may have been trying to convey a sense that the language problem that he was trying to solve should not be so difficult. In response to Parker’s statement, Sally starts constructing a sentence by saying A さんは ‘A-san [topic marker]’ (line 3). Before she finishes her sentence, she switches to an animated voice and reads aloud the letters “A” and “B” written on the board slowly and clearly. It is possible that Sally was trying to understand the nature of the problem discussed there or that she was trying to be playful by treating Parker as if he were a young child just learning to read the alphabet or a beginning-level Japanese learner. In the next line, Parker responds to her by saying ああ、そうか ‘Oh, I see.’ In the next line, Sally continues to talk in the same animated voice. In line 6, Parker brings back the topic of conversation to his original question after telling Sally ああ、はい、よかった ‘Ah, yes, it was good’ and starts discussing how to construct a sentence according to the scene that he saw in the movie. As the discussion goes on, other students in the seminar room join the discussion. From lines 25 through 29, Parker and Sally are finally able to co-construct the sentence that Parker and Eva (and everyone in the seminar room at the end) were trying to figure out. 132 Excerpt 3 Seminar room conversation. JN: Jen; P: Parker; SL: Sally (level 5); S?: Unidentified student; SS: Multiple students JN: (サリーが部屋に入ってく る)あ、先輩！ 1 JN: (Sally comes into the seminar room.) Ah, sempai [address term used to refer to one’s senior]! 2 P: あ、お願い。全部忘れちゃ った、日本語。お願い。 2 P: Ah, please. I have forgotten all [my Japanese]. Please. 3 SL: A さんは, B, A（サリーは ホワイトボードに書かれた アルファベットの A と B を声に出して読んでいる） 3 SL: A-san [topic marker], B, A (Sally is reading aloud the letter “B” and “A” written on the board.) 4 P: ああ、そうか。 4 P: Oh, I see. 5 SL: まど、ドア（笑い）（サリ ーは、ホワイドボードに P ガ書いた文字を声に出して 読んでいるよう） 5 SL: Window, door (laugh) (Sally is probably reading aloud the words written on the board slowly.) 6 P: ああ、はい、よかった (拍 手)。いえいえ、A さんは B さんを見たでしょ？ 6 P: Ah, yes, good (clapping his hands). No no, A-san saw B-san, right? 7 SL: はい 7 SL: Yes 8 P: でも、A さんは、窓、か ら、B さんを見た？ 8 P: But, A-san saw B-san, from, the window? 9 SL: B さん？ 9 SL: B-san? 10 P: (笑い)詳しく[説明して 10 P: (Laugh) Please [explain 11 EV: [いや、A さん は B さんを見た。 11 EV: 1 [No. A-san saw B-san. 12 P: どうやって見た？ 12 P: How did [A-san] see? 13 EV: (笑い)窓で 13 EV: (Laugh) at the window 14 SL: ああ 14 SL: Ah 15 P: いや、外で見たけど 15 P: [A-san] saw [B-san] outside, but 16 SL: はい 16 SL: Yes 17 P: 外で、窓に見た？ 17 P: At outside, [A-san] saw [Bsan] in the window? 18 S? 窓から？ 18 S? From the window? 19 SS: いやいや 19 SS: No no 20 JN: 外から 20 JN: From outside 21 SL: それは、いや、だめ。窓か らだったら、B さん 21 SL: That, no, that is not good. If it was “from the window,” B-san [topic marker] 133 22 EV: そうそうそうそう 22 EV: That’s right that’s right. 23 JN: はい、だから、外から 23 JN: Yes, so, from outside 24 EV: 窓から、窓から出た（複数 の学生が EV の発話に反対 して、同時に話しだす） 24 EV: From the window, came out from the window (Multiple students show disagreement and start discussing at once.) 25 SL: あの、あの、窓で、あの、 A さんは B さんを、あの、 窓でた、窓で立って 25 SL: Uhm, uhm, at the window, uhm, A-san [topic marker] B-san [object marker], uhm, at the window, sta, stand at the window 26 P: 窓で立っている 26 P: standing at the window [this is part of a noun-modifying clause] 27 SL: 窓で立っている（声が大き くなる）２階の窓で立って いる 27 SL: standing at the window (SL’s volume becomes larger), standing at the second-floor window 28 P: [B さんを見た 28 P: [saw B-san 29 SL: [B さんを見た。なんかそ れぐらいかな。 29 SL: [saw B-san. Probably this is it. 30 P: はぁ（息をはく） 30 P: Ha (exhaling) 31 EV: ああ、すごい。 31 EV: Wow, great. 32 P: さすが、上級、上級さま 32 P: Just what we would expect, Ms [honorific] level 5 33 SL: なんか、わからないけど。 33 SL: I’m not sure, though. 34 SS: ありがとうございます。 34 SS: Thank you. (07/21/2010) This is exactly what Parker mentioned in our first interview. Students can teach each other and learn from each other. 私にとって、グループで、言語を勉強するの は、大切だと思います。例えば、質問があっ たら、他の人、隣の人に聞けますが、でも、 一人で勉強しているのは、困りますね。それ と、勉強している間に、隣の人は時々質問が あったら、私に聞きます。それは、私はいい 練習だと思います。私はその質問の答えをわ かったら、教えられます。私はわからなかっ たら、私も誰かに聞きます。 For me, studying a language in a group is important. For example, if I have a question, I can ask other students, the students next to me. But if I study alone, it would be a problem. Also, other students ask me if they have a question. I think that’s a good practice. If I know the answer, I can teach. If I don’t know the answer, I also ask someone. (Interview, 07/02/2010) 134 Among the members of the seminar room study group, Parker became close to Tuan, a level 3 student. Tuan was a student at Greenville College during the regular school year. He had studied abroad for a year in Japan as an exchange student when he was in high school. Tuan was, to my eyes, a typical Greenville College student—bright, confident, positive, and inquisitive. Parker and Tuan quickly became close. They started to run together before lunch, went swimming together, went out together, planned a party together, and studied together in the seminar room. Due to his ethnic background, Tuan speaks Hawaiian and Vietnamese besides English. When Parker and Tuan were together—most of the times with other students and sometimes just by themselves, they often talked about language. Tuan was, probably due to his multilingual background and also from his curiosity, sensitive about how different languages work. He generated many questions about Japanese and wasn’t shy about asking his question to people around him. In the seminar room, Tuan often shared his curiosity about Japanese with Parker and other members. The following excerpt, for example, shows one such occasion. In excerpt 4 below, Tuan is asking if he can change the expression okagesamade ‘thanks to’ into a negative form, “no thanks to” (lines 1–5). Okagesamade is a set phrase to express the speaker’s appreciation for and a feeling of being indebted to other people for their help. In terms of linguistic structure, okagesamade ‘thanks to’ consists of: (a) okage, literally means “shade,” which originally meant “God’s shade”; (b) sama, an honorific address term; and (c) de, part of copula. In line 7, a student responds to Tuan’s question and says, okagesamade wa nai using the negation of the copula. In lines 10 and 12, Parker expresses his opinion that the negative form of okagesamade ‘thanks to’ is not actually used and is impossible to make into a negative form. Ben (a level 3 student) disagrees with Parker (line 13) and says that there must be a way to say it (line 16). In line 17, Parker brings up another expression, seide ‘because’ 135 of). Seide ‘because of’ conveys a sort of opposite meaning to okagesamade ‘thanks to.’ It is used when the speaker blames a third person for an unexpected negative outcome. From line 18 to line 23, Tuan, Parker, and Ben discuss the difference between when to use おかげさまでokagesamade ‘thanks to’ and when to use seide ‘because of.’ From line 24, the topic of discussion moves onto sama, an honorific address term. This time, Parker and Ben agree that sama can be omitted. In line 32, Tuan throws in a new topic. He brings up another set phrase, tondemonai ‘certainly not; no way; don’t mention it’. Tondemonai ‘certainly not; no way; don’t mention it,’ as a set phrase, dismisses the force of interlocutor’s utterance. It is a set phrase and is not usually conjugated. However, in line 32, Tuan tries to change tondemonai ‘certainly not; no way; don’t mention it’ into a negative form. Parker and Ben then realize that Tuan is sort of experimenting and playing with language. Tuan tells Parker and Ben who were engaging in the discussion in a serious manner, that they are too serious. Excerpt 4 Seminar room conversation. TN: Tuan (level 3); P: Parker; S?: Unidentified student; B: Ben (level 3) 1 TN: 「おかげさまで」の反対 は？ 1 TN: What is the opposite of okagesamade ‘thanks to’? 2 P: xxx 2 P: xxx 3 TN: そうじゃないけど、例え ば、おかげ（P が TN の発 話をさえぎる） 3 TN: It’s not that. For example, okage (P cuts off TN’s utterance.) 4 P: あ、おかげさま 4 P: Ah, okagesama 5 TN: おかげさまで、例えば、お かげさまは thanks to,でも no thanks to というは、ない でしょ。(笑い) 5 TN: Okagesamade, for example, okagesama is ‘thanks to,’ but there is no ‘ no thanks to.’ (Laugh) 6 P: おかげさまで、元気。 6 P: Okagesamade, I am doing well. 7 S?: おかさまではない 7 S?: Okagesamade wa nai [negation of okagesamade] 8 TN: おかげさまではない？ 8 TN: Okagesamade wa nai? 136 9 S?: おかげさまではないで 9 S?: Okagesamade wa nai de [negation of okagesamade] 10 P: いや、でも、そのことを、 絶対、言わないでしょ。 10 P: But, [people] never say that. 11 S?: そうです。 11 S?: That’s right. 12 P: 言えない。 12 P: It’s impossible [to say that]. 13 B: でも、そのこと、ない、い えいえいえ 13 B: But, not a such thing, no no no [disagreeing with P’s utterance in line 10] 14 TN: でも、英語である。 14 TN: But, it’s possible to say it in English. 15 P: でも、日本語で xxx（複数 の学生が同時に話しはじめ る） 15 P: But, in Japanese xxx (Multiple people are speaking at once.) 16 B: でも、それは、なんか、言 い方がある。それは、そ の、xxx ではないけど 16 B: But, that’s, uhm, there is a way to sat it. That isn’t, uhm, xxx but 17 P: せいで 17 P: Seide ‘Because of’ 18 TN: でも、でも、[せいは、xxx 18 TN: But, but, [sei is xxx 19 B: 19 B: [Okagesama, is very different. [おかげさまは 全然ちがう。 20 TN: 「せい」は、君の理由（B が TN の発話をさえぎる） 20 TN: Sei is ‘because of your fault [not speaker’s fault]’ (cuts off TN’s utterance.) 21 B: あなたから、これができな かった。 21 B: Because of you, [I] was not able to do this. 22 P: おまえのおかげで、おかげ さまではちょっと、なにか 22 P: Thanks to omae [informal you], okagesamade is a little 23 B: いえいえいえ 23 B: No no no 24 TN: ねえ、ねえ、聞いて。「お かげさまで」じゃない？ 24 TN: Hey, listen. Isn’t it okagesamade? 25 P: なんで「さま」？ 25 P: Why sama? 26 TN: 表現だから 26 TN: Because it’s an expression 27 B: おかげだけ 27 B: Only okage 28 P: おかげさんで？ それは 28 P: Okagesande? That is 29 B: でも、おかげ、おかげだ け、おかげさまはちょっと 丁寧 （P が B の発話をさえ ぎる） 29 B: But okage, only okage. Okagesama” is a little polite (P cuts off B’s utterance.) 30 P: もちろん表現だけど（B が P の発話をさえぎる） 30 P: Of course, it’s an expression, but (B cuts off P’s utterance.) 31 B: xxx 31 B: xxx 137 32 33 TN: TN: とんでもない、とんでもな くない？ (笑い) 32 (２秒) 33 TN: (2 seconds) TN: わかる？ TN: Do you understand [what I mean]? (2 seconds) (２秒) 34 Tondemo nai, tondemo nakunai? (Laugh) 冗談だけ。きらい。君たち いつもまじめ。 34 TN: It’s just a joke. I hate [you, two]. You are always serious. (08/05/2010) Day after day in the Seminar room, Parker, Eva, Tuan, and other members of the study group engaged in discussing various things, including the most mundane events in their life at Greenville, language problems they encountered, their curiosity about language, the topics of their final projects, and so on. No matter what they were discussing, there was one thing that was never changed—they were speaking in Japanese. Unlike what Parker had experienced in previous summer in Japan where students started to speak English when it was difficult for them to express themselves in Japanese, at Greenville, because of the Language Pledge, students had to carry out all of their conversations in Japanese. Here, students could not switch to English no matter how difficult it was to explain in Japanese. Language pledge があるから、日本語だけで話せ るでしょ ‘Because we have the Language Pledge, we can speak only in Japanese,’ Parker says as if he had discovered a new treasure in his life. Pursuit of authenticity Parker set as his goal in Japanese language to learn to speak in the same way as Japanese people do. He mentioned the proverb “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” and said that foreigners should adopt the sociocultural norms of Japanese society and speak and behave in the same way as Japanese people do if they want to learn Japanese. Parker not only did gambaru ‘work hard’ to create opportunities to use Japanese through participation in school activities and events and interaction with other members of the 138 school but also did gambaru ‘work hard’ to emulate the way in which Japanese people speak and act. One such effort was the adoption of the gesture of tegatana o kiru (lit. making chopping motions with one’s hand). When he spent a summer in Tokyo, he observed that some Japanese men did the gesture of tegatana o kiru. The summer before he came to Greenville, Parker had stayed in Tokyo for over two months to learn the Japanese language and culture through an international internship program. That particular internship program aims to provide American university students the experience of living in a foreign country and fostering cross-cultural awareness through being immersed in the target culture and language and interaction with local people. Parker worked at a co-op in Tokyo and lived with a Japanese host family. One day at the co-op, he noticed that a Japanese man made a hand movement that Parker had never seen in the United States. The Japanese man was making chopping motions with his hand while he was talking to another Japanese person. Since then, Parker started to notice that not only that Japanese man, but also other Japanese men, used the same gesture—chopping motions with a hand. One day, Parker asked his host family about the gesture. They told Parker that it was the gesture used by Japanese men saying すみません ‘I am sorry; excuse me.’ Parker has adopted not only the gesture of tegatana o kiru but also the head movements that accompanying it. When apologizing, Japanese people bow. The gesture of tegatana o kiru often accompanies the nodding head movement. Parker usually brings his right hand above his temple and bows multiple times as he says すみません ‘I am sorry; excuse me’ and makes the chopping motions at the same time. The gesture of chopping motions and head movements fit well in the image of middle-aged Japanese men, but they look comical when adopted by a young Caucasian man. 変 ‘strange,’ Naiya once brought up the topic of Parker’s gesture and told me. Parker, indeed, uses this gesture often. He was doing it the other day in class in front of everyone. 139 Parker’s efforts to gambaru ‘work hard’ to emulate the Japanese way were manifested in another way. One day, the level 4 students read a few episodes from the comic book ダーリンは外国人 ‘My darling is a foreigner’ which became popular in Japan. The focus of the lesson was on cross-cultural differences between the United States and Japan. The book tells the story of a Japanese woman (Saori) and an American man (Tony) as they start a relationship, encounter cross-cultural differences, overcome various issues, and eventually marry. One of the episodes that the level 4 students read describes how Japanese people eat noodles. In the episode, Tony expresses his surprise when he sees Japanese people slurp soba ‘buckwheat’ noodles. Saori tells Tony that it is the Japanese way of eating noodles. Tony, who grew up in the American culture, was raised to believe that slurping noodles was bad manners. A couple of weeks after the level 4 students read this episode, there was an occasion on which the level 4 students gathered together and cooked gyoza ‘dumplings’ and soba ‘buckwheat’ noodles. Parker, while eating soba noodles, surprised everyone by slurping noodles loudly. 外国人だから すすらないのは、おかしいでしょ ‘It’s odd not to slurp just because you are a foreigner, isn’t it?,’ Parker later said. Parker’s effort to gambaru ‘work hard’ to emulate the Japanese way was also manifested in his language use, particularly, in his choice of the first-person pronoun. Parker, through his internship experience of living in Tokyo, noticed that watashi ‘I’ was not actually used by male Japanese speakers. Watashi is a gender-neutral first-person singular pronoun (the English equivalent of ‘I’). It can be used in both formal and informal conversations. For these reasons, watashi is introduced and taught as a default first person singular pronoun in L2 Japanese classrooms. Parker, in his Japanese classes, had been taught to use watashi ‘I’ to refer to himself. However, he had noticed when he was living in Tokyo that the majority of the male speakers whom he interacted with used ore rather than watashi to refer themselves. Ore is also a first-person singular pronoun, but it used by male speakers in informal conversations. At Greenville, Parker identified 140 himself, using both watashi and ore. Excerpt 5 shows the coexistence of both variations in his language use. In the excerpt, Parker, Tuan, and Jen are talking about volleyball on the way to the library. Parker is a member of the school volleyball group. In line 5, Jen asks Parker why he is not going to the practice. Tuan (line 6) asks if he has an exam on the next day (therefore he needs to study today). Parker tells Tuan and Jen that even though he doesn’t have the exam until the following Monday, he wants to review (line 10). In this utterance, he uses watashi ‘I’ to refer to himself. Tuan starts talking about his exam (line 11) and for the next 40 seconds, he talks about his plans for preparing for the exam. After a 6-second silence, Parker changes the topic of conversation and shares the news that he finally picked up his school T-shirt from the office. In this utterance, Parker uses ore ‘I’ to refer to himself (line 12). Excerpt 5 Conversation on the way to the library. TN: Tuan; P: Parker; JN: Jen 1 TN: バレーボール、４時 1 TN: Volleyball, 4:00 2 P: はい、それは日曜日でし ょ？ 2 P: Yes, that’s on Sunday, isn’t it? 3 JN: 練習 3 JN: Practice 4 P: あ、え、今日？ちゃあ[P は４時にバレーの練習がる ことを知らなかったよう] 4 P: Ah, eh, today? [P did not seem to know that there was a volleyball practice at 4:00.] 5 JN: え、どうして？何かあ る、明日？ 5 JN: 6 TN: 試験？ 6 TN: Exam? 7 JN: 明日じゃないでしょ？ 7 JN: It’s not tomorrow, is it? 8 P: 明日じゃない。月曜日。 8 P: It’s not tomorrow. Monday. 9 TN: 明日じゃない？ 9 TN: Not tomorrow? P: 月曜日。だけど、復習した いから、全部復習。私は、 その xxx（TN の発話と重な る） 10 P: Monday. But I want to review, review all. I [watashi] uhm xxx (overlapping with TN’s speech) 10 ! ! Eh, why? Do you have something tomorrow? 141 11 12 TN ! P: 私の試験は月曜日。明日の 方、いいでしょ？ 11 TN: My exam is on Monday. It would be better [to have the exam] tomorrow, isn’t it? (TN は、どうして明日試験 を受けるほうがいいと思う か理由を説明しはじめる。 短い沈黙のあと、TN は自 分の試験勉強の計画につい て話しはじめる) (TN starts explaining the reason why he prefers to take the exam tomorrow. After a short pause, TN starts talking about his plans for preparing for the exam.) (６秒) (6 seconds) おれは、やっと T シャツを 持って来た。 12 ! P: I [ore] have finally picked up my T-shirt. (07/29/2010) Parker’s use of watashi and ore was, however, not random. He was aware of the pragmatic appropriateness of the use of each personal pronoun. Parker often identified himself, using ore when speaking with other students. However, he used watashi to refer to himself when speaking with instructors. Excerpt 6, for example, shows Parker’s use of watashi to refer to himself in conversation with an instructor at the lunch table. In the excerpt, a female instructor starts playing a sort of guessing game about the relationship between students’ personalities and the gender of their sibling(s). In line 1, the instructor asks Parker if he has an older sister. Parker answers that he has an older brother (line 6). In line 7, she expresses surprise at Parker‘s answer because, considering his personality, she thought that Parker had an older sister. She continues to tell Parker that boys who have older siblings are friendly (lines 12–18). In line 19, Parker asks for a clarification about whether the instructor thought that he looked friendly, using the first person singular pronoun watashi ‘I’ to refer to himself. The conversation between Parker and the instructor goes on, and the instructor starts sharing her images of boys who have older sisters and boys who have older brothers (lines 25–29). She mentions that, in her view, boys who have older brothers like sports (line 27). In line 30, Parker points out a contradiction in her statement because Parker participates in all of the sports groups at Greenville. In his utterance, he uses, again, watashi ‘I’ to refer to himself. 142 Excerpt 6 Lunch conversation. I: Instructor; P: Parker 1 I: スチュワートさん、お姉さん がいるでしょ？ 1 I: Stewart [P’s last name]-san, you have an older sister, don’t you? 2 P: お兄さんが？ 2 P: Older brother? 3 I: お姉さん 3 I: Older sister 4 P: お兄さん 4 P: Older brother 5 I: お兄さん？ 5 I: Older brother? 6 P: はい、お兄さんがいます。 6 P: Yes, I have an older brother. 7 I: お姉さんがいると思いまし た。(複数の学生が同時に何 か言いはじめる） 7 I: I thought you had an older sister. (Multiple students saying something at once.) 8 P: お兄さんではだめですか？ 8 P: Is it not good to have an older brother? (Laugh) (笑い) (Multiple students are laughing.) (複数の学生が笑っている) 9 P: なんで、すみません。(笑い) 9 P: Why, I’m sorry [for not having an older sister]. (Laugh) 10 I: お姉さんがいそうな性格で す。 10 I: Considering your personality, you seem to have an older sister. 11 P: わかりますか？ 11 P: Do you know [that]? 12 I: そう、あの、男の子で 12 I: Yes, uhm, boys 13 P: はい 13 P: Yes 14 I: お姉さんがいる男の子はとっ てもフレンドリーです。 14 I: Boys who have older sisters are very friendly. 15 P: とても何？ 15 P: Very what? 16 I: フレンドリーです 16 I: Friendly 17 P: フレンドリー？ 17 P: Friendly? 18 I: はい 18 I: Yes ああ、だから、私はフレンド リーに見えますか？ 19 P: Ah, so, do I [watashi] look friendly? 19 ! ! 20 I: そうそうそう。(複数の学生 が笑っている) 20 I: That’s right. (Multiple students are laughing.) 21 P: ありがとうございます。 21 P: Thank you. (P と先生は話をやめる。２ ３秒後、P が先生に話しかけ る) (P and the instructor stop talking. After 23 seconds later, P starts talking to the instructor.) 143 22 P: お兄さんがいる男の人は、フ レンドリー、イメージはフレ ンドリーじゃない？ 22 P: Boys who have older brothers are friendly, not friendly? 23 I: いや、フレンドリーですけ ど、ちょっと違います。 23 I: Yes, [they are] friendly, but a little different. 24 P: そうですか。でも、どう、ど うやって、どうやって（笑 い） 24 P: Is that so. But, how, how (laugh) 25 I: ええ、私のイメージですよ。 25 I: Eh, it’s my image, you know. 26 P: はいはいはい 26 P: Yes yes yes 27 I: 男の兄弟がいる男の子は、ス ポーツが好きですとか、ゲー ムがですとか 27 I: Boys who have older brothers like sports, like playing game, and 28 P: はい、わかります。 28 P: Yes, I see. 29 I: 女の兄弟、お姉さんがいる男 の子は、やさしくて、 29 I: Boys who have older sisters are gentle and (Ben and Tuan join the conversation and start talking to the instructor. Parker remains silent for 14 seconds.) (ベンとテュアンが会話に加 わり、先生と話しはじめる。 パーカーは１４秒黙ったま ま) 30 ! I [watashi], (filler), at Greenville, sports, all sports P: 私は、なにか、グリーンビル で、スポーツ、全部のスポー ツ 30 ! P: 31 I: そうですね、[でも 31 I: That’s right, [but 32 P: [やっ ているのに、フレンドリーみ た[いので 32 P: [Even though I am playing, because I [look friendly 33 I: 33 [でもでもでもでも [But I: but but but 34 P: はい 34 P: Yes 35 I: よく考えたら、お兄さんがい る性格もあります。 35 I: After thinking more, you also have the characteristics of having an older brother. (08/05/2010) Thus, Parker consciously chose when to use watashi and when to use ore and continued to refer to himself ore in informal conversation with other students. He mentioned the reason for his choice of ore as 「俺」の方が日本人っぽい ‘Ore is more Japanese-like/Japanese-ish.’ Toward the end of the program, the level 4 students 144 learned about tanka (a type of Japanese short verse consisting of 31 syllables) and were given the opportunity to create their own tanka and present it in class. Parker presented the following tanka: 俺が死ぬ こともわかった その前に 幸せになる それだけでいい ‘I [ore] am going to die, I know, before that, I am going to be happy, that’s all I want.” When explaining his tanka, Parker mentioned his choice of personal pronoun and said, 日 本人の男の人は「私」ではなくて、よく「俺」を使う’Japanese men more often use ore than watashi’ and 「俺」の方が日本人っぽい‘Ore is more Japanese-like/Japanese-ish.’ When he finished, he concluded with a series of chopping motions with his right hand. Other students were also aware of Parker’s use of ore. スチュワートさんは、いつ も「俺」使う ‘Stewart-san always uses ore.’ Wayu, for example, frowns. Wayu, who advocates gender neutrality in language use, probably understood Parker’s use of ore as his desire to signal his maleness. Parker, however, chose to use ore to identify himself because ore was the pronoun actually used among the Japanese men whom he had met in Tokyo; therefore, ore was a more authentic way of referring to himself as a male learner and speaker of Japanese. In Parker’s words, ore is more 日本人っぽい‘Japaneselike/Japanese-ish’ than watashi. While Parker gambaru ‘work hard’ to learn authentic ways of speaking and behaving in Japanese, he was, at the same time, critical of other students who did not gambaru ‘work hard’ to adopt Japanese ways. For example, Parker was sensitive about other students’ pronunciation. 中級２の授業を取っているのに、初級１の発音がある人 がいる ‘There are students [in the level 4 course] who have level 1 pronunciation even though they are taking the level 4 course,’ Parker said. He was critical of those students because he thought that their pronunciation could have improved if they had worked harder. それは、その人のせいじゃないかもしれない けど、ええ、実は、その人とペアしたら、ち ょっと嫌な感じでした。ほとんどの時がまん した。時々、がまんできるかな、それはちょ That [having non-Japanese like pronunciation] may not be their fault, (filler), actually, but I was annoyed during pair work when I worked with that person [a person who had non- 145 っとひどいですね（笑い）。その人も、がん ばったら、もっと上手になると思います。で も、何も言わなかった。 Japanese like pronunciation]. I put up with it most of times. Sometimes, I wondered how much more I could tolerate (laugh). This sounds terrible, I know. I think their pronunciation would become better, if they worked hard. But, I didn’t say anything. (Interview, 07/15/2010) He was also critical of other students who do not gambaru ‘work hard’ to study Japanese. He noticed that one of his classmates was doing homework in the morning right before class. Another day, he saw another classmate doing homework in the morning before class. Parker felt that those students were wasting their opportunity to improve their Japanese language skills. それはちょっと、何と言う、イライラじゃな くて、自分の中に、怒る、怒るじゃない、そ の人の理由は納得できない、という感じ。そ れは、前の日、時間がたくさんあります。そ の前の日は、ええと、いや、まあ、つまり、 がんばらなかった。前の日にたぶん何か「あ あ嫌だ」とか「眠い」とか「後でする」と か、本気にしないようです。でもみんなは、 このプログラムは高いですね。だから、そん なお金を払ったから、精一杯がんばらなくち ゃいけないでしょ、日本語が上達になるため に。 That [doing homework in the morning before the class] is, how can I say, not annoying, angry, not angry [he is looking for a right word to express his feeling], I felt that I cannot accept that. They have a lot of time on the day before. On the day before, they, uh, in short, they didn’t work hard. On the day before, they were probably not serious like “I don’t want to do it,” “I’m sleepy,” or “I’ll do it later.” But everyone, this program is expensive. Since everyone paid such amount of money, we have to work hard as best we can in order to improve our Japanese. (Interview, 07/15/2010) Transforming This is my second chance Parker is, as usual, walking with eyes half-closed in the morning. His blond hair that has grown since mid June looks blonder in the sunlight. He is wearing moccasins today. About a month ago, the cicadas were singing, and 暑い ‘it’s hot’ was a common phrase used among the students and faculty in the Japanese School. It is now getting close to mid August. The morning chill and yellow leaves at the tops of some of the trees are hinting the arrival of the fall in Greenville.忙しい ‘I’m busy’ and 試験はいつ？ 146 ‘When is your exam?’ have become new greetings among students. Within less than a week, students will leave Greenville for home. Parker and the other regulars of the seminar room continued to meet and study together in the seminar room during the last week of the program as they had been doing regularly during the previous month. The topic of their conversation, however, shifted exclusively to their final exams and oral presentations. Parker and the other regulars of the seminar room stayed up late to prepare for their exams and presentations. In less than a week, Parker would be leaving Greenville. I was thinking of the question that had been lingering in my mind since my first interview with Parker —why did Parker say, 精一杯 がんばらなくちゃいけない ‘I have to work hard as best I can’? Parker studies economics and Japanese at his university. He had taken three years of Japanese before he came to Greenville. At Greenville, with his hard work, he has been doing well in terms of his grades, if that is something he is concerned about. There is really nothing that obligates him to study Japanese as hard as he imposes on himself. His words, 精一杯がんばらなく ちゃいけないんです ‘I have to work hard as best I can, you know’ and 無駄遣いしたくな い ‘I don’t want to waste,’ carry some sense of urgency. セカンドチャンスだから‘because [this is] my second chance,’ Parker said after a short pause when I asked where the energy of his gambaru ‘working hard’ came from. Parker was always articulate when he answered my questions. It was my first time to see Parker show some hesitation. 後悔しないため ‘not to regret,’ he said. 簡単にして、後悔しないためです。来た時に 本当にがんばろうと思っていたんです。過去 に行けないから、グリーンビルで勉強してい るうちにがんばらなくちゃいけないでしょ。 それは、そのことを考えたら、簡単です。グ リーンビルで勉強しているうちにがんばれば よかったねという気持ちがあるのはだめでし ょ。 In short, it’s not to regret. When I came [to Greenville], I decided that I was going to work really hard. Because I cannot go back to the past, I have to gambaru ‘work hard’ while I’m studying at Greenville, you know. That, if I think of that, it’s easy. It’s not good to have a thought that I should have worked harder while I was studying at Greenville, you know. (Interview, 08/03/2010) 147 Parker’s biggest regret in his life is his Japanese. He lived in Japan for seven years, but he did not learn any Japanese while he was there. 全然習わなかった。あいさつぐら いでした。「こんにちは」「いだたきます」とか ‘I didn’t learn [Japanese] at all. Just greetings like konnichiwa ‘hello’ and itadakimasu (lit. ‘I humbly receive food,’ the expression used before eating meals). Parker recalls. Yet, as soon as people hear that he lived in Japan for seven years, they expect him to speak Japanese fluently.「日本語話せ るはずだね」「いや別に」 ‘“You should be able to speak Japanese.” “Not really.”’ was the conversation that Parker had over and over again after he came back to the United States. When he was a child, 答えがなくて困ったんです ‘I was confused because I did not have answer [for why I was not able to speak Japanese],’ Parker recalls. As he went through this ritual over and over again, a sense of regret grew in his mind. Each time he went through this ritual, he was reminded that he was not able to speak Japanese even though he had lived in Japan for seven years. それは私のせいじゃなくて、でも、日本に ７年間住んでいたのに、全然習わなかった ‘It was not my fault, but I did not learn [Japanese] at all even though I had been living in Japan for seven years,’ he said. At Greenville, too, Parker went through this ritual. It was during the party that Parker and Tuan planned for students on Friday. It was a mystery how students communicated, but there were many people at the party from various levels. Music was playing through the speaker connected to someone’s computer. There were drinks and snacks on the table in the corner. Some students were playing games. Other students were dancing to the music. Still other students were talking. Everyone looked relaxed on Friday night. Parker saw me and approached me. I thanked him for inviting me to the party, and we started to chat. I noticed that Parker was wearing a ring with some symbols inscribed on it. I asked Parker about his ring. He told me that it was his fraternity ring. He looked proudly at the ring. When I was looking at his ring closely, Hua joined our conversation. Hua and I started to ask Parker about his fraternity and his university. Hua 148 seemed unusually talkative that night. As our conversation went on, Hua started to target her questions toward Parker. Excerpt 7 shows their exchange. As they talk, Hua finds out that Parker is studying economics and Japanese at his university. Then she asks, “Why Japanese?” (line 7). Hua’s tone of voice carries some sense of disapproval. Parker couldn’t answer her question right away. Hua clarifies the intent of her question (line 9). She wants to know why Parker is studying Japanese, which has nothing to do with his other major, economics. Hua further states that she herself is in a similar situation. Her four years of Japanese language study became, in a sense, useless after she started her graduate program in international relations, in which her knowledge of Japanese was viewed as irrelevant to her course of study. Hua asks Parker again why he is studying Japanese (line 17). He tells her that he wants to become better at Japanese. Hua continues to ask Parker why he wants to become better at Japanese. Her tone of voice is clearly challenging Parker. Considering the fact that students came to Greenville to study Japanese, Parker’s desire to become better at Japanese is a legitimate one. Hua continues to ask if Parker likes Japan. Instead of answering Hua’s question directly, Parker tells her that he lived in Japan from age two to age eight. As soon as Hua hears that Parker lived in Japan for seven years, she expresses her surprise and asks why Parker is still in level 4 (Hua is a level 5 student). Parker explains that he went to an international school and did not study Japanese at all. Excerpt 7 Conversation at a party. H: Hua (level 5); P: Parker 1 H: 2 P: 3 H: 4 P: 1 H: Stewart [P’s last name]-san, what year are you in? 2 P: Senior. I will be a senior. スチュワートさんの専攻、 何？ 3 H: What is your major? 経済と日本 4 P: Economics and Japanese スチュワートさん、今何年 生？ ４年生、４年生になる。 149 5 経済と日本語？ 5 Economics and Japanese? 6 P: (うなずく) 6 P: (Nodding) 7 H: どうして、日本語？ 7 H: Why Japanese? 8 P: ど、どうして？ 8 P: Wh, why? 9 H: どうして、日本語？経済と 全然関係ないでしょ？ 9 H: Why Japanese? [Japanese has] nothing to do with economics, does it? 10 P: ど、どうしてって 10 P: Wh why 11 H: 私、大学で日本語を４年間勉 強した。でも、今、大学院で 日本語は全然関係ない。 11 H: I studied Japanese for four years. But, now, Japanese has nothing to do with my study at graduate school. 12 P: フアさん、大学院生？ 12 P: Are you a graduate student? 13 H: うん 13 H: Yes 14 P: 専攻は何？ 14 P: What is your major? 15 H: 国際関係 15 H: International relations 16 P: ほぉ 16 P: Wow 17 H: スチュワートさんはどうして 日本語を勉強しているの？ 17 H: Why are you studying Japanese? 18 P: 卒業したら、１年ぐらいに本 に行きたい。それから、多 分、大学院に行くかなと思っ ている。 18 P: I want to go to Japan for a year after I graduate. Then, probably, I might go to a graduate school. 19 H: じゃあ、JET Program とか？ 19 H: Then JET Program? 20 P: あ、ん、JET はあまり好きじ ゃない。日本語を話さなくて もいいでしょ。もっと日本語 を話す仕事をして、日本語が もっと上手になりたい。 20 P: Ah, uhm, I don’t like JET. I don’t have to speak Japanese, you know. I want to something that I use more Japanese, and I want to become better at Japanese. 21 H: どうして、日本語が上手にな りたいの？ 21 H: Why do you want to become better at Japanese? 22 P: どうして？（声が大きくな る）どうしてって 22 P: Why? (Larger volume) Why 23 H: スチュワートさん、日本が好 き？ 23 H: Do you like Japan? 24 P: 俺は２歳から８歳の時まで、 日本に住んでいた。 24 P: I lived in Japan from when I was two years to eight years. 25 H: あ、そう？え、でも、じゃ あ、どうしてそのレベル？ (笑い) 25 H: Oh, is that so? Ah, but, then, why [are you] at that level? (Laugh) 150 26 P: インターナショナルスクール に行ったから、英語だけだっ た(声が小さくなる)。日本 語を全然話さなかった。 26 P: I went to an international school, so [I spoke] only English (volume is becoming smaller). I didn’t speak Japanese at all. 27 H: ふうん。 27 H: I see. (Fieldnote, 07/30/2012) When Parker came back to the United States, he was eight years old. At that time, he was not particularly interested in studying Japanese. 子供でしたから、したことは遊 びだけだった ‘I was a child, so all I wanted to do was to play),’ Parker recalls. Parker entered a third-grade class, and his brother entered a fifth-grade class in a local elementary school when Parker’s family moved back to California. 子供たちは、珍しい こと違うことは、変扱いする ‘Children find something unusual or different strange,’ he said. His older brother decided not to keep his ties to Japan (language, experience, culture, and other things that tied him to Japan) because, according to Parker, his brother thought that とけ込みたかったから、日本のこと、捨てたほうがいいと思った ‘he should abandon his tie to Japan because he wanted to be integrated [into his class and his American classmates]. Parker, on the other hand, decided to keep his ties to Japan. He explains: あまりいじめられなかったし、日本人のクラ スメートがいたし、それは、私の日本に住ん でいたことは、いいね、捨てない方がいいと いう気持ちがあったからかもしれません。 I didn’t get picked on much, and there was a Japanese classmate in my class. So, I probably thought that my experience of living in Japan was a good thing, and I should not abandon [my ties to Japan]. (Interview, 08/03/2010) His desire to keep his link to Japan combined with his sense of regret that he was not able to speak Japanese even though he lived in Japan for seven years made Parker make various efforts to learn Japanese. When he was a child, Parker received private lessons at a Japanese family’s house. In his high school, he took Japanese courses for two years. He even attended a Japanese language class at a local community college while he 151 was in high school. However, nothing seemed to work. His Japanese language skills did not improve. Parker recalls: ３年生の時、junior college で勉強したけど、 高校生の宿題と短大の宿題もあったから、高 校の宿題終わって、短大の宿題をするかわり に寝たということです。短大の授業では、み んな英語ばかり話したんですね。だから、あ んまりがんばらなかったんです。 When I was a junior in high school, I studied [Japanese] at a community college, but I had homework from both my high school and the community college, I slept instead of doing homework for my Japanese class at the community college after I finished my high school homework. In the [Japanese] class at the community college, everyone spoke English. So, I didn’t work hard. (Interview, 08/03/2010) When he entered the university, he decided to major in Japanese. Although Parker had studied Japanese for two years in high school, he was placed in the first-year Japanese course based on the results of the placement test. Parker, however, soon found that the first-year course was easy for him. During his first two years of Japanese language study at university, Parker did not study much. As a result, he did not learn much. In the third year, he began to wonder how much he would have been able to speak Japanese by then if he had studied hard during his first two years. 大学１年生の時に、１年生の日本語の授業を 取って、それは簡単すぎるから、あまり勉強 しなくていいという気持ちがあったから、あ まり勉強しなかった。試験の時に、まあまあ でしたが、ほんとに、１年生の時に、２年生 の時にほんとにがんばったら、今はどれぐら い話せるかなという気持ちがある。だから、 ちょっと後悔があるんです。今はちょっと消 えるようにしたいんです。忘れたいと思いま す。 When I was a first-year student in my university, I took the first-year Japanese language course. It was too easy, so I thought that I didn’t have to study hard, and I didn’t study. My exams were okay. But, I really wonder how much I would have been able to speak now if I had studied hard when I was a first-year and second-year student. So, I feel regret. I now want to erase it. I want to forget it. (Interview, 08/03/2010) Parker is a regular college student. He hangs out with his friends. He goes out on weekend nights. He goes to parties. For some occasions, studying and doing homework did not make it to the top of his priority list. 宿題をするかわりに寝た ‘I went to bed instead of doing homework,’ he recalls. Therefore, when he decided to go to Greenville 152 in the summer of 2010, he made a commitment to himself—seiippai gambaru ‘working hard as best one can’. Greenville was his second chance to become a speaker of Japanese and his second chance to make up for lost time in the past. Becoming a speaker of Japanese Prior to coming to Greenville, Parker had spent a summer in Tokyo through an international internship program. It was the first time for him to return to Japan after he moved back to the United States. When Parker was living in Japan as a child, his life was contained in the world of English. He spoke English at home. He spoke English at school. Whenever he went out, one or both of his parents were always with him. He did not have to use Japanese. He did not have to learn Japanese. Therefore, he did not know Japanese. When he returned to Tokyo the previous summer, Parker experienced a strange feeling. The sounds of Japanese re-evoked his childhood sensation of living in Japan—the times when he had been surrounded by foreign sounds, which Parker had forgotten for a long time. Then he felt, 自然だし、静かな気持ち ‘natural and calm.’ ７年間住んでいたけど、international school に入ったし、英語だけ話している友達がいた し、やっぱり日本の社会にとけ込まなかった んですが、おもしろいことは、東京はにぎや かなんですが、東京に行った時に、自然だ し、静かな気持ちがあったんです。その時 に、住んでいた時に、日本語を全然わからな かったから、日本語を話したのは音だけだっ たからだ。 Although I lived [in Japan] for seven years, I went to an international school, had Englishspeaking friends, and I was not integrated into the Japanese society, but the strange thing is that when I went back to Tokyo, I felt natural and calm even though Tokyo was busy. That time, when I had been living in Japan, I did not understand Japanese, so I only spoke [he probably meant “communicated”] through the sounds of Japanese. That’s probably why. (Interview, 08/03/2010) While Parker rediscovered his connection to Japan, he was constantly reminded that he was a foreigner when he was working at the co-op in Tokyo as an intern. 日本人に とって私はいつも、白人、外国人、アメリカ人 ‘For Japanese people, I am always a white, a foreigner, an American,’ Parker says. Seeing foreigners, more specifically seeing Caucasians in Tokyo is no longer unusual in the twenty-first century. Tokyo is one of the 153 biggest international cities in the world. However, at local levels, seeing and interacting with foreigners still remain unusual according to Parker. At the co-op in Tokyo, Japanese people who saw a white young man working as a cashier or a delivery person did not hide their surprise. 人間扱いしてください‘Please treat me like a human,’ Parker said. 本当に（外国人に対し）珍しい気持ちがあり ます。去年働いている時に、もちろん東京の 人は、外国人見たことがあるけど、働いてい る外国人を見てびっくりした。目の前に外国 人をみて「ええー」びっくりした。どうしよ う、私は外国人ですから、驚かせてすみませ んでした。どうしようかな。いつも俺は外国 人。「すみません」「ちょっと仕方がないん です。申し訳ございません。」人間扱いして ください、ということですね。本当に嫌なこ とは、びっくりした後、英語を話す。なん で、英語？私は働いているでしょ。 [Japanese people] really have unusual feelings [toward foreigners]. When I was working [at the co-op in Tokyo] last year, of course people in Tokyo have seen foreigners, people were surprised when they saw a foreigner working [at the store]. They saw a foreigner in front of them and were surprised like “Oh no.” What should I do? I am a foreigner. I am sorry to surprise you. What should I do? I am always a foreigner. “I’m sorry.” “It cannot be helped. I am very sorry.” Please treat me like a human. That’s I want to say. The thing that I hate most is that they start speaking English after they are surprised. Why English? I am working, you know. (Interview, 08/03/2010) Although Parker went to Japan to learn to speak Japanese, his efforts were rejected by Japanese people even before he started. Moreover, not only was he not given opportunities to speak Japanese, but also he was repeatedly reminded that he was an outsider. Furthermore, Parker quickly learned that Japanese people did not expect foreigners to speak Japanese. At the same time, he was thinking about the nostalgic sensation that he experienced in the middle of Tokyo. It was something that he had forgotten a long time ago and something that had connected Parker to Japan. 友達はもう日本にいないし、日本に行く時 に、私の、インターナショナルスクールと か、経験した所に行けるけど、それだけで す。時間がたつと共に、その経験が遠くなる と思います。でも、なんか、日本語を勉強し たら、もう少し近くなる？ちょっと難しい。 日本語を勉強する前に、日本に住んでいた は、なんか自己暗示にすぎないでした。 I don’t have [childhood] friends in Japan anymore. I can go to places like I used to go [when I was living in Japan] such as my international school, but that’s it. As time passes, my experience moves far away. But, if I study Japanese, does it become closer? It’s difficult [to explain]. Before I started to learn Japanese, living in Japan was just some sort of self-suggestion. (Interview, 08/03/2010) 154 Almost fifteen years after he moved back to the United States, he re-discovered his connection to Japan. Furthermore, Parker realized that studying Japanese was the only way for him to maintain the connection. アメリカに帰ったばかりの時は、記憶は自然 に覚えられましたが、それはだんだん、時間 がたつと共に、自然じゃないようになる。で も、日本語を勉強しはじめたら、記憶が消え てしまう、ごめん、ちょっと待って、うまく 説明したいんですが、説明しにくいですね。 あの（ポーズ）ごめん（ポーズ）あ、その記 憶を守られる方法を見つけた。そういうこ と。日本語を勉強で、そのこと覚えられる。 わかるか？ When I moved back to America, I was able to remember my memories [of living in Japan] naturally. Those memories gradually, as time passes, become unnatural. But, because I started to learn Japanese, my memories will disappear. Sorry. Wait. I want to explain better, but it’s difficult to explain. Uhm (short pause) sorry (short pause), ah, I found a way to protect my memories. That’s what it is. By studying Japanese, I can remember my memories. Do you understand? (Interview, 08/03/2010) The summer before Parker came to Greenville, he had rediscovered his lost connection to Japan. However, he was not given the opportunity to create a way to protect his memories. He was constantly rejected because he was a foreigner with blond hair, white skin, and hazel eyes. In this sense, too, coming to Greenville and studying Japanese was his second chance to protect his connection to Japan. なるべく相手のように話したいんです‘I want to speak like a Japanese person as much as possible.’ Parker believes that speaking Japanese like Japanese people do is the way not to be treated as a foreigner and the way for him to step into the world of Japanese without being rejected. Therefore, he wants to speak Japanese like 私の場合は、 もちろん白人だけど（強調）、顔だけ、顔しか違わない ‘in my case, I am a white [emphasis], but only my face, only my face is different.’ なるべく相手のように話したいんです。なぜ かと言うと、簡単にして、外国人扱いされた くないからだ。アメリカ人のように、日本人 じゃないように日本語を話したら、saki、 karaoke という、英語でそういうことがありま すが、日本語で話したら、日本語の発音を使 います。必ず。そのように話したら、相手 に、相手は私に仲良くなれると思います。私 の場合は、もちろん白人だけど（強調）、顔 I want to speak like a Japanese person as much as possible. Because, in short, I don’t want to be treated as a foreigner. If you speak Japanese like Americans, like non-Japanese, like in English, saki, karaoke, if you speak Japanese, you use Japanese pronunciation. Absolutely. If I speak like that [like Japanese people speak], I think I can become closer to the interlocutor. In my case, I am white 155 だけ、顔しか違わない。 (emphasis), but only my face, only my face is different. (Interview, 08/03/2010) Looking back his eight weeks at Greenville, Parker said,つかれた ‘I’m tired.’ It was first time for me to hear Parker say つかれた ‘I’m tired.’ But soon, he added, でもも う少しがんばらなくちゃいけないですね ‘But, I have to gambaru ‘work hard’ a little bit more because ずっとせっかくがんばったのに、最後の時にがんばらなかったら、それは 無駄です ‘I have gambaru ‘work[ed] hard’ until now, if I don’t work gambaru ‘work hard’ up to the end, it [his previous hard work] will be wasted.’ At the final ceremony in the final week, Parker’s parents and brother came to Greenville. They sat with Parker during the ceremony. One of the traditions of the Japanese School at the final ceremony is to watch a slideshow of the Japanese School. The slideshow contained pictures from various scenes from the past nine weeks. Each time a slide was displayed, applause and sometimes laughter arose from the students and instructors. What I noticed while watching the slideshow was the number of slides that contained Parker’s photos. His presence was everywhere. After the ceremony, I asked Parker what he thought about the slideshow. He said: 私はそんなに参加したから、写真何枚もあっ たから、それはよかったと思います。私はほ んとにがんばったっていうことです。 I participated that much, there are many pictures of me, so, it was good, I think. That shows that I really gambatta ‘worked hard.’ (Interview, 08/12/2010) When Parker came to Greenville, he made a commitment to himself—he would seiippai gambaru ‘work hard as best one can.’ Coming to Greenville was, in many senses, a second chance for him. Over the course of nine weeks, there were times when Parker thought that もう嫌だ、早く寝たい ‘It’s enough. I want to go to bed now’ but he continued to gambaru ‘work hard’ because he was aware that it was his second chance and the last chance for him to regain what he had lost in the past and also the opportunity 156 to build the way to his future of becoming a speaker of Japanese. The slideshow was a piece of evidence and a trajectory of his hard work for the past nine weeks. At the end of the program, Parker said, 本当に来てよかったです‘I am really glad that I came.’ He continued: ３年間勉強していたのに、んー、まだ日本語 を話すことは恥ずかしかったと思います。ど うやってかな、あ、間違えたらどうするか な、と思い込んだので、ちょっとだめだった けど。今は、もちろん、学校のおかげで、日 本語だけ話したから、今は恥ずかしくないと 思います。今も間違える、必ず間違えるけ ど。 Even though I had studied Japanese for three years, I think I still felt embarrassed about speaking Japanese. I was thinking like “how should I say” and “what if I made a mistake,” so it was not good. But, now, thanks to the Japanese School, I spoke only Japanese, I think I don’t feel embarrassed [about speaking Japanese] now even though I still make mistakes, I surely make mistakes. (Interview, 08/12/2010) Parker’s feeling of embarrassment about speaking Japanese was also there when he talked to his father. His father is a multilingual speaker. He speaks English, Spanish, and Japanese. Although both Parker and his father are able to speak Japanese, Parker did not talk to his father in Japanese because he felt embarrassed about his Japanese language skills. However, at Greenville, Parker spoke Japanese with his father for the first time. 父は日本語を話せるけど、来る前にあまり話 さなかった。たぶん、なぜかと言うと、私 は、さっき言った通り、日本語を話すのがち ょっと恥ずかしかったから、あまり話さなか った。でも、昨日、夕べ、もちろん英語を家 族に話していい、話したかったけど、私はな るべくよく日本語を話したかった、父に。日 本語で会話にように話せて、よかったと思 う。会話のように話したのは初めてです。 My father can speak Japanese, but I did not talk [to him in Japanese] before I came to Greenville. Probably because I was, as I said before, embarrassed about speaking Japanese. But, yesterday, last night, I, of course, could speak English to my family and I wanted to, but I wanted to speak Japanese as much as I could to my father. It was good that we were able to have a conversation in Japanese. It was the first time for me to have a conversation in Japanese with my father. (Interview, 08/12/2010) Over the course of nine weeks, Parker (re)gained various things that he had lost in the past. Moreover, he built a new bridge to his future. As I watched Parker and his 157 family drive off to Massachusetts for their family vacation, I sent my silent applause to Parker while waving in farewell. Discussion Parker’s L2 socialization process described above has posed a number of important questions for understanding L2 learning. From an etic perspective, Parker’s L2 socialization can be viewed as a seamless unproblematic process of emulation of the target language and culture. However, a close examination of his engagement in the community of practice from an emic perspective has revealed that it involved constant negotiation of meaning. Parker’s negotiation of meaning took place at multiple levels. First, what Parker negotiated was the access to the target language community of practice—his legitimate position in a Japanese community. His desire to regain and search for the reconnection to Japan had been rejected the previous summer because of his ethnicity as a Caucasian. The prevailing folk beliefs about gaijin ‘foreigners’ among Japanese people, discussed in Iino’s study (1996, 2006), had impeded Parker’s participated in the target language community of practice and had relegated him to an illegitimate position in the community. This practice that Parker had encountered previous summer in Tokyo convinced him that the only way for him to gain access to the target language community of practice was to emulate the Japanese way of speaking and behaving; in his words, 顔だけ、顔しかちがわ ない ‘only my face, only my face is different.’ This determination served as the basis on which Parker defined himself as a learner and a speaker of Japanese at Greenville. Parker’s negotiation of meaning also took place at a personal level. Parker understood his opportunity to study Japanese at Greenville as his second chance to make up for lost time in the past—his regret that he had not gambaru ‘worked hard’ to study Japanese and had wasted his opportunities to become a speaker of Japanese—and to build the way to his future of becoming a speaker of Japanese. His sense of regret and desire of 158 self-transformation served as the basis on which Parker negotiated the meaning of his participation in the Japanese School. In this sense, Parker negotiated the meaning of his sense of self of the past, present, and future. Parker’s engagement in the practice of the Japanese School over time resulted in remarkable self-transformation at the end of the program. The important question to be considered is whether Parker’s primary force for learning Japanese at Greenville can be explained, using Norton’s notion of investment. Norton (2000) has argued that L2 learners learn an L2 with the understanding that the gain or increase in their cultural capital (e.g., language skills) would bring them a better return for the future, based on the economic metaphor proposed by Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) in the field of sociology. For investors (e.g. L2 learners), increasing cultural capital (and deciding what cultural capital to increase) is important because it would eventually determine the value of return on their investment. For example, Katarina in Norton’s study (2000) stopped investing in learning English because she thought that her English skills would not promise her a better return for the future; instead she decided to take a computer class, which she believed to give her a better return and eventually grant her the “access to hitherto unattainable resources” (p. 10). Katarina invested in learning computer skills, rather than learning English, with the understanding that the acquisition of computer skills would provide her opportunity to establish herself as an educated person in the new community. Could Parker’s force for learning Japanese at Greenville be explained, using the economic metaphor exemplified in Katarina’s case? The core notion of the investment is the symbolic exchange (return). The conception of investment assumes that L2 learners invest in learning an L2 with the understanding that their investment would be exchanged for other forms of symbolic capital in the future. In Katarina’s case, she expected that her increase in cultural capital (learning computer skills) would be exchanged for social 159 capital (establishing her desirable identity) in the future. This was the primary drive for Katarina to learn computer skills (and not to learn English). In Parker’s case, what did he expect that his investment in learning Japanese would be exchanged for? As discussed earlier, Parker negotiated his meaning of participation in the community of practice of the Japanese School at primarily two levels: (a) one is the gaining access to a community of practice in Japan and (b) the other is making up for lost time in the past and building the way to his future of becoming a speaker of Japanese. Parker, based on the experience of living in Japan previous summer, probably understood that his investment in learning Japanese would be exchanged for social capital, which is the access to the target language community of practice and opportunity to gain legitimacy as a speaker of Japanese in the community. In the latter negotiation, what did Parker expect that his investment in learning Japanese would be exchanged for? I argue that Parker did not view or understand learning Japanese as a symbolic exchange as conceptualized in the notion of investment. Parker’s primary drive for learning Japanese was his aspiration for self-transformation. He negotiated his sense of self of the past, present and future. In this sense, it can be argued that his primary drive for learning Japanese was not his interest in or desire for exchanging his cultural capital (Japanese language skills) for other forms of symbolic capital (economic and/or social capital), which was the case of Katarina. Parker’s case study is more comparable with the case study of Alice by Kinginger (2004) in which she argued that Alice’s aspiration for self-transformation from a young woman from a working-class single-mother family to a “person who she can admire” (p. 240) served as Alice’s primary drive for learning French. Thus, Parker’s case study, together with Kinginger’s, have suggested that L2 learners do not necessarily understand L2 learning as a symbolic exchange of their capital. The two studies have suggested that the notion of investment would be better understood as a form of L2 learner agency, 160 which would be applicable for a certain types of learners situated in certain social contexts. The different ways in which Katarina in Norton’s study (2000) and Parker “invested” in learning an L2 might be attributed to the different affordance structures that the communities provided for L2 learners. What makes Parker’s L2 socialization process strikingly unique compared to not only Katarina’s case but also the findings of previous studies is the absence of social constraints in the process of socialization. Previous studies on L2 socialization (e.g. Atkinson, 2003; Duff, 2002; Harklau, 2000; Iino, 1996, 2006; Kinginger, 2004; Miller & Zuengler, 2011; Morita, 2002, 2004; Norton, 2000; Talmy, 2008; Teutsch-Dwyer, 2001; Willett 1995) have collectively shown that the social structure, power relations, and ideologies of the target language community, whether it is an L2 classroom or a local community, place constraints on the processes of socialization by L2 learners. In other words, it is possible to argue that different affordance structures of communities influence how and what forms of agency L2 learners exercise in their L2 learning. The notion of investment might be able to capture the force for L2 learning by the L2 learners who are caught in inequitable social relations of dominant communities; however, it might not be able to capture the force for L2 learning by other types of learners who are placed in different social contexts as in the case of Parker. As Ahearn (2001) defines it, agency is the “socioculturally mediated capacity to act” (p. 112). L2 learner agency needs to be conceptualized in relation to the social contexts in which they are placed. Unlike the findings of previous studies on L2 socialization, which have shown the hindering role of the social communities, Parker’s case study has demonstrated the facilitative role of social community. The affordance structure of the Japanese School allowed Parker to exercise his agency freely, without any social constraints, for learning Japanese. 161 To highlight the difference in the affordance structure of the social communities between previous studies and Parker’s case study, I will compare Parker’s L2 socialization process with Iino (1996, 2006), who examined L2 socialization processes by American learners of L2 Japanese who participated in a study abroad program in Japan. The major challenge that the L2 learners in Iino’s study faced was the Japanese host families’ folk belief about gaijin ‘foreigners’ as being innocent outsiders who would not be able to learn and speak Japanese. This folk belief not only limited the L2 learners’ opportunities for learning Japanese but also undermined their agency to learn Japanese. What the L2 learners eventually learned to do during their study abroad in Japan was to play the role of kawaii gaijin ‘amiable foreigners’ to meet their host families’ expectations. In contrast, Parker did not face such social obstacles at Greenville. In the Japanese School, none of the native speakers imposed the folk belief about gaijin on their students. Rather, they, as professionals, they placed high expectations on their students and challenged them and encouraged them to learn by providing corrections, signaling their linguistic problems, and engaged them in talk about topics beyond those of the classrooms. Thus, for Parker, the social category of being a Caucasian never became a hindering factor for learning Japanese. Instead, what he found were (a) abundant opportunities and resources for him to learn and use Japanese, and (b) the affordance structure in which he could freely exercise his agency and pursue his goals of learning Japanese at Greenville. Parker himself had previously gone through the same kind of study abroad experience as the students in Iino’s study prior to coming to Greenville. Therefore, he was ready to take any opportunities afforded to him and use any resources available to him for learning Japanese. As a consequence, over the course of nine weeks, Parker achieved a remarkable outcome of self-transformation. The Japanese School and study abroad programs are comparable in terms of the L2 learning environment. Indeed, Greenville Summer Schools are often compared to 162 study abroad programs. They both provide immersion environments in which L2 learners can use the target language in real communication in class as well as outside of class. They both provide peripherality for L2 learners. L2 learners initially join the community as novices of the language and culture and receive guidance from experts (such as their teachers and host family members). Despite a number of similarities, however, there are also differences. One crucial difference is the affordance structure. The Japanese School is a hybrid social community created for the purpose of learning Japanese. The members of the community are either (a) Japanese language instructors who want to teach Japanese, or (b) L2 learners who want to learn Japanese. The experts with whom L2 learners interact on a dairy basis are not ordinary native speakers of Japanese, but language professionals who specialize in Japanese language pedagogy. Their job is to provide their students with opportunities to learn Japanese. They would not impose any social constraints that might hinder their learning opportunities. The hybridity of the social community also creates abundant opportunities for student-student interaction, using the target language. In the community of Greenville, where the Language Pledge was in effect for 24 hours and seven days a week, learners are required to communicate in the target language and not able to switch to English no matter how challenging and frustrating it is. This is another difference between the affordance structure of the Japanese School and that of study abroad programs where learners can speak English to each other once they step out of their classrooms. It was this affordance structure that made it possible for Parker to not only learn the Japanese language but also exercise his agency in the way he wanted in order to achieve his goal of learning Japanese at Greenville. 163 CHAPTER VI: ALISON SHAME, RESISTANCE, AND OVERCOMING Beginning When I climbed down the stairs and walked out of Greenough Hall, Alison was already there waiting for me. She was sitting at a picnic table, smoking, and watching other students playing volleyball. “Watching” is probably not a precise description. Her eyes looked vacant. She was directing her eyes toward the volleyball court but probably not watching anything. I approached her and apologized for being late for our first meeting. ううん、大丈夫。私は早く来て、たばこ吸ってた ‘No, it’s all right. I came [here] early and have been smoking),’ she said. She made sure that it was not I who had come late but it was she who had arrived early. Fair and honest—this was my impression of Alison, and this impression never changed throughout the program. I sat next to her and took out a cigarette. My cell phone was showing 4:34 p.m. I was indeed late. As a conversation starter, I mentioned the weather. Alison looked at the sky and replied, そう ね ‘That is so.’ After that, I did not know what else to say to continue the conversation. We were seated silently, smoking, and watching the volleyball game. Before the silence became uncomfortable, Alison said, じゃあ、どこ？ ‘Well then, where?’ She was asking where we should go to talk. I said, じゃあ、あそこはどう？ ‘Well, how about over there?,’ pointing at the outside dining area in front of Lionel Hall. うん、いい。じゃあ、 行きましょうか？ ‘Yes, that’s fine. Shall we go?’ Alison stood up from the bench. Alison was tall. I once asked how tall she was. She said she was 174 centimeters tall (approximately 5 feet 8 inches) and she didn’t know how many feet that was. I laughed. It also took me a while to remember how many feet my height was. Alison was from Germany. Coming to Greenville was her first visit to the United States. She had arrived in New York a few days before Greenville Summer Schools started. She had stayed in a youth hostel in New York City before coming to Greenville. Just from her 164 appearance—a Caucasian, hazel eyes, and brown hair, she looked no different from other American students. I also stood up from the bench, and we started walking toward Lionel Hall. This 4:30 meeting became our routine. We met regularly at a picnic table in front of Greenough Hall and walked to the outside dining area of Lionel Hall. Alison was different from many other students in the Japanese School in one respect. She was born, raised, and educated in Germany. She had never attended American schools before she came to Greenville. The majority of the students in the Japanese School were American students, regardless of their ethnic background, who had been born and raised in the United States. There were international students in the school; however, they had been enrolled in an American school (either a college or a university) for at least one year before coming to Greenville. In the summer of 2010 when I met Alison, she was in the last year of her graduate program in Germany (equivalent to a doctoral program in the U.S.) and was in the process of writing her thesis. 専門は戦後文学です ‘My specialization is post-war literature,’ one female student said when she introduced herself in class on the very first day. 戦後文学 ‘post-war literature,’ I repeated the word silently. I stopped taking notes and tried to think who would be classified as post-war Japanese writers. I could name only one. I looked at the owner of the voice. She was seated in a chair, wearing a pair of black plastic frame eyeglasses. Her long hair was tied in a bun at the back of her neck. Her ears, nose, and a lower lip were pierced. There was a tattoo on her lower calf. This was Alison. I quickly became interested in knowing what had driven this contemporary-looking young woman to pursue her doctoral degree in Japanese literature of the 1950s and 1960s. I looked at her face again. Long straight upward eyebrows, black plastic frame eyeglasses, and tightly closed mouth created a certain impression of her. I circled Alison’s name on my notebook and wrote “potential participant” next to it. 165 Engagement I cannot speak Japanese It was Sally who told me that Alison was interested in participating in my study. Sally was one of Alison’s ５階の友達 ‘fifth-floor friends.’ The fifth-floor refers to the fifth floor of Greenough Hall. Her room was next to Alison’s, and they were both smokers. I was delighted to learn that Alison was interested in participating in my study. It was already the end of the second week, and I was starting to worry whether anyone would be interested in participating in my study. At the same time, I was also curious to know why Alison was interested in participating in my study and was concerned about whether I would be able to establish rapport with her, recalling the impression that I had received of her on the very first day of class. I pictured her straight upward eyebrows, hazel eyes behind her glasses with their black plastic frames, and tightly closed month with a lip piercing. Moreover, I was concerned about the level of her oral proficiency. Alison did not talk much. Through my observations during the first and second weeks and my brief conversations with her, I received an impression that her silence was partly due to her lack of adequate oral proficiency in Japanese. あまり話せないんですから ‘I cannot speak well,’ Alison replied with a laugh when I asked why she chose to come to Greenville. I heard a cynical tone in her voice. 博 士論文を書くけど、ほんとに話せないんですから‘I write [am writing] my dissertation [on post-war Japanese literature] but I cannot speak [Japanese],’ she continued. This time I heard the frustration in her voice. We were seated in a chair in the outside dining area in front of Lionel Hall. As if to hide her emotions, Alison took out her cigarette case and started to roll her tobacco. Alison did not smoke regular cigarettes. She rolled her own tobacco. Perfume が入っていないんですから、味がもっといい。それに、健康でいい ‘There is no perfume [in this tobacco], so it tastes better. It’s healthy, too,’ she said and laughed. She probably noticed a contradiction in her statement. I was watching Alison’s 166 long fingers rolling tobacco. I asked if she used a filter. She answered no. She said she used to use the filters before but she ran out of them after she came to the United States and did not know where to buy new ones. Alison lit her tobacco. I heard the burning sound of dried tobacco leaves. I asked how long she had been smoking. She said since 14 years old. ‘ドイツで、大体人は、たばこを吸う、ワインを飲む。私の友達みんな吸うと、 ワインを飲む。私はびっくりした。アメリカ人は飲まない、吸わない、ね ‘In Germany, most people smoke and drink wine. All of my friends smoke and drink wine. I was surprised. American people don’t drink and smoke, right?’ she expressed her reaction to a cultural difference between Germany and the United States. お酒とたばこは悪いものだ と思ってる ‘They think that alcohol and cigarettes are bad things,’ she said. 日本人もよ く ‘Japanese people also often,’ Alison started to talk about Japanese people, so I continued and finished the sentence, 吸うし、飲むね ‘smoke and drink.’ Alison offered me her tobacco. I accepted her offer. I lit the tobacco and inhaled the smoke deep into my lungs. Alison had lived in Japan twice: once in her childhood and the second time when she was an undergraduate student. When Alison was born, Germany was still divided into the east and the west. Her hometown was in the southern part of Germany, close to the French border. In 1949, three western states of Germany, including Alison’s hometown, comprised the Federal Republic of Germany (known as West Germany). When the wall between the West Germany and the German Democratic Republic (known as East Germany) collapsed, Alison was ten years old and was living in Japan. Alison’s parents were both certified secondary school teachers. They had sought an opportunity to teach at a German school outside of Germany. Upon their request, the government gave Alison’s parents two options: one was to go to France and another was to go to Japan. According to Alison, her parents did not want to move to France, so they decided to go to Japan. One day at dinner, Alison’s parents announced that the family would be moving to Japan. It was their first time for her parents as well as for Alison and her sister to fly and live in 167 another country. At that time, they did not know anything about Japan. 行きたくない ‘I don’t want to go’ was Alison’s first reaction. She was happy with her friends and family in Germany. She did not want to move to Japan. The school where Alison’s parents taught was one of the two official German schools in Japan. It was founded in 1904 and consisted of preschool, kindergarten, primary school, and secondary school. Upon completing the secondary school, the students received the official German high school diploma. Alison and her family stayed in the German community and did not have much contact with Japanese people. Alison recalled, みんなドイツ語話して、その時、外人が あまり日本に住んでいなかった ‘Everyone spoke German, and at that time, not many foreigners were living in Japan’ and 子供はいつも（私たちを）見てる。長い鼻とかおも しろい外人とか ‘[Japanese] kids are [were] always watching [us] like [people with] long noses, strange foreigners, and something like that.’ Alison did not have any close Japanese friends during her four-year stay in Japan. After Alison went back to Germany and finished her secondary education, she entered the University of Munich, one of the oldest and most prestigious universities in Europe as well as in Germany, where she majored in Japanese Studies—“Japanology,” Alison told me. At the university, Alison, for the first time in her life, studied Japanese. The second time that Alison went to Japan was her study abroad year in Japan. She studied at Kyoto University for a year. Kyoto is a city located in the western part of Japan, which had been an imperial capital of Japan for more than a thousand years since 794. 京都は私にとって一番きれいな町 ‘For me, Kyoto is the most beautiful city,’ Alison said. I was thinking about the comment that she made about her ability to speak in Japanese. I was curious to know why she perceived her speaking skills as not being strong. I asked, 大学でずっと日本語を勉強してきたんでしょ ‘You have been studying Japanese at universities, haven’t you?’ Alison sighed and said, 大学で、２年だけ日本語 168 を勉強しなければならない。その後は漢文。だから、私は２年間だけ勉強して、その後 は試験あった。試験受けた後は終わった ‘At the university, I have [had] to study Japanese for two years. After that, [I had to study] classical Chinese text. So, I studied [Japanese] only for two years, and there was an exam after that. After I took the exam, [my Japanese language study] ended).’ During the first two years of study at the University of Munich, Alison studied modern Japanese. The lessons focused on Kanji, reading, and grammar but not conversation, Alison recalled. After she passed the exit examination on modern Japanese, she started to learn classical Japanese. At Kyoto University, she was trained to read academic books, articles, and literature written in Japanese. だから、読めるは問題ないけど、全然会話練習しなかった ‘So, I don’t have a problem reading, but I didn’t practice conversation at all,’ she explained. Furthermore, in Kyoto, she stayed in a 外人の寮 ‘Foreigners’ dorm’ where only foreign students lived, and most of the communication with other students in the dorm was conducted in English. Even when she had an opportunity to talk to Japanese people outside the university, they wanted to talk to Alison in English. From her experience of living in Japan, Alison learned that living in Japan did not automatically provide opportunities to speak Japanese. Alison was a multilingual speaker. Besides Japanese, Alison spoke a few other foreign languages to various degrees. She started to learn English in elementary school. ドイツ語と英語は似てるから、私たちにとって、ドイツ人にとって全然問題ない。だか ら、みんな話せる ‘Because German is similar to English, it’s not a problem for us, for German people to speak English,’ she told me. She also learned French in high school. At one time, I saw her speak to one of the French faculty in French and came back with several cigarette filters in hand. After graduating from the University of Munich, she had gone to Ecuador in South America and had taught English in a small village (“a small village in the middle of a jungle [original in Japanese]” in Alison’s words). At that time, she learned Spanish by herself. She was touched by people’s open-mindedness and willingness to communicate and felt an emergent desire to speak Spanish. 私は南米で旅 169 行した時、ほんとに他の人と話したかったから、一生懸命自分で勉強して、私は、スペ イン語を大好きから、スペイン語を勉強するのはやさしかった ‘When I travelled around South America, I really wanted to talk to other people. So, I studied very hard by myself, and because I like Spanish, it was easy to learn Spanish,’ she recalled. On the contrary, she never felt such an emergent desire to speak Japanese. “I never wanted to speak Japanese (original in English),” she said, looking back at the years that she had studied Japanese in both Germany and Japan. 私は日本語を話すのは好きじゃない、実は。下手 ですから、よく説明できないから、恥ずかしい。だから、話したくない ‘I don’t like speaking Japanese, in fact. Because I am not good at it, I cannot explain well, it’s embarrassing, so I don’t want to speak [Japanese].’ Why did I come here? When Alison had applied to Greenville, she did not really think about what her life was going to be like in the full-immersion setting of Greenville. She did not think about to what extent the Language Pledge would affect her life there. Since it was her first visit to the United States, Alison was hoping that she would be able to travel to other cities such as Boston and New York over some weekends while she was staying in Greenville. Particularly, She wanted to visit the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, which possesses a large collection of Japanese paintings from the early modern era. However, she realized after arriving at Greenville that visiting another city would not be as easy as she had imagined. Greenville College was located in a rural area where there were practically no public transportation services available. Without a car, it was impossible to go anywhere outside the town. Furthermore, Alison learned that weekends were not completely free time for the students. There was a school-hosted event almost every weekend, and most importantly, she needed to study in order to keep up with the class and finish all the homework assignments. 170 Furthermore, Alison quickly learned the reality of the Language Pledge—what it was like not to be able to communicate in English (or in German) and speak only Japanese no matter what time of the day, where you were, and whom you were speaking to. Before she came to Greenville, she had thought that students would speak English with each other in private situations such as in the dorm. 帰りたい ‘I want to go home,’ Alison told me in our first meeting. Pledge はいい考えと思って、だけど、そんな大変、 わからなかった。日本語を勉強したいですから、ここに来たけど、そのこと前にわかっ たら、来なかった ‘I thought that the pledge was good, but I didn’t know [the pledge was] that[this] hard. I came here because I want[wanted] to study Japanese, but I would not have come if I had known beforehand,’ Alison sighed. After two weeks, Alison seemed to be questioning her decision to come to Greenville. でも、悪い点は同様にいい 点。その場所は本当につまらないんですから、勉強がよくできる ‘But, bad aspects can be good aspects. Since this place is really boring, I can study more,’ Alison also mentioned positive aspects of the environment in which she was placed. It sounded to me, however, that it was her effort to convince herself that she had made the right decision to come to Greenville. She also mentioned the importance of the Language Pledge. 日本よ り、グリーンビルの方がたくさん日本語を話してる ‘I have been speaking more Japanese at Greenville than in Japan,’ she said. During the first half of the program, Alison was going back and forth between two thoughts: the justification of her decision to come to Greenville and the uncertainty of whether she had made a right decision. 私はなんでここに来た？ ‘Why did I come here?,’ Alison kept asking herself. ９週間は本当に長い ‘Nine weeks are really long,’ she sighed. She was counting the number of days left until the end of the program. What Alison found most difficult at Greenville was having social life. As a graduate student, Alison had been spending as many hours in Berlin as she was spending at Greenville for studying. However, in Berlin, she had social life with friends. For Alison, the time she spent with her friends was as important as the time she spent on 171 studying. At Greenville, however, Alison found it difficult to have a social life partly because everybody was always busy studying and partly because they had to communicate in Japanese. Alison felt that the Language Pledge was an obstacle for making new friends. Students often talked about superficial things, such as 今日何した？ ‘What did you do today?,’ 何が好き？ ‘What do you like?,’ and どこから来ました？ ‘Where are you from?,’ but did not talk about personal feelings or thoughts. Therefore, Alison felt, 知っている人は、あんまり知っていない ‘I don’t know much about the people I know.’ Alison spent her free time with a group of her fifth-floor friends from the beginning to the end of the program. They became acquainted at the very beginning when the students were still able to speak English before signing the Language Pledge. Later on, Alison became close to Nicole, Brian, and John and preferred to spend time with them. Nicole was a high school Japanese language teacher. Brian was a doctoral student in the Chinese literature. John was a veteran who had come back from Afghanistan and starting his graduate study at a university from the coming fall. They were all in the same age range. Nicole and John had lived in Japan for three years and taught English at local public schools. The three were all level 2 (Beginning level 2) students, while Alison was in level 4. Four of them often sat together in the dining hall and went to a bar together on weekend nights. Alison and Nicole became particularly close. They met after class and walked to the dining hall together almost everyday. Alison laughed a lot when she was with Nicole. Alison acknowledged in our final interview that they spoke English sometimes especially after the midterm break because “around the nakayasumi (midterm break), people were really tired, and we all felt that we needed to speak English (original in English).” In order to go beyond the superficial human relationship and relate with each other in a deeper sense, Alison felt that speaking English was necessary. 172 Routine Alison established her daily routine at Greenville and strictly followed it while she was there. Alison’s day started at 5:30 a.m. She woke up at that time every morning to the sound of her alarm. She packed her shampoo, conditioner, towel, clothes, and her course pack in her backpack and headed out to the gym. The gym was located down the hill on the edge of campus, the northwest side of Greenough Hall. Alison put her backpack in her locker and went to the fitness center. She always used the elliptical at the left corner of the fitness center. She placed her course packet in front of her on the machine, and while she was working out, she reviewed the vocabulary and Kanji that she had studied the previous night. After a 40–45 minute workout, she went back to the locker room and took a shower. After showering, she went back to her room, prepared for the day, and went to Lionel Hall for breakfast. After breakfast, she went to class. In class, she always sat in a chair at the right corner in the back row. This was Alison’s morning routine, which never varied throughout the program. After class, Alison usually met with Nicole and chatted while waiting for the dining hall to open for the Japanese School. At lunch, she always ate a salad with olives and cheese before the main dish. After lunch, Alison went back to her room and studied from 2:00 to 4:30. Then she took a break and studied again from 6:00 to 10:00 at night. She did not go to dinner except on weekends. These activities constituted her daily routine. The only time Alison made an exception was the time when the Soccer World Cup games were broadcast. Germany defeated England and Argentina and faced Spain in the semi-finals. I went with Alison, Nicole, Brian, John, and a few other students to a restaurant in town to watch the game. The restaurant was crowed. It was a close game, but Germany lost to Spain 1–0. In the middle of the whoops of joy, Alison looked depressed. She canceled our meeting, and I did not see her for the rest of the day. ベイルさんは、とても strong-willed だと思う ‘I think you are very strong-willed,’ I once told Alison as a compliment. Alison laughed and said, 私はそのパターンが必要。 173 毎日予定が必要 ‘I need that pattern. I need a schedule everyday.’ ドイツにも自分で予定 を作る ‘In Germany, too, I set my own schedule,’ she told me. In Germany, Alison woke up at around 7:30 a.m. and went to the gym to work out. After breakfast, she went to the library and stayed there from 9:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. She sometimes needed to attend lectures, meet her advisor, or do other errands, but she usually spent the entire her day at the library working on her thesis by 本を読んだり、論文を書いたりする ‘reading books and writing my thesis. 夜は socialization の時間 ‘Night is my socialization [socializing] time,’ according to Alison. At night, she saw her friends, went out for dinner or drinks, or sometimes visited friends’ apartments. This was the daily routine that Alison had established for herself in Berlin. At Greenville, she tried to follow the same pattern she had in Berlin. The difference was that Greenville already had a predetermined schedule for the students. こっちは、みんなが同じ予定。自分で作らない ‘Here, everyone has the same schedule. You don’t make one on your own,’ Alison laughed. Students’ life at Greenville was, no doubt, communal. The students lived in the same dormitory and went to class at the same time. Everyone had the same food at the same dining hall at the same time. To counteract the communal nature of life in Greenville, Alison made her new daily routine as close as possible to the one in Berlin. She chose not to go to dinner at 5:30 because having dinner at 5:30 was not part of her daily routine in Berlin. Resistance Mass phenomenon On Friday afternoons, Greenough Hall stood in a deadly silence. The only sounds were those of the cicadas, whose chirping proclaimed their presence. Students were either outside or were napping in their rooms. 金曜日の午後はなんかちょっと悲しい ‘Friday afternoons make me a little sad,’ Alison said when we met on a Friday afternoon. I asked her how the exam was. She said it was all right. １１時まで勉強した ‘I studied until 11 174 o’clock,’ she sighed. I knew that she was supposed to study only until 10:00 p.m. according to her routine. I also knew how much she disliked having to change her routine. I complimented her on her hard work. She said, でも、みんなはもっと勉強する。クラス メートは３時まで勉強した、夜３時まで ‘But, everyone studies more. Classmates studied until 3:00, until 3:00 o’clock in the morning’ and shook her head. Alison often expressed her feeling of surprise about how hard everyone worked to learn Japanese. There was no doubt that Alison studied hard while she was at Greenville. Her hard work, however, was already part of her established routine as a graduate student. Moreover, she valued her free time as much as she valued her study time. She set her study hours to last until 10:00 at night, and after that, until bedtime, she did things for herself—listening to German music, watching the news in Germany, and talking to her family and friends on Skype. 日本語だけできない ‘I cannot live only in Japanese,’ she said. Therefore, it was a surprise for her to see everyone working hard every day until late at night studying Japanese. She said, いつも勉強しなきゃの感じがする ‘I feel like I have to study all the time.’ She stated: みなは夜遅くまで勉強するとか、朝早く起き て勉強する。本当に勉強だけ。ちょっとこわ いね。みなは、ひまとか自分のこと全然忘れ て、日本語だけ集中する。みなそうすれば、 それは大きいものになる。Force になる。「私 は３時半まで勉強してた」それは「私はいい 学生」、そんな感じ。ちょっとこわいね。 Everyone studies until late at night or studies early in the morning. Only studying, really. It’s a little scary. They forget about their free time and about themselves and concentrate on only Japanese. If everyone does so, it will become a big thing. It will become a large force. “I studied until 3:00 a.m.” will be “I am a good student.” That’s how it feels. It’s a little scary. (Interview, 07/09/2010) Alison also expressed her surprise about other students’ persistent desire and effort to observe the Language Pledge. みんな日本語だけ話したい。それはちょっとこわいと思 う ‘Everyone wants to speak only Japanese. I think that’s a little scary,’ she said. One day, there was an incident that shocked Alison. Sally, one of Alison’s fifth-floor friends, had a visit from Mary, the coordinator of the Japanese School. Mary told Sally that someone 175 had reported that she was speaking English in Greenough Hall. On the previous day, Sally had been talking to her daughter in English using a public telephone in Greenough Hall because Sally’s daughter had broken her arm and had been taken to a hospital emergency room. Since Sally did not own a cell phone, it was understandable that she had used the public phone to call her daughter. Her reason for speaking English was considered legitimate, and Sally did not get any kind of reprimand or warning after she explained the situation. However, Alison was shocked to learn that someone had actually reported to Mary that Sally was speaking English. 誰かがそのこと Mary に言った。信じ られない、誰が ‘Someone told that to Mary. I cannot believe it. Who?’ Alison did not hide her surprise. 会話を聞けば、わかるね。それは家族のこと。それはちょっと変。そ れはこわい。それは mass phenomenon ‘If you listen to the conversation, you understand that it’s about a family matter. It’s strange. It’s scary. It’s a mass phenomenon.’ She shook her head. As the weeks went by, Alison started to feel that individual students’ desires to learn and speak Japanese were growing into a large invisible force that shaped the practices of the Japanese School. In her eyes, it was projected as a “mass phenomenon,” and she expressed her feeling of こわい ‘being scared’ about the “mass phenomenon” that she observed. The communal nature of student life at Greenville probably required various adjustments for Alison—who lived by herself in an apartment in Berlin and had freedom to make her own schedule—to live in a full-immersion environment where she needed to live with other people and follow the preset school schedule. However, I did not understand why Alison perceived the nature of the students’ lives in the Japanese School and their engagement in the school practice as a “mass phenomenon.” Moreover, why did she feel こわい ‘being scared’ about it? Alison’s emergent conception of a “mass phenomenon” seemed to be related to her background. A mass phenomenon was perhaps not an unfamiliar concept to Alison. It 176 can be found in the modern history of Germany. Alison was born and grew up in Germany during the Cold War. Also, her partner was Jewish, and his family had left their home country, the Czech Republic (then Czechoslovakia), and had moved to Austria for political reasons. Considering her background as a German and the sociopolitical context in which she had grown up, it is possible that Alison related what she observed in the Japanese School to the concept of mass phenomenon that she was familiar with in her life history as a German. In our e-mail correspondence, Alison told me that for Germans, the war was the “field we are well educated in.” To Alison, the concept of war perhaps existed in a much closer sense than it did for any of the other students in the Japanese School. Growing up in Germany, she had been taught the danger of nationalism and mass phenomena, in which “people take part in a big idea without noticing that they are not thinking themselves anymore” (e-mail correspondence, 02/25/2013). For reasons other than her background as a German, nationalism and a mass phenomenon were familiar concepts for Alison. They can be found in the modern history of Japan, and Alison was a doctoral candidate in the field of post-war Japanese literature. Particularly, she had conducted extensive research on works of Yukio Mishima (henceforth, Mishima), one of the most influential writers in the post-war period of Japan. One day, Alison told me with a smile that she had some good news. She had received an e-mail message from a publisher notifying her that they were going to publish her paper along with her German translation of Mishima’s short novel Eirei no Koe (Voices of the Heroic Dead). The story is about the ghosts of the leaders of the February 26 incident (an abortive coup attempt by young officers of the Imperial Japanese Army in 1936) and of the kamikaze pilots of 1945, who sacrificed their young lives for the emperor. I had never heard of the novel until Alison told me that she had written a paper on it that she had presented at a conference. I tried to recall as much information as I could 177 about Mishima to congratulate her on her great news. However, all I was able to recall were the titles of his two novels and some details of his suicide. I confessed that I had not read many of Mishima’s works. Alison immediately said, それは全然問題ない ‘That’s not a problem at all.’ I asked why she had chosen Mishima as the theme of her doctoral thesis. それは、 私の先生は、戦後文学の先生です ‘That’s [because] my professor is a professor of post- war literature,’ Alison started to explain. Alison had not been able to decide on the theme of her master’s thesis. Her advisor, who had written her doctoral thesis on Mishima, suggested that Alison, too, take up his works in her thesis. 私は Master 論文を書かなければならないか ら、何を選ぶかわからなかったけど、と、三 島はおもしろいと思って。でも、興味じゃな い。私は、実は、三島、あまり好きじゃない けど、研究のため、そのトピックはいいと思 う。 Because, I have [had] to write my master’s thesis, I did not know what to choose, and I thought Mishima was interesting. But [Mishima is] not my interest. I actually don’t like Mishima, but I think, for research, that topic is good. (Interview, 06/30/2010) Mishima’s works are inseparable from the concept of war because not only was he a writer in the post-war period of Japan, but in his literary works he pursued an aesthetic of unselfish and idealistic death (Keene, 2003), which was often manifested as a form of death for the emperor. In Eirei no Koe (Voices of the Heroic Dead), for example, the main characters of the story are young officers of the Imperial Japanese Army and kamikaze pilots who sacrificed their lives for the emperor. On the one hand, Mishima was an acclaimed writer who had been nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature three times; on the other hand, he was often described as a nationalist (Keene, 2003). The post-war era of Japan when Mishima published the majority of his works (1950s and 1960s) was a time when Japan went through rapid social, economic, and political changes. As much as Mishima was a writer, he was a political activist. He was vocal about his worship of the emperor and criticized the pacifism of the post-war Japan as hypocritical democracy. 178 In the summer of 2010, Alison was working on Mishima’s critical essay Bunka Boeiron (In Defense of Our Culture8), the topic of her doctoral thesis. Her thesis was entitled In Defense of Our Culture: Mishima Yukio as a Theoretician within the Japanese Discourse on Identity of the 1960s. Following is the abstract of her thesis: The aim of this dissertation is to position Mishima Yukio as theoretician and aesthete within the Japanese discourse on identity in the 1960s. I will translate Mishima’s central, as yet untranslated theoretical essay Bunka Boeiron (In Defense of Our Culture, 1968), then conduct a close reading of the text and finally embed it into the 1960s’ discourse on ‘Japaneseness’ and identity. I will critically examine Mishima’s essay and his understanding and critique of ‘the postwar’ and also illustrate how he grasps the interdependence of culture, tradition, monarchy and nation. Mishima regards the Japanese emperor as a ‘cultural concept’ and the element that symbolizes Japanese culture in its totality. . . . The description of Mishima’s discourse on identity will bring to light the importance of the Japanese emperor not only for this author but for ‘national’ identity discourse since 1868. Japan’s painful encounter with Western modernity needs to be kept in mind in order to fully understand the importance of the tenno [the emperor] for the question of Japanese identity. . . . Through her graduate work on Mishima, Alison had become familiar with the national discourse of Japan during wartime. As the leaders of the February 26 incident and the kamikaze pilots of 1945 had chosen to do so, too, had people died for their idealism (for the emperor or nation) at several points in the modern history of Japan. In Alison’s words, “people take part in a big idea without noticing that they are not thinking themselves anymore.” In the Japanese School, when Alison encountered students’ persistent desire to learn and speak Japanese and felt that their desires were growing into a large invisible force, it is possible that she related what she observed to the mass phenomenon found in the modern history of Japan through works of Mishima. 8 Translation is Alison’s. 179 Cultural hegemony What did Alison fear through her conceptualization of a “mass phenomenon”? This became my lingering question as I observed and talked to Alison in the Japanese School. 小さい日本 ‘small Japan’— she described the Japanese School this way. Through participation in and observation of the practice of the Japanese School, Alison perceived that the Japanese School was replicating a 小さい日本 ‘small Japan’ at Greenville and that in the 小さい日本 ‘small Japan,’ students were 日本人のロールをしてる ‘playing roles of Japanese (this is the literal translation of Alison’s words).’ In Alison’s eyes, students’ eagerness to participate in the school activities and their desire to learn and speak Japanese were reflected as the emulation process of 日本人になる ‘becoming Japanese.’ Excerpt 8 Interview. A: Alison; R: Researcher A: いつからグリーンビルの研究の予定 ある？ A: From when, do you have a plan to do research at Greenville? R: １年前 R: A year ago A: なんでグリーンビル？ グリーンビル は特別な経験？ A: Why Greenville? Is Greenville [learning Japanese at Greenville] a special experience? R: そう思わない？ R: Don’t you think so? A: xxx (笑い) 私にとって特別な経験け ど、いい経験かどうか。 A: xxx (laugh) For me, it is a special experience, but [I am not sure] if it is a good experience. R: いい経験とか悪い経験とか、それは 関係ないんですよ。ベイルさんの経 験が知りたい。グリーンビルでベイ ルさんがどんな経験をしているか。 R: It doesn’t matter if it’s a good experience or a bad experience. I want to know your experience, what experience you are having [at Greenville]. A: 学校は小さい日本を作りたいね。 A: The school wants to create a small Japan. R: 小さい日本 R: Small Japan A: そう思う。あの、白人、ようじん、 ようにん、westerners A: I think so. Uh, White, youjin [trying to say seiyoujin ‘westerners’], younin [trying to say seiyoujin ‘westerners’], westerners [in English] 180 R: 西洋人 R: Westerners [in Japanese] A: 西洋人は着物を着て、おりがみを作 って、落語を聞いて A: Westerners wear kimono, make origami, listen to rakugo, and R: (笑い) R: (Laugh) A: 他の人は、その経験楽しいね。たぶ ん、日本に行ったことない人は、日 本の文化的なものとか、それはたぶ んおもしろいけど、私にとって、そ れはこわい。なんで、みんな日本人 になりたい？ A: For other people, that experience is fun. Perhaps, for those who have never been to Japan, Japanese cultural things are probably fun, but for me, that is scary. Why does everyone want to become Japanese? (07/05/2010) As a Japanese L2 learner of English, I sometimes find conflicts between certain aspects of American culture (particularly the Midwestern culture that I know) and my beliefs and my sense of self. I also find myself evaluating Japanese people who are newcomers to the United States and who innocently emulate the American way. However, I see it as a personal choice and never felt a fear. Alison was seemingly viewing and interpreting the practice of the Japanese School and other students’ engagement in it through a different filter. Alison’s fear seemed to be directed to students’ unproblematic view of the Japanese language and culture and their innocent desire and eagerness to emulate them. Alison explained about her feeling of こわい ‘being scared’ this way: Indeed it scared me that people were so obedient. I also find the picture of Japan and Japanese [that] often want to draw themselves (as a peaceful nation that is proud of its traditions, aesthetics and art, without reflecting other aspects of it) highly problematic. I have done research on how national and cultural identity was established and created in Japan. I have thought a lot about nihonjinron [‘theories of the Japanese’] and I have the feeling that one should be aware of how culture is being ‘used.’ I don’t know too many Japanese people in [between] the age of 20–30 folding origami as a hobby. (e-mail correspondence, 02/25/2013) Alison, through her graduate study, had acquired extensive knowledge of nihonjinron ‘theories of the Japanese.’ She mentioned as references such scholars as Harumi Befu and Peter N. Dale who have argued that the nihonjinron, which emphasizes 181 the uniqueness of the Japanese people and culture, is a form of cultural hegemony and a manifestation of Japan’s nationalism (Befu, 1993). Dale (1986) asserts that “nihonjinron may be defined as works of cultural nationalism concerned with the ostensible ‘uniqueness’ of Japan in any aspect, and which are hostile to both individual experience and the notion of internal socio-historical diversity” (p. 1). Through her graduate work, Alison had been familiarized with the idea that the Japanese culture is an artifact or a product of national ideology “conditioning the way Japanese regard themselves” (Dale 1986, p. 15). In the Japanese School, it is possible that Alison felt that the students were being socialized into the cultural hegemony found in the discourse of the nihonjinron through participation in the activities and events of the school. Moreover, she felt こわい ‘being scared’ that students were so willing and eager to become part of the cultural hegemony reproduced in the 小さい日本 ‘small Japan’ at Greenville without considering or being aware that culture is a constructed artifact and a representation of national ideology. In Alison’s eyes, perhaps, school activities and events reflected the practice of the reinforcement of the nihonjinron. Alison felt that such hegemony was also evident in the way the Japanese School socialized its students into the use of the Japanese language. For example, one day, she heard a teacher, who was seated at the same lunch table as Alison and several other students, say みんなの発音はアメリカっぽいです。日本人の発音は全然違う。みなさん、 がんばってください ‘Your pronunciation sounds like English. Japanese people’s pronunciation is totally different. Everyone, work hard.’ Alison expressed disagreement with the teacher’s comment later when I met with her. She said that nativeness should not be the goal of foreign language study. She explained her position in excerpt 9. 182 Excerpt 9 Interview. A: Alison; R: Researcher A: 私は英語がペラペラけど、時々変な 言葉を使って、だけど、英語は私の 母語じゃないから、それは全然大丈 夫だと思う。外人ですから、それは いいよ。だから、英語で論文を書か なければならない時、ちょっと変な expression、表現使うけど、私の先生 は「それは大丈夫。それは外人の論 文のおもしろさ」と言った。 A: Although I am fluent in English, I sometimes use strange expressions, don’t they? But, English is not my mother tongue, so it’s all right. I am a foreigner, so that’s okay. When I have to write a paper in English, I use strange expressions, but my professor said, “That’s all right. It’s the interestingness of foreigners’ papers.” R: Uniqueness ということ？ R: Do you mean uniqueness? A: そうそうそうそう。それは、本当に おもしろい。おもしろさは、自分の 表現ですから。何年も外国に住んで いる人とか、ちょっと変な表現使う ね。でも、それは大丈夫。でも、こ こで、違うね。目的はおもしろさじ ゃない。日本人の日本語。それは、 できない。 A: Yes, that’s right. It’s really interesting because uniqueness is your own expression. People who lived abroad for a long time use strange expressions. But, it’s all right. But, here it’s different. The purpose is not the uniqueness. It’s Japanese people’s Japanese. I cannot do that. (7/05/2010) Alison was critical of other students who tried to speak 日本人の日本語 ‘Japanese people’s Japanese.’ She thought that a female student, one of the residents of the fifth floor, always used a high-pitched voice when speaking Japanese. 彼女は英語を話す時、 本当に普通。だけど、日本語を話す時、全然違う ‘When she speaks English, she is really normal. But when she speaks Japanese, it’s totally different,’ Alison said and imitated the high-pitched voice of the female student. ‘私は声のトーンは、ドイツ語でも 日本語でも英語でも変わらない ‘My tone of voice never changes in either German, Japanese, or English,’ Alison said. Furthermore, Alison thought that students were too apologetic when speaking Japanese. エレベーターの中でもみんな「すみません、すみま せん」とか言って、日本人みたい ‘Also in the elevator, everyone says “I’m sorry, I’m sorry.” They are like Japanese.’ Alison imitated their gesture of apologizing. 私は日本人 になりたくない ‘I don’t want to become Japanese,’ she said. 183 Her feeling of 私は日本人になりたくない ‘I don’t want to become Japanese’ was perhaps her resistance to take part in the practice of the nihonjinron that she felt that was manifested in the practice of the Japanese School, and her reaction of こわい ‘being scared’ toward other students’ unproblematized and innocent view of the Japanese language and culture and their eagerness to participate in the cultural hegemony, which in Alison’s eyes, reflected a “mass phenomenon.” Avoidance The choices that Alison made in the Japanese School resulted in limiting her opportunities to speak Japanese. She spent most of the afternoons and nights in her room on the fifth floor. She did not go to dinner except on Fridays and Saturdays. At lunch, she preferred to sit with her fifth-floor friends. 私は本当にいろいろな人の隣に座りたくない ‘I really don’t want to sit next to various people,’ she said. 私は食堂に行って、誰がいると見て、そのテ ーブル座りたいとか、そのテーブルも大丈夫 とか、一人二人友達がいるから、そこに座っ てもいいとか思う。私は知らない人のテーブ ルに座らない。たぶん、その人はおもしろく ていい人だけど、今はちょっと、誰が知って る。その人と話したい。私はいつもニコール とか、ジョンとか、ブライアンとか[と座 る]。私は中級２の人といっしょに食べない。 先生といっしょに食べられない、食べたくな い。 I go to the dining hall, look around to see who is there, and think like “I want to sit at that table xxx,” “that table is fine,” or “I can sit there because one or two of my friends are there.” I don’t sit with people I don’t know. Probably, they are interesting and fun people, but now I know who [is who?]. I want to talk to those [I know]. I always [sit with] Nicole, John, and Brian. I don’t eat with level 4 students. I cannot eat, I don’t want to eat with teachers. (07/06/2010) Alison contained herself within a small group of her fifth-floor friends. She did not seek out opportunities to interact with her classmates outside of class unless it was necessary. She also avoided sitting with teachers in the dining hall. I asked why she did not like to be seated with teachers. 先生がいるとしゃべられない。それに、いつも学校 みたいな感じがするから ‘I cannot talk to teachers. Also, it feels like always being at school,’ she answered. 自然な会話じゃない ‘Not natural conversation,’ she also said. 「どこから来た」「何勉強してる」「今日何した」それはたぶん先生の仕事けど、先生 184 にとっても大変ね ‘“Where are you from?” “What are you studying?” “What did you do today?” It’s probably their job but it’s tiring for them, too.’ Although Alison was aware of the teachers’ efforts to engage students in conversation and create opportunities for them to speak Japanese, 練習のために人と話したくない ‘I don’t want to talk to people for practice,’ Alison said. She felt strange talking to teachers just for the sake of practice and to engage in a conversation on a topic in which she was not even interested. Alison thought that such conversation was meaningless. For Alison, conversation was a meaningful linguistic engagement that she would find interesting. Therefore, she felt that talking to teachers was not helpful for practicing conversation. Excerpt 10 Interview. R: Researcher; A: Alison R: 日本語を話すのがもっと上手にな りたいと思ってグリーンビルに来 て、でもオフィスアワーに行かな い、先生と同じテーブルに座らな い、それだと、上手にならないと は思わない？ R: You came to Greenville because you wanted to improve your Japanese, but you don’t go to office hours, and you don’t sit with teachers. If so then, don’t you think that your Japanese won’t improve? A: それは関係ない。オフィスアワー 行く時、それはあの、何起こる？ 先生は私に文法を教えてくれるけ ど、それは会話の練習じゃないか ら、それは関係ないと思う。 A: That’s not relevant. When going to office hours, that’s uhm what happens? Teachers teach me grammar, but that’s not conversation practice. So, I think it’s not relevant. R: じゃ、先生と話すことは別に会話 が上手になるとは思わない？ R: Then, you don’t think speaking to teachers will improve your conversation skills? A: ん、もちろん日本人と話す時もっ と上手になるけど、あの、それは 私の先生だけじゃなくて、それは 日本人と話すと、だから。 A: Um, of course, when [if] I speak to Japanese people, my Japanese will improve more, but uhm that’s not only [speaking to] my teachers but also speaking to Japanese people, so. R: ここにいる日本人は先生だけだ ね。 R: The only Japanese people here are teachers. A: そう A: Yes R: だから、先生とテーブルに座らな かったら、日本人と話すチャンス はないでしょ、ここでは。 R: So, if you don’t sit with teachers, there will be no opportunity to speak to Japanese people here. A: なるほど。そう、だけど、生徒た ちと話す時も、練習だと思う。た A: I see. That is so. But, I think speaking to other students is also a 185 practice. Their Japanese isn’t probably correct, but when they use the word that I don’t know, I ask what it means, and they will explain what it is to me. So I think that is a practice, too. Also, listening to Japanese everyday, that’s a practice, too. ぶんその日本語は正しくないけ ど、他の学生は知らない言葉を使 う時、私はそれはどんな意味と か、他の人は説明してあげるね、 だから、それも練習だと思う。と か、毎日日本語を聞く時、それも 練習。 R: うん、絶対そうだと思う。 R: Yes, absolutely. A: 私は、練習するために人と話した くない。なんか、興味あれば、も ちろん、あの、会話したいけど、 練習のためはちょっと変な感じが する。だから、何、今先生の隣に 座って、選んだトピックについて 全然興味がないなら、その会話が 好きじゃないなら、意味ないと思 う。ある人は、ほんとに、いつも 先生の隣に座りたい。No matter what 勉強したいけど、私はちょっ と。その理由は変、私にとって。 A: I don’t want to talk to people in order to practice [a language]. If I am interested, of course, I want to have a conversation, but I feel a little strange [to talk to people] for practice. So, if I sit next to a teacher, and I am not interested in the topic, and if I don’t like the conversation, it’s meaningless [to talk]. Some people, really, always want to sit next to teachers. They want to study no matter what, but I don’t, to me, that reason is strange. (07/19/2010) Despite her careful avoidance, Alison sometimes ended up sitting with people whom she did not prefer to sit with. Excerpt 11 shows one such occasion. In this excerpt, Alison, Nicole, and Ken are initially seated together at a lunch table. Nicole (level 2) is Alison’s closest friend. Ken (level 1) lived on the fifth floor. After about a minute, Ellen and a teacher join the table. Ellen, an L2 speaker of Japanese, is a student in the threeweek intensive Instructional Technology (IT) course. The IT course is a content-based course that the Japanese School offers for Japanese language teachers. To enroll in this course, a high level of Japanese language ability is required. Ellen had lived in Japan for seven years due to her husband’s job before coming to Greenville. In the summer of 2010, Ellen was an adjunct assistant professor of Japanese at a liberal arts college in the United States. She had arrived at Greenville four days before this conversation took place. At the beginning (from line 1 through line 11), Alison is leading the conversation by initiating questions to both Nicole and Ken. In line 12, Nicole acknowledges Ellen and says hello. After the greeting, Nicole tries to ask Ellen something, but her speech is 186 interrupted by an instructor’s utterance 座ってもいいですか？ ‘May I sit?’ Ellen and the instructor join the group at the table and start talking. Ellen thanks the instructor for letting her observe her class, and for the next 30 seconds, Ellen and the instructor talk to each other. While the two are talking, Alison, Nicole, and Ken remain silent. In line 14, after a 23-second pause, Ellen initiates a conversation with Nicole by asking さっき何か 聞こうとしているところでしたか？ ‘Were you about to ask me something a little while ago?’ From line 15 through line 28, Nicole and Ellen engage in a conversation. Nicole, herself as a high school Japanese language teacher, probably knew about the IT course. In line 15, she asks Ellen, IT クラスに入りましたか？ ‘Did you enter the IT course?” and in the following turns, Nicole and Ellen talk about the IT course. In line 19, after a 3-second pause, Ellen initiates another question. This time, she directs the question to Alison. Ellen asks, 上級クラスですよね ‘You are in the advanced class, aren’t you?’ Alison answers that she is in intermediate. Ellen asks Nicole the same question. Nicole answers that she is in beginning 2. Ellen probably thought that Alison was a level 5 (advanced) student. あ、中級ですか ‘Oh, intermediate’ in line 31 seems to indicate Ellen’s surprise at Alison’s answer. In line 34, after a 4-second pause, Ellen initiates a question, again, and asks Alison, じゃ、大学の方でよく勉強してきたんですか ‘Well then, have you been studying [Japanese] well in college?’ Alison answers はい ‘yes’ to Ellen’s question, but her tone indicates some reluctance to respond. It is uncertain whether Ellen noticed Alison’s tone of voice. Ellen responds, ああ ‘ah’ to Alison’s answer. Alison, again, says はい ‘yes’ to Ellen’s question, again, but this time in a low voice. Ellen continues to ask Alison questions. In line 38, she asks, 何のきっかけで、日 本語を選びましたか？ ‘Why did you choose [to study] Japanese?” In the following turn, Alison answers, その質問はちょっと難しい。よくわかんないんですけ ‘That question is a little difficult. I’m not sure.’ Ellen probably noticed Alison’s reluctance. She withdrew her question by saying, じゃあ、消して。消して。いいよ ‘Well then, forget it. Forget it. It’s okay’ and supports Alison’s position by saying 私も答えられない、今 ‘I cannot 187 answer [the question] either now.’ The conversation ends with Alison’s agreement, そう ね ‘that is so.’ After a 6-second silence, Ellen starts talking to the instructor, and Nicole starts talking to Alison. Excerpt 11 Lunch conversation. A: Alison; NC: Nicole (level 2); K: Ken (level 1); E: Ellen (a student in IT course) 1 A: それは全然味ない。 1 A: That has no taste at all. 2 NC: 何？ 2 NC: What? 3 A: そのパスタ 3 A: That pasta 4 NC: ほんと？ 4 NC: Really? 5 A: うん 5 A: Yes (3 seconds) (３秒) 6 A: スープはどう？ 6 A: How is the soup? 7 NC: まだわかんない、でも 7 NC: I don’t know yet, but 8 A: おいしそう。 8 A: It looks delicious. 9 NC: うう、うん (スープを飲ん でいるよう)、おいしい 9 NC: Uu Un (seems like she is trying the soup), delicious 10 A: じゃあ、私もスープを食べ て (K が立ち上がったよう) どこに行く？ 10 A: Well then, I will have the soup. (K probably stood up) Where are you going? 11 K: フライドポテト 11 K: French fries 12 E: こんにちは 12 E: Hello 13 NC: こんにちは 13 NC: Hello (E がテーブルに加わる。 NC が E に何か言うが、先 生の「座ってもいいです か」という発話に遮られ る。E は先生に、授業見学 についてお礼を言ってい る。A と NC は黙ったま ま） (E joins the table. NC says something to E, but NC is interrupted by the utterance “May I sit?” by an instructor. E and the instructor start talking. E thanks the instructor for the class observation. A and NC remain silent while E and I are talking.) (２３秒) (23 seconds) 14 E: さっき何か聞こうとしてい るところでしたか？ 14 E: Were you about to ask me something a little while ago? 15 NC: あの、IT、IT クラスに入り ましたか？ 15 NC: Uhm, IT, did you enter the IT course? 188 16 E: そうです。 16 E: That’s right. 17 NC: どれぐらい勉強しますか？ 17 NC: How long will you study? 18 E: ええと、３週間コースで す。 18 E: It’s a three-week course. 19 NC: ３週間、ああ 19 NC: Three weeks, ah (4 seconds) (４秒) 20 NC: その IT の勉強は、日本 語、日本語を教えるのため に？ 20 NC: Is the IT study for Japanese, Japanese language teaching? 21 E: そうですね。ええ。特に、 日本語教材を作るための、 あの、クイズとかテスト か、インターネット、大学 にあるリーソース、いろい ろを教えてくださるから、 すごく便利ですよ。 21 E: Yes, that’s right. Especially, in order to prepare Japanese language instructional materials, uhm, quizzes, tests, internet, and university resources. It’s very convenient that the course teaches [honorific] various things to me. 22 NC: ここに住んで、グリノウで 住んでいる？ 22 NC: Do you live here, do you live in Greenough? 23 E: そうですね。ええと、グリ ノウホールの３階。同じで すよね？ グリノウホールで しょ？ 23 E: That’s right. Uhm, the third floor in Greenough Hall. Isn’t that the same? You live in Greenough, too, right? 24 NC: はい 24 NC: Yes 25 E: みんな、だと思いましたけ ど。教室もグリノウの１階 ですね。 25 E: Everyone, I thought. The classroom is also on the first floor in Greenough, you know. 26 NC: すみません？ 26 NC: Pardon? 27 E: あの、教室もグリノウの１ 階にあります。 27 E: Uhm, The classroom is also on the first floor in Greenough. 28 NC: Oh、はいはいはい。ああ 28 NC: Oh, yes yes yes. Ah (3 seconds) (３秒) 29 E: 上級クラスですよね？ 29 E: You are in the level 5 class, aren’t you? 30 A: 私は中級。 30 A: I am in intermediate. 31 E: あ、中級ですか。上級？ 31 E: Oh, intermediate. [Are you in] level 5? 32 NC: 初級２ 32 NC: Beginning 2 33 E: あ、初級２か、そっか。 33 E: Oh, beginning 2, I see. (４秒) (4 seconds) 189 34 35 ! 36 37 ! 38 39 ! E: じゃ、大学の方でよく勉強 してきたんですか？ 34 E: Well then, have you been studying [Japanese] for a long time in college? A: はい（答えるのを躊躇して いるよう) 35 A: Yes (Tone of her voice sounds reluctant to answer.) E: ああ 36 E: Ah A: はい (小さい声) 37 A: Yes (in a low voice) E: 何のきっかけで、日本語を 選びましたか？ 38 E: Why did you choose [to study] Japanese? A: ん（１秒）その質問はちょ っと難しい。よく[わかんな いんですけど。 39 A: N, (1 second) That question is a little difficult. [I’m not sure. 40 E: [難しい [difficult 40 E: 41 NC: (笑い） 41 42 A: うん 42 A: Yes 43 E: じゃあ、消して。消して。 いいよ。 43 E: Well then, forget it. Forget it. It’s okay. 44 A: ありがとう。 44 A: Thank you. 45 NC: (笑い) 45 NC: (Laugh) 46 E: 答えなくていいわ。私も答 えられない、今。 46 E: You don’t need to answer. I cannot answer [the question], either now. 47 A: そうね。 47 A: That is so. (６秒) (Laugh) (6 seconds) (07/22/2010) Alison could have answered Ellen’s question 何のきっかけで、日本語を選びまし たか？ ‘Why did you choose [to study] Japanese?’ differently rather than say その質問は ちょっと難しい。よくわかんないんですけど ‘That questions is a little difficult. I’m not sure’ which ended the conversation with Ellen. The filler ん ‘n’ and a one-second pause in line 39 seem to indicate that Alison was trying to think how to answer Ellen’s question. After the pause, Alison said その質問はちょっと難しい。よくわかんないんですけど ‘That questions is a little difficult. I’m not sure’ instead of trying to elaborate and explain why she started studying Japanese. When Alison was asked the question, she may have thought that it was too complicated to explain in Japanese and, therefore, she was not confident as to whether 190 she would be able to adequately perform the task. Or, it is possible that Alison felt uncomfortable sharing with a stranger the details of why she had started studying Japanese. Considering what she told me about her perception of her speaking skills, I think that her lack of confidence and her feeling that 下手ですから、よく説明できないか ら、恥ずかしい 。だから、話したくない ‘Because I am not good at, because I cannot explain well, I feel embarrassed. So I don’t want to speak [Japanese]’ held her back from speaking Japanese. After this exchange, Alison did not talk to Ellen again for the rest of the meal. Alison did not exchange any words with the instructor, either. She carried on conversation with only Nicole and Ken. At lunchtime, Alison almost always sat with Nicole. Nicole was a high school Japanese language teacher. She had spent a few years in Yamagata, located in the northeast part of Japan, as an assistant English teacher for the local school district. She was initially placed in level 3 (intermediate 1), but she decided to study in level 2 (beginning 2) at Greenville. She was outgoing, interactive, and friendly and did not hesitate to speak Japanese with anyone in the Japanese School. She was often the one who initiated a new conversation topic and was often at the center of conversation. Because Alison was almost always with Nicole, she stayed, in a sense, in Nicole’s shadow. The interaction in excerpt 12 includes Alison, Nicole, and an instructor. In the excerpt, Nicole is asking the instructor about the meaning of sumimasen. Sumimasen is a Japanese phrase that can be translated as ‘thank you,’ ‘I’m sorry,’ or ‘excuse me.’ Nicole asks the instructor why sumimasen can mean ‘thank you’ and ‘I’m sorry.’ Alison overheard the conversation and joined in three times (lines, 9, 11, and 16). Excerpt 12 Lunch conversation. NC: Nicole; I: Instructor; A: Alison; I2: Intern 1 NC: 先生、ちょっと質問がある んですが。 1 NC: Teacher, I have a question. 2 I: 何ですか？ 2 I: What is it? 191 3 NC: あの、「すみません」の意 味は、あの、「ありがとう ございます」と、あの、あ の 3 NC: Uhm, the meaning of sumimasen is uhm, ‘thank you’ and uhm uhm 4 I: 「ごめんなさい」 4 I: I’m sorry 5 NC: なんで？ 5 NC: Why? 6 I: なんで？ (声が大きくなる) 6 I: Why? (Increased volume) 7 NC: （笑い） 7 NC: (Laugh) 8 I: なんでか 8 I: Why is it A: 「すみません」の元の、げ んき？げんきは何ですか？ 9 A: What is original, the origin? [wrong word] the origin [wrong word] of sumimasen? I: 「すむ」という動詞です ね。 10 I: It is the verb sumu. 住む？ ああ、ほんとです か？ 11 9 ! 10 11 ! A: ! ! A: Sumu [to live]? Oh, is it really? 12 I: 「すむ」で、「すまない」 「すみません」 12 I: It’s sumu [to be done]. So, sumanai [negative], sumimasen [negative polite] 13 NC: 昨日、校長先生から説明し てくれました。 13 NC: The director explained it to me yesterday. 14 I: あ、ほんと、じゃ、いいじ ゃないですか。 14 I: Oh, really? Then you are fine. 15 NC: あ、でも、校長先生は、い ろいろな先生にそれ質問し てください、と言った。 15 NC: h, but, he said, “Please ask that [question] of many teachers.” A: ああ、そうですか。今、テ スト？ 16 ! A: I see. It’s a test now? 17 NC: はい 17 NC: Yes 18 I: 「すまない」は、自分の気 持ちが「済まない」ってい うことだと思うんですよ ね。その「申し訳ない」か ら、自分は「済まない」、 違う？ 校長先生、何て言っ た？ 18 I: Sumanai is that your feeling is ‘not yet done,’ I think. Because you feel sorry [moshiwakenai], you are ‘not yet done.’ Isn’t it right? What did the director say? 19 NC: 知っていますか、どうして 「すみません」は、「あり がとう」と「失礼します」 の意味がありますか？ 19 NC: Do you know why sumimasen has the meanings of both ‘thank you’ and ‘I’m sorry’? 20 I2: なんで？ （I2 は会話の途中 でテーブルに加わった） 20 I2: Why? (I2 joined the table in the middle of the conversation.) 16 ! (３秒) (3 seconds) 192 21 I: xxx からでしょ？ 気が済ま ないから「すみません」じ ゃないの？ 21 I: Because it’s xxx, isn’t it? Your feeling is not yet done. So, sumimasen [not yet done], isn’t it? (5 seconds) (５秒) 22 I: 校長先生、それ、まじめな 答え？ 22 I: The director, is it a serious answer? 23 NC: うん 23 NC: Yes 24 I: ふざけた答えじゃなくて？ 24 I: It’s not a joke? 25 NC: ほんとにまじめ 25 NC: Really serious 26 I: 教えてくれないの？ 26 I: Wouldn’t you tell me? 27 NC: あ、あのう、「すむ」の意 味は、あの、終わる。「す みません」は「終わらな い」から、その、例えば、 xxx 私にプレゼントをくれ たら、私は「すみません」 それは「ありがと」でも、 その考えは、あの、私も 今、その relationship の関係 は even じゃなくて、今その 人はちょっと上でしょ、だ から、私もちょっと even に なりたいから、すみませ ん、終わりません。 27 NC: U, uhm, the meaning of sumu is, uhm, to finish. Because [the meaning of] sumimasen is not finished, so, for example, if xxx gives me a present, I [say?] sumimasen. That means ‘thank you.’ But, the [underlying] thought is that, uhm, the relationship [between the giver and me] is not even. That person is above me. So, I want to be even. So, sumimasen, I am not finished. 28 I: 自分の気がすまないんだ ね。 28 I: One’s feeling is not done. 29 NC: 迷惑をかけたから 29 NC: Because I caused inconvenience 30 I: なるほどね。 30 I: I see. 31 NC: おもしろかった。しらなか った。 31 NC: It was interesting. I did not know. (07/24/2010) The interactional pattern seen here was typical for Alison when talking with instructors at a lunch—Nicole initiated and stayed at the center of conversation and Alison peripherally participated by contributing a few turns. Alison did not initiate conversations with instructors, nor did she ever place herself at center stage in a conversation. She preferred to stay in Nicole’s shadow. I interpreted Alison’s reluctance 193 and avoidance to talk to instructors and other people whom she did know well as almost a fear of speaking Japanese. Facing Speaking is my problem “Speaking is my problem (original in the mix of Japanese and English),” Alison once told me. In our meetings, she repeatedly expressed her frustration and embarrassment about not being able to speak Japanese, especially her inability to express herself in Japanese. In our final interview, she explained her problem at greater length. Excerpt 13 Interview. R: Researcher; A: Alison R: You mentioned before that speaking was your personal problem. A: Yeah R: I’ve been thinking about that. A: Yeah R: Why uhm A: Why do you think? R: This is just my thought. A: Yeah R: I felt that you were almost scared of speaking Japanese. It’s almost like you have a fear or you feel ashamed. A: I do yeah yeah R: It’s like you have a fear uhm because of the gap between yourself and the self that speaking Japanese, probably your Japanese proficiency is not high enough to express yourself. A: Yeah R: So, you feel ashamed and fear that you won’t be able to present yourself A: Yeah R: and what other people think of you A: Yeah. I probably in general I don’t feel like speaking, I don’t feel comfortable speaking a language that I am not really good at. I don’t mind speaking English because I know that no matter what I can express myself, so, and in Japanese, indeed, it’s true. I never wanted to speak. I don’t know if scared is the right word, but I just don’t, never felt comfortable with it, so if I spoke to friends who knew me, 194 it wasn’t a problem at all because uhm I thought that they would know me and understand what I was trying to say, but indeed, speaking to teachers or speaking to the people just xxx, yeah, scared, just I didn’t feel comfortable with it. R: Where did the uncomfortableness come from when speaking to people who don’t know you? A: I think the thing is that I don’t want to sound like a two-year-old kid, but I’m definitely doing it in Japanese, so it’s kind of like I feel stupid and so, yeah that’s why. (08/12/2010. Original in English) 私は中級２で一番下手 ‘I am the least proficient student in level 4,’ she sighed one day. We were, as usual, seated at a table in the outside dining area in front of Lionel Hall. Alison opened her tobacco case and started to roll a cigarette. As I always did, I watched her long fingers do their job. I often forgot that Alison was from Germany. At Greenville, everyone was from somewhere else and was new to the environment. “I am from Berlin” did not sound much different from “I am from Boston.” I tried to imagine what it was like to live in Berlin. However, my imagination was not of much use because I have never been to Europe. べルリンは本当におもしろい町。 私はベルリンが大好きから、ずっとベルリンに住みたい ‘Berlin is a really interesting city. I love Berlin, so I want to live there forever,’ Alison said. When she talked about Berlin, her eyes became bigger, and her voice sounded more confident. Alison had lived in Berlin for many years since starting graduate school there. Alison once told me about her advisor, whose name is Ingrid Kawana-Heinrich. The first part of her hyphened surname silently claims her Japanese identity. She is married to a Japanese artist whose last name is Kawana. Dr. Kawana-Heinrich is a well-known scholar of Japanology in Germany who won a prestigious research award, consisting of a research grant of 2.5 million euros (more than 3.2 million U.S. dollars as of February, 2013), according to Alison, and is considered an authority in Japanology, particularly the field of post-war Japanese literature. She has been Alison’s advisor since Alison entered her graduate program. 195 Alison’s graduate program often hosted scholars and writers from various countries. Because of the reputation of Dr. Kawana-Heinrich, the program often had international visitors. On such occasions, graduate students were asked to give a tour of the campus, show the guests around the city of Berlin, and join them for dinner. As a doctoral student in Japanology, Alison was often asked to take care of Japanese guests and was invited to formal and informal events. “I refuse to speak [Japanese] with them,” Alison said. When Alison needed to talk to Japanese guests, she just told them that she was not able to speak Japanese and conversed with them in English. Alison felt deeply embarrassed about this because although she could read, analyze, and translate works of Mishima, she had to tell Japanese scholars that she could not speak Japanese. I am at a university and whenever we have visiting scholars, I refuse to speak [Japanese] with them because it is embarrassing. You can translate [Japanese literature] on one hand and refuse to speak [Japanese] on another. That’s, that’s crap. I mean that’s just not good. (Interview, 08/12/2010. Original in English) Alison was, in a sense, an elite student. She had earned her undergraduate and graduate degrees from two of the most prestigious universities in Germany. She had been studying with a highly acclaimed scholar in the field and was in the last stage of writing her doctoral thesis when she came to Greenville. Considering her academic background alone, she was a promising young scholar of Japanology and post-war Japanese literature. Moreover, she was a multilingual speaker. She was able to speak four European languages, namely, German, English, French, and Spanish, to varying degrees. Nevertheless, she struggled with limitations in speaking Japanese. When speaking Japanese, Alison felt that she sounded like a two-year-old child. It was almost like a stigma for her academically, socially, and personally. She was frustrated, disappointed, and deeply embarrassed about her (in)ability to speak Japanese and ashamed of her Japanese-speaking self. 196 Facing the problem For Alison, going to Greenville probably felt like taking a detour in her academic career. She knew that she would need to face the source of her embarrassment and shame some day. One day in Germany, Alison learned about Greenville Summer Language Schools through the Japan Studies mailing list. At that time, she already had planned to spend a few months the following fall in Kyoto for her research. She did not know anything about the Greenville Summer Language Schools, but after reading the description of the program, Alison decided to apply. “Nobody made me come. I applied for it just because I wanted to,” Alison said and continued, “I knew that I had to do it.” “I knew it was going to be hard, and I knew it wasn’t going to be the best summer of my life.” Overcoming Clicking With her determination to overcome her fear of speaking Japanese by becoming a more proficient speaker, Alison came to the United States for the first time in her life and started her new school life as an L2 learner of Japanese at Greenville. However, facing the reality, Alison could not stop questioning whether she had made the right decision to come to Greenville. It was after the midterm break when I noticed a change in Alison’s attitude. 何か が変わったよね ‘Something has changed,’ I told Alison. She said, うん、自信が多くなっ た、わかんない ‘Yes, I’ve gained more confidence, I don’t know,’ she smiled. It was not that Alison had more free time in the last half of the program. In fact, students became busier by the day after the midterm break while preparing for their final exams, oral presentations, class projects, and school events, in addition to doing their daily homework and studying for daily quizzes. 魔の７週目 ‘Devil’s seventh week’—this was what the teachers called the seventh week of the program. Many students got run down and 197 become sick during the seventh week. While listening to students complain how busy they were, I was watching the change taking place in Alison. I recalled the day when Alison told me, 私は今日わかった ‘I figured it out today.’ It was right before the midterm break. I asked what she had figured out. 私は知ってる言 葉で説明できる ‘I can explain [myself] with the words that I know.’ We were, as usual, seated at a table in front of Lionel Hall. I heard an excited tone in Alison’s voice. During the fifth week (the midterm break started at the end of the fifth week), the students in level 4 were working on a group project. The task was to present unusual trivia that would astonish people in a parody of the Japanese television show Toribia no Izumi ‘The Fountain of Trivia.’ In the show, a panel of five judges evaluates each piece of trivia and votes on how interesting it is by pushing the “hee button” every time they are astonished. Hee is a Japanese interjection to express surprise. At Greenville, the total number of hee elicited by each group’s presentation was used to determine which trivia item was the most astonishing, and the trivia item that earned the most hee was awarded a prize. Alison worked with two other classmates and decided to present a trivia about octopuses. Alison wanted to explain that “octopuses are mollusks” in Japanese, but she was not able to do so because she did not know the Japanese for “mollusks.” Then, she realized that she could say, タコは骨がない動物 ‘octopuses are animals with no bones’ without using the word “mollusks.” Likewise, she realized that she could use the word kokoro ‘heart,’ which was already a familiar word to her, to say that an octopus has three hearts, not using the word shinzou ‘heart9,’ which was the word that she did not know. 私 は知ってる言葉で説明できる ‘I can explain [myself] with the words that I know.’ At this moment something clicked for Alison. 9 Kokoro and shinzou refer to two different things. Kokoro refers to the heart that perceives emotions and feelings. Shinzou refers to the heart as an organ. 198 From the end of the sixth week and the beginning of the seventh week, I started to notice that Alison was smiling more. I also noticed that the tension that I had felt in Alison’s attitude before the midterm break had disappeared. She continued to follow her daily routine as strictly as before and to study as hard as before, but the change in her attitude was visible in her behavior. For example, Alison participated in a study group meeting for the first time. At the group study meeting, she had an insight. 他の人も同じ 問題があるとわかった ‘I realized that other people also had the same problems,’ and those who spoke more in class did not necessarily understand more. だから、私は金曜日 の試験で、会話の試験で、そんなに緊張していなかった ‘so I wasn’t so nervous in the conversation exam on Friday,’ she said. Alison later explained about her change in our final interview. Excerpt 14 Interview. A: Alison; R: Researcher A: There was a certain point when I figured out that I could actually express myself in Japanese, and that was probably the point when I really wanted to learn more. R: Yes, I remember. A: Yeah, that was probably the point when I wanted to do this, and another thing is nine weeks were so long. Having passed like nakayasumi ‘midterm break,’ it was like okay it was going to get less and less. So I felt so much better after that. It was like over the hill, kind of. We were getting there. We were getting to the end. That really helped a lot as well. (08/12/2010. Original in English) Speaking Among the changes I witnessed in Alison, the most prominent was that Alison started to speak more Japanese. Excerpt 15 shows an example of her change in participation in a conversation. In the excerpt, Alison is seated with two male instructors in level 4 (I1 and I2), Pablo (level 4), Kris (level 2), and Nicole (level 2). Prior to this conversation, I1, I2, Alison, and Pablo were talking about food. In the middle of the conversation, Nicole joins the table and starts complaining about the complexity of the 199 grammar she learned earlier that day. Kris (Nicole’s classmate) and Nicole start talking about the grammar. After their conversation, there is a 7-second silence. After the silence, Alison initiates a new topic (line 1). She invites everyone (at the table) to go to the music event by saying, みんな今日、音楽イベントに行きましょう ‘Everyone, let’s go to the music event tonight.’ Kris, who loves music, immediately responds to Alison’s invitation (from line 2 through line 4). In line 5, however, in response to someone’s question, Alison replies that she is not going to the event because she has a lot of homework. This causes laughter because Alison’s utterance 音楽イベント行きましょう ‘let’s go the music event’ pragmatically assumes that the speaker is also going to the event. After several turns, Pablo initiates a new topic. He asks Alison about a recent accident that happened in Germany (from line 13 through line 17). The accident happened in 2010 during the annual event called Love Parade electronic dance music festival in a small town in Germany. Twenty-one people died from suffocation and hundreds of people were injured. Alison knew about the accident and starts to explain (line 18). From line 13 through line 30, the conversation takes place between Alison and Pablo. In line 13, I2 joins their conversation, Nicole joins in line 34, and I1 joins in line 42. From line 42 till the end, Alison stays at the center stage of the conversation. Excerpt 15 Lunch conversation. A: Alison; P: Pablo (level 4); K: Kris (level 2); I1: Level 4 instructor; I2: Level 4 instructor; NC: Nicole (level 2) 1 A: みんな今日、音楽イベント に、行きましょう。 1 A: Everyone, let’s go to the music event tonight. 2 K: はい 2 K: Yes 3 A: 行きますか？ 3 A: Are you going? 4 K: はい、絶対。 4 K: Yes, definitely. 5 A: 私？ えっ、宿題が多い。 5 A: Me? Ah, I have a lot of homework. 6 I1: 「行きましょう」とか言っ ておいて。（笑い） 6 I1: You said “let’s go.” (Laugh) 200 7 K: はい 7 K: Yes 8 I1: 行かないんですか？（笑 い） 8 I1: You are not going? (Laugh) (Laughter by multiple people) (複数の笑い) 9 I2: 「ましょう」は何だったん だ？ （笑い） 9 I2: (Laughter by multiple people) (複数の笑い) 10 I1: 11 What was “let’s” for? (laugh) セールスがうまいですね。 10 うん（笑い） 11 I1: You are good at advertising. Yes (laugh) (NC starts asking K about the quiz tomorrow. The other people remain silent.) (NC が K に明日のクイズに ついて聞いている。他の人 は沈黙） 12 P: あの、その、事故、Love Parade というイベントがあ るけど。 12 P: Ahm, that, accident, there is an event called Love Parade. 13 A: 何？xxx 13 A: What? xxx 14 P: Love Parade? 14 P: Love Parade? 15 A: そうそうそう 15 A: Yes yes yes 16 P: 知ってる？ 16 P: Do you know? 17 A: うん、もちろん。なんか、 あの、それは、ほんとに大 変。 17 A: Yes, of course. (filler), uhm, that is really awuful. 18 P: ベルリンで？ 18 P: In Berlin? 19 A: 違う、他の city。他の町に 引っ越して、今小さい city, Duisburg という小さい ci、 町に引っ越して、その町 は、小さいから。 19 A: No. Another city. [The event] moved to another city, now moved to a small ci, a small city called Duisburg, and that city is small, so. 20 P: xxx 20 P: xxx 21 A: そうそうそう、その隣の 町。その町は、小さいか ら、たぶん、そんな大き い、観、観客者は、あ、ち ょっと無理。なんか、そ の、あの、その町で、５万 人住んでいるけど、１４０ 万が来たから。 21 A: Yes yes yes, the city next to it. Because that city is small, it was probably impossible [to have] such a large crowd. (Filler) That, uhm, in that city, 500,000 people are living, but 1,400,000 people came. 22 P: xxx 22 P: xxx 23 A: ５０万 23 A: 500,000 people 24 P: ５０万 24 P: 500,000 people 201 25 A: だ、で、だけど、１４０万 が来たから、ほんとに大変 だった。それは、私は、本 当に、絵を見て、本当にな んか、やけあせ、冷や汗、 を 25 A: So, but 1,400,000 people came, so, it was really tough. That is, I really [started to] sweat with fear after seeing the pictures 26 P: ああ、そう。 26 P: That is so. 27 A: すごく大変 27 A: Awful 28 P: 誰のせいでなった？ 28 P: Who caused the accident? 29 A: 誰のせい、それは難しい ね。その、あの、パネル （？）の前に高い壁があっ て、その人は、なんか、xxx あの、その道を、あの、あ の、逃げたかった、突然。 だから、その、あの、その 人は、ほんとに人が多かっ たから、全然動かなくて、 panic になった。死んだ人 は、ほんとに、息、息がな かったから、その理由で死 んだ。 29 A: Who caused? That’s difficult. Ahm, there was a high wall in front of the panel (?), those people, (filler), xxx uhm, wanted to run through the path. [It happened?] suddenly, so those people, because there were really many people, they couldn’t move at all and got into a panic. Those who died could not breathe. Really, [they] could not breathe, so for that reason, they died. 30 I2: ああ、聞きました、聞きま した。 30 I2: Ah, I’ve heard, I’ve heard. 31 A: 今２０人 31 A: Now 20 people 32 I2: ２０人 32 I2: 20 people 33 NC: xxx 33 NC: xxx 34 A: あの、Love Parade 知ってい ますか。あの、大きいテク ノ音楽のイベントあった。 前は、そのイベントはベル リンで、ベルリンのイベン トだったけど、今、あの、 小さい町に引っ越した。そ の町で５０万人が住んでい るけど、観客は、１４０万 人。 34 A: Uhm, do you know Love Parade? There was a big techno music event. Before, it took place in Berlin, a Berlin event, but now, it moved to a small city. In that city, 500,000 residents are living, but the audience was 1,400,000 people. (The public announcement by a level 3 student begins.) (レベル３の学生によるお知 らせが始まる) 35 A: (お知らせが終わり、拍手が 続いている）その人は、あ の、みんあ、あの、大きい 舞台 (？) に行きたかって、 あの、パネルの前で、偶然 パニックになって、２０人 が死んでしまった。人が多 35 A: (The announcement is over. Students are still clapping their hands.) Those people, uhm, wanted to go to the big stage, uhm, in front of the panel, they suddenly got into a panic, and 20 people 202 died. Because there were so many people, they could not move, and breathe, what should I say, because they could not breathe, in the middle かったから、全然動かなく て、息が、なんという、息 ができなかったから、その 真ん中に 36 P: すごく混んでいる 36 P: Very crowded 37 A: すごく混んでいる、５２０ 人が、け、けが、した。 37 A: Very crowded 520 people got, got injured. 38 P: それで、今週、今週、な に、他のこと、世界で起こ りました？ 38 P: And then, this week, this week, what else happened in the world? 39 A: 私はそれだけ読んだ。 39 A: I read only that. 40 I1: グリーンビルにいる間、世 界で何が起こっているのか 全然わかりません。（笑 い） 40 I1: While staying in Greenville, I don’t know what is happening in the world. (Laugh) 41 A: そうそうそう 41 A: Yes yes yes (T1 and P start talking.) (TI と P が何か話しはじめ る) 42 I1: あれ、どうして人が死んだ んですか？ 42 I1: That [accident], why did people die? 43 A: なんかパニックになって、 息が、できなかったから。 ほんとに人が多かったか ら、全然動けなかって、そ の真ん中で、なんという、 息ができなかった。 43 A: (filler) because [they] got into a panic and could not breathe. Because there were really many people, they could not move, and in the middle of that, what should I say, they couldn’t breathe. 44 I2: 窒息？ 44 I2: Suffocated? 45 A: そう、ちそくしてしまっ た。本当に大変とか、なん か、あの、その xxx はすご く強かったから、その人 は、あの、あの、上から、 で 45 A: Yes, they suffocated [missing a mora]. Really awful (filler) uhm, that xxx was very strong, so, those people, uhm, uhm, from the top 46 P: 引っ張る？ 46 P: Pull? 47 A: 引っ張る、うん、引っ張る こともできなかった。 47 A: Pull, yes, they couldn’t be pulled. 48 I2: 窒息したんですか。 48 I2: They suffocated. 49 A: そう 49 A: Yes 50 I2: 毎日亡くなった人の数が増 えていくから。最初は１０ 人ぐらいで、今は２０人ぐ らい。 50 II: Every day, the number of deaths increases. At the beginning, it was about 10 people, but now about 20. 203 51 A: ２０人 51 A: 20 people 52 P: でも、あの、irony は何です か？ 52 P: But, uhm, what is “irony?” 53 A: 皮肉 53 A: Hiniku 54 P: 皮肉は、あの、イベントの 名前は Love Parade だった。 54 P: The irony is that the name of the event was Love Parade. 55 I2: ああ 55 I2: Ah 56 I1: どういう意味ですか、Love Parade？ 56 I1: What does it mean, Love Parade? 57 A: それは、あの、意味は、２ ０年前ベルリン始まって、 あの、あの、テクノのイベ ントだったから、みんな、 実は、戦争に反対した人 が、あの、その考えがあっ た。２０年前、それは小さ いだった。３００人くら い。でも、今は１４０万 人。 57 A: It’s uhm, the meaning is, it began in Berlin twenty years ago, uhm, because it was a techno [music] event, everyone, in fact, people who were against the war had the idea [of having a techno music event?]. Twenty years ago, it was a small event with only 300 people. But now 1,400,000 people. 58 I2: ほ 58 I2: Wow (7/29/2010) Alison also started to go to instructors’ office hours to ask questions. 何でもなか った ‘It was nothing,’ she said after her first visit. As the program approached the end, Alison seemed to be more relaxed and comfortable. “They all said like the first week and seventh week would be so hard, and I was like yeah [tapping the table] I didn’t feel it at all (original in English),” Alison later recalled. It was also during the seventh week that Miyamoto-sensei, the head instructor of level 4, told Alison that her Japanese was improving. “It was really important that Miyamoto-sensei said that my Japanese was becoming better (original in English),” Alison recalled. Toward the end of the seventh week, Alison went to see Miyamotosensei during his office hour to ask questions about the reading material that the level 4 students had read during that week. About a minute after Alison started to ask a question, 204 Miyamoto-sensei changed the topic of conversation and started to talk about Alison’s Japanese language skills (excerpt 16 below). In excerpt 16, Miyamoto-sensei switches the topic of conversation from the reading material to the exam that level 4 students took the previous week. He praises Alison for her performance in the reading comprehension section (Miyamoto-sensei teaches reading comprehension). Then he continues to praise Alison by saying that her Japanese language skills, including both speaking and reading, have improved. Excerpt 16 Conversation during Miyamoto-sensei’s office hour. M: Miyamoto-sensei; A: Alison M: あ、ところで、ベイルさん、読 解 [試験の読解問題について]、 とてもよくできてました。 M: Oh, by the way, Beil-san, you did a very good job in the reading comprehension [referring to the previous exam]. A: ああ、ありがと[う A: Ah, thank yo[u M: [ベイルさん、 [日本語が] ほんとに（強調）の びましたね。 M: [You [your Japanese] have really (emphasis) improved. A: (笑い) A: (Laugh) M: 中間の後、話すのも読むのも [ほ んとに M: After the midterm, both speaking and reading [really [あ A: A: [Thank you りがとうございます M: うん、ほんとによく書けていま した [A の試験について]。 M: Yes, it was really well written [referring to A’s previous exam]. (07/30/2010) Although it was brief, Miyamoto-sensei’s comment meant a lot to Alison. It gave her confidence and assurance that she indeed had made the right decision to come to Greenville. “I am glad that my Japanese has improved,” Alison said at the end of the program. “I definitely did learn a lot.” Miyamoto-sensei described Alison as 中級２でいちばん伸 びた学生 ‘the student who improved the most in level 4’ in our informal conversation at 205 the end of the program. “What did Greenville mean to me? I don’t know,” Alison said. “But I’m happy now,” she looked at me. I recalled the impression that I had received in our first meeting—fair and honest. She knew that the nine weeks at Greenville did not make her proficient in Japanese. She continued to have difficulty expressing herself in Japanese. However, she also knew that she was able to explain herself with the words that she knew. “I’ll speak,” she said. “If you don’t mind, I’ll go back to my room. I have more packing to do.” This was the last time I saw Alison. I know that if I go to Japan, I won’t be able to figure out things as easy as I think because if Japanese people speak in the normal way that they usually speak, it’s not understandable, and of course going back to literature is hard again as well. It’s not that Greenville has solved the problems that I had, but I definitely, whenever I meet a Japanese person, I will be able to, like, I’ll be able to, I, I, I’ll speak. I’m not going to just refuse, like “I’m sorry I cannot do that. I’m not going to go dinner with you because I cannot speak Japanese.” I’m not going to do that. (Interview, 08/12/2010. Original in English) Discussion In this chapter, I have described Alison’s L2 socialization process by highlighting how her personal and academic backgrounds intersected with the social practices of the Japanese School and influenced the ways in which she participated in the community of practice of the Japanese School. Alison’s socialization process, especially for the first five weeks, was characterized as a process of struggle and resistance. When she came to Greenville and joined the community of the Japanese School, what she saw was a “mass phenomenon”—students’ unproblematic view of the Japanese culture and their innocent desires and eagerness to “become Japanese.” Then, what emerged in her mind were the feeling of こわい ‘being scared’ and resistance to take part in the “mass phenomenon” that she observed—more precisely, resistance to take part in the cultural hegemony (in her perception) that was reproduced in the community of the Japanese School. 206 Akiyama (2003) has argued that learning experiences are colored and complicated by the variety of backgrounds that individual students bring to class. In Alison’s case, her nationality as a German and her academic background in Japanology, especially, her extensive knowledge about the nihonjinron ‘theories of the Japanese,’ seemed to lead her to construct the filter through which she viewed and interpreted the community of practice of the Japanese School, negotiated the meaning of her participation in the new community, and defined herself as a learner and speaker of Japanese. L2 learners’ resistance is not a new phenomenon in L2 socialization research. Previous studies have found L2 learners’ resistance to the marginalization imposed by members of dominant communities (Atkinson, 2003; Duff, 2002; Harklau, 2000; Morita, 2002, 2004; Norton, 2000; Talmy, 2008). When L2 learners face undesirable social practices, they exercise their agency to resist them. In this regard, the resistance found in previous studies is the exercise of L2 learner agency to claim their legitimacy and gain opportunities to participate in the target language community of practice. In Alison’s case, however, her resistance served neither to claim her legitimacy nor to gain opportunities to participate in the practice of the Japanese School. Rather, it was her choice not to become part of practices that she observed in the Japanese School that she considered undesirable. In addition to her negotiation of participation in the practice of Japanese School, Alison negotiated the meaning of self as a speaker of Japanese. What had originally brought Alison to Greenville was her determination to face the stigma of being a Japanologist who could not speak Japanese well, overcome her feelings of embarrassment, and open a way to become a speaker of Japanese. Alison was a successful doctoral candidate and a future scholar of Japanology in Germany. She was perhaps deeply frustrated with the gap between her German-speaking self and her Japanese-speaking self. Moreover, she was embarrassed and ashamed about her inability to speak Japanese well. 207 In his autobiographical case study of learning Japanese, Cohen (1997) documented his ambivalent feelings about speaking Japanese. Cohen, a successful applied linguist and multilingual speaker, faced challenges similar to those Alison faced when he was learning Japanese. He documented that his “feeling of insecurity” (p. 147) resulted in his reluctance to speak Japanese, and that the perception that Japanese was a “private language” (p. 147), which might not welcome nonnative speakers to use it, had limited his opportunities to speak Japanese. In Alison’s case, too, her feelings of embarrassment and shame and lack of confidence became an emotional barrier that limited her opportunities to speak Japanese. When Alison faced the hard reality of Greenville, she was caught in various emotions— uncertainty, self-doubt, embarrassment, shame, and lack of confidence. Although it had been her decision to come to Greenville, she struggled to step out of her old self and take a first step into the world of Japanese. When Alison’s emotional barrier was reduced by the two key events (one was her realization that she could actually express herself in Japanese, which she had thought would never be possible, and the other was her teacher’s assurance that her Japanese language skills were indeed improving), Alison gained confidence in her ability to speak Japanese. These two events became turning points in her learning process and opened the door to the world of Japanese. It is uncertain whether these turning points influenced Alison’s understanding of the practice of the Japanese School and her feeling of resistance to emulate native speaker norms in speaking Japanese. However, as her emotional barrier was reduced, Alison started to negotiate the meaning of her participation in the practice of the Japanese School differently. Finally, I have discussed whether Alison’s primary force for learning Japanese can be explained through the notion of investment (Norton, 2000). As discussed in Chapter 5, the core notion of investment is the symbolic exchange that takes place as a 208 goal of L2 learning. L2 learners learn an L2 (acquiring cultural capital) with the expectation that their acquisition of cultural capital would be later exchanged for another form of capital (economic or social capital). The question to be considered is whether Alison’s desire to learn Japanese was linked to her desire to gain economic or social capital. I argue that Alison’s desire to learn Japanese was linked to her desire for personal change. It was her aspiration to overcome her feelings of embarrassment and shame and open a way to become a speaker of Japanese. In this sense, Alison was negotiating the meaning of self of the past, present, and future, rather than gaining social recognition or identification as a competent speaker of Japanese (exchange for social capital). The study of Alison, together with the studies of Alice (Kinginger, 2004) and Parker (Chapter 5), suggest that L2 learners come from diverse backgrounds and have diverse wants, needs, and purposes to learn an L2. They make different choices and exercise various forms of agency to achieve their goals of learning an L2. The notion of investment proposed by Norton (2000) is able to capture the force for L2 learning by certain types of learners but may not be comprehensive enough to capture the force for L2 learning by the whole range of learners who are situated in diverse social contexts and affordance structures. L2 socialization research needs to adopt a more “complex view of second language learners as agents, whose actions are situated in particular contexts and influenced by their dynamic ethnic, national, gender, class, and social identities” (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001, p. 155). The next chapter presents the case study of Naiya, who finished her junior year in her college and came to Greenville to advance her Japanese language skills. 209 CHAPTER VII: NAIYA SEPARATION, RESISTANCE, AND SELF–ACCOMPLISHMENT Beginning It was the first dinner in Maclean Dining Hall. Students were talking to each other in English. In less than 48 hours, they would be talking to each other in Japanese. I sat in the back of the dining hall and looked around. If I had not known that the students had met each other only several hours before, I would have thought that they had known each other for a long time. At each table, students seemed to be having fun talking to each other. Apart from the main crowd, there were two female students whose enjoyment in talking to each other was evident. One of them was laughing so hard that I could hear her laughter above the noise in the dining hall. I looked at the owner of the voice. She was wearing a pair of white plastic frame glasses and was laughing with her mouth wide open. The white plastic frames made her face look sharper, contrasting with her dark skin tone. This was my first encounter with Naiya. Naiya was one of the nine African American students in the Japanese School. According to the director, the ratio of African American students in the Japanese School was higher in the summer of 2010 than in the previous years. Moreover, the ratio of the African American students who were enrolled in the upper-level courses in the summer of 2010 was also higher than those in past years. “I am glad that there are more African American students in the upper levels this year” (original in Japanese),” the director said. Naiya was one of them. On the first day of the class, I noticed that the black female student who had been laughing very hard in the dining hall was sitting in the level 4 course. Contrary to the impression that I had received in the dining hall on the first night, she was quiet. She didn’t talk much. She didn’t laugh much. She remained seated while listening to other people talk. This contrast—when she was laughing so hard and when she remained 210 silent—became clearer as the days went by. This sharp contrast made me interested in getting to know her. Naiya was my neighbor in Greenough Hall. However, I could not find the right moment to talk to her. She always went straight back to her room after class. She always appeared in the dining hall late. When she was around, she was always with the person whom I had seen her with in the dining hall on the first night. Moreover, I was probably a little hesitant to seek out an opportunity to talk to her because I did not know what to talk about. Therefore, it was a surprise when she told me that she was interested in participating in my study. It was on Friday afternoon of the second week. I had found a participant for my study. Engagement Meeting in front of my room and walking to the Grill became our weekly routine. In the first interview, I asked Naiya about her favorite place on the Greenville campus. Since she mentioned the Grill, it became our meeting place. The Grill was located in the Student Union down the path. The Student Union was probably one of the facilities that the students visited frequently over the summer. They received letters and packages there. There were an ATM machine and a convenience store in the building. There was also a small café/bar on the first floor. On the second floor, there was a restaurant called the Grill. The building was originally constructed as a gymnasium in 1912 and was remodeled in 1998. The main area had a vaulted ceiling and a large open space with tables, chairs, sofas, and pool tables. The Grill and the bar were open until 2:00 a.m. on Fridays and 1:00.a.m. on Saturdays. The Student Union was also one of few places on campus where students could speak English. Because the people who worked there did not speak nine languages, students needed to speak English to communicate with them. The place was open to the people in the community as well as to the students, faculty, and staff of Greenville 211 College. Televisions hanging from the wall were tuned to regular cable programs. You could hear people talk in English as well as other languages. It was up to individual students to decide how and how often to use the facility. Some students used it more and others less. Naiya went to the Student Union almost daily. Between two worlds At dusk, I often sat on an Adirondack chair placed in front of Greenough Hall next to the path down the hill to the Student Union. After the bustle of the daytime hours, the college campus revealed a different face. As I smelled the lawn, soil, and steamy air coming out of the ground, I thought about random things. There is something about dusk that makes people nostalgic and lonely. I often recalled memories of my late grandmother. My grandmother had died in the summer. That summer had been exceptionally hot, according to my mother. I had received a call from my brother. On that night, I saw a firefly. As I watched the firefly dance in the field, I wondered if it was my grandmother who had came to say good-bye to me. While I was caught between my nostalgia and my reality at Greenville, I sometimes saw Naiya come out of Greenough Hall and walk down the path. She was wearing a pair of skinny jeans and an oversized tee. With a pair of white D&G plastic frame eyeglasses, she looked sharp and sophisticated. 一番好きな服を着ていると、一番 好きな自分になる ‘I become my favorite self if I am wearing my favorite clothes,’ she told me in the first interview. We were seated at the coffee shop in the library. I looked down at my clothes and felt embarrassed. Naiya continued, その服が好きだったら、着て くださいね。それが一番いい ‘If you like those clothes, please wear them. That is the best,’ and she looked at my clothes. I felt even more embarrassed. She was wearing gray skinny jeans, an oversized printed tee, and black sneakers. 大きい T シャツにベルトをつ けて、スキニージーンズをはきます。そのスタイルが好きです ‘I wear an oversized tee shirt with a belt and a pair of skinny jeans. I like that style,’ she told me. As she had 212 claimed, she often wore skinny jeans and an oversized tee at Greenville. Those skinny jeans fit well on her long slender legs. I often teased her that she could have been a model if she had been taller. Naiya visited the Grill everyday. It was her favorite place at Greenville. I once asked the reason. 家の気がします ‘I feel like I am at home,’ Naiya said. テレビの音が聞 こえて、他の人は英語を話して、なんかリラックスできる ‘I can hear the TV and people speak English. I can relax,’ she added. Naiya usually went to the Grill at night after dinner. She sometimes ordered food. She sometime bought snacks and her favorite Snapple lemon tea. 二つの世界 ‘the two worlds’—this was how Naiya described the Grill and the Maclean Dining Hall. For Naiya, the Grill was the place where she could be relaxed with her favorite food and drink. The dining hall, on the other hand, was the place where she had to go because she had a 責任 ‘responsibility’ as a student. She said: [Maclean に行くのは] ちょっと責任。グリー ンビルに日本語を勉強しに行きますから、グ リーンビルのルールを、しなければなりませ ん。もうお金を払った（笑い）だから、全部 のことをしなければなりません。 [Going to Maclean is] my responsibility. I came to Greenville to study Japanese, so I must follow the Greenville rules. I already paid (laugh), so I must do everything. (Interview, 06/26/2010) Naiya challenged my assumptions in many ways. Each time, she reminded me that I was seeing and interpreting things based on my knowledge, experience, and belief as a Japanese language teacher. It never occurred to me that there was a student at Greenville who would think going to the dining hall was a responsibility. 日本語が上手に なったら [なりたかったら]、全部の事をしなければなりません。しないわけにはいかな い ‘If you [want to] improve your Japanese, you must do everything. You have to do so,’ she said, using an expression that she had just learned in class. しないわけにはいかない ‘have to do’ literally means “cannot not do.” Naiya perhaps used しないわけにはいかな い ‘have to do’ as an equivalent of have to or must. For Naiya, going to class, eating at 213 the dining hall and participating in a club and other school-related activities were things that she had to do to improve her Japanese language skills while she was at Greenville. At night, after she finished most of her responsibilities for a day, Naiya visited the Grill. Before she started to work on the rest, she visited another world for a while, wearing her favorite skinny jeans and an oversized tee. Life is a process It was 2:30 p.m. I heard a knock at the door. She was always punctual. I checked myself in the mirror. I grabbed my purse and opened the room door to my room. Naiya and I walked side by side down the path toward the Grill. She complimented me on my sleeveless tee. I told her that I had bought it on sale at Banana Republic. At the Grill, I bought two Snapple lemon teas. We sat down at a table near the stairs. The air conditioning felt good. The weather forecast was predicting that a giant heat wave would arrive in the east coast in a few days, and the air temperature was expected to go up to 100 degrees. The unairconditioned stone buildings of the college are built for winter but definitely not for summer. I decided not to think about the weather until it became an inevitable reality. Naiya showed me her exam. The level 4 students had an exam every two weeks, which accounted for 60% of their course grade. The exam included Kanji, reading comprehension, grammar, video (narrative), and conversation. I asked how the results were. She said they were okay. もっと勉強した方がいい [よかった] ですが、私、単位が とれないから ‘I should [have] studied more but I cannot earn credits, so…,’ she added. She was not taking the course for credit and therefore did not have the pressure to get a good grade. However, she said: プレッシャーがありません。でも、プライド がありますから（笑い）精一杯、がんばらな いわけにはいかない。正しいでしょう？ 習っ たばかりの文法。 I don’t have pressure. But, I have pride (laugh), so I have to work hard as much I can. Is it correct? It’s the grammar that I just learned. (Interview, 07/01/2010) 214 I glanced at her scores. She had received 100% on the video (narrative) and 95–96% on the rest. Naiya often described her activities at Greenville using the expression しなければ なりません ‘I must/have to do.’ Naiya came to Greenville to study Japanese. In order to improve her Japanese language skills, according to Naiya, 全部の事をしなければなりま せん ‘I must/have to do everything.’ She had to study hard, go to the dining hall, and do everything in accordance with the グリーンビルのルール ‘Greenville rules.’ Her life at Greenville was filled with a sense of responsibility. Naiya did not come to Greenville because someone made her come. Naiya was learning Japanese not because someone made her do so. It was her decision to come to Greenville. It was her decision to study Japanese. In this sense, there was no external pressure on her to study hard or to participate in the school activities. Then where did her sense of しなければならない ‘must do’ come from? Roots Naiya identified herself as a New Yorker. She was born in New York City and was raised there by her grandmother. Her grandmother was an immigrant from Trinidad. She raised Naiya and two other siblings in New York City. Naiya called her grandmother Granny. According Naiya, her granny was an old-school Trinidadian woman who spoke English with a heavy Trinidad accent. I once asked her about her granny. Naiya answered, おばあちゃん、うるさい (笑い) すごく強い ‘My granny, she is fastidious (laugh) and very strong.’ In our final interview, Naiya explained about her grandmother: Even though I am the baby, I don’t get babied. Does that make sense? I am free to go on and do my own things but still free to fail, you know. So if I go out like I say I’m going to study in Japan. “Ok, go ahead and do that. But if you hate it, you’re still going to stay there. You are not coming home.” That type of thing (laugh). So, I know how to depend on myself rather than depending on other people. (Interview, 08/12/2010. Original in English) 215 I thought about the life of a Trinidadian woman who had immigrated to the United States and raised her three grandchildren in New York City. Naiya’s parents, who lived in Trinidad, had decided to leave their children with their grandmother in New York City, instead of raising them at home in Trinidad. “They made the best choice,” Naiya said. According to Naiya: Trinidad became better these days but is still a poor country. So, you just have more opportunities here in America to get good education, stuff like that. … I am not a Trinidadian. I can’t stay there. It’s very 田舎すぎ ‘too remote’ to be free, travel around and such. (Interview, 08/12/2010. Original in English) I recalled one incident at the dining hall. One day during lunchtime, Naiya and I were seated next to each other at a table with several other students. Someone started to talk about family and asked Naiya where her parents lived. Naiya said that her parents lived in Trinidad. Then, the student told Naiya, じゃあ、ウイリアムズさんは、トリニダード人で すね ‘Oh, then, you are a Trinidadian.’ Naiya immediately responded, いいえ、私はアメ リカ人。ニューヨークから来ました ‘No. I’m an American. I’m from New York.’ The tone of her voice sounded stronger than usual. I sensed that the topic of her parents and Trinidad was not something that she enjoyed talking about with others. There was another male student in level 5 who came from Trinidad. In the first lecture series, he was appointed to introduce the guest lecturer, in English, to the audience. Since no English was allowed at Greenville, it was a rare opportunity for the students to hear another student talk in English. Some of Naiya’s female friends found him attractive because of his Trinidad accent; however, Naiya did not find him or his English attractive at all. Rather, she found his English weird. “They [Naiya’s female friends] said it’s his accent. He is so Trinidadian. I’m like ugh. It’s like my family. I can’t. Gross (original in English),” she frowned. 216 Pursuit of interest Although Naiya denied her identity as a Trinidadian, she admitted that her grandmother was the most influential person in her life. She shaped Naiya’s life in a number of ways. As Naiya grew up, one of the things that her grandmother taught her was that life was a process. 人生はプロセスでしょ ‘Life is a process, isn’t it?’ she told me one day when I asked about why she was studying Japanese. I sometimes forgot that Naiya was only 20 years old. When I was 20 years old, I was too immature to ponder life. Naiya said that going to college was one example: いい仕事を見つけるために、大学に行った方 がいい。まあ他の方法もありますが、それは 一番やさしい。だからします。将来に何かし たいことがあったら、今あまりしたくないこ とをしなければなりません。そのことができ るように、今つらい時があるでしょう、わか りますか。 In order to find a good job, you should go to college. Well, there are other ways, but it is the easiest. That’s why you do (go to college). If you have something that you want to do in the future, you have to do things that you don’t want to do now. In order to be able to do that (in the future), you have a hard time now. Do you understand? (Interview, 08/04/2010) For Naiya, studying Japanese at Greenville was one of the processes through which she decided to go to improve her Japanese skills. When Naiya came to Greenville, she had just finished her junior year and was ready to start her senior year at her university in the fall. She had never studied Japanese until she attended the university. She had studied French for four years in high school. According Naiya, however, she did not remember anything about French. Her initial motivation for studying Japanese was 言 語が好きですから、大学に入って、新しい言語を勉強しよう、と思って、日本語を選び ました ‘Because I like languages, I thought that I should study a new language when I entered the university and therefore chose Japanese.’ After she studied Japanese for one year at the university, she studied abroad at Nanzan University in Japan for a year. It was 一番大変な経験 ‘the most difficult experience,’ she recalled. She could not speak Japanese well at that time. Her host family could not speak English. すごく大変でした ‘it was very difficult,’ Naiya said. As time passed, however, her experience of studying in 217 Japan had turned into a positive one. By the time she returned to her university, 日本語は 私を trap してしまいました ‘the Japanese language trapped me’ and she decided to continue studying Japanese. でも、グリーンビルに申し込んだ理由は ‘But, the reason why I applied to Greenville is,’ she placed an emphasis on the word でも’but’ and continued: もう３年間日本語を勉強しましたから、*ほん とに、できる、くらい、を、したいです。い ちばん、できる日本語のレベルを手に入れる ことがしたい。 Because I already studied Japanese for three years, *I want to do really possible. I want to attain the highest proficiency level possible. (Interview, 08/04/2010) Naiya chose the words carefully and asked me if I understood what she meant. I said yes and asked what the highest proficiency level possible was for her. She answered: 私もそのレベル、よくわかりません。私にで きるレベルです。それは、ちょっと足りない ね（笑い）。多分、論文を書けるレベル、本 当の論文。そして、まじめなテーマについて の論文。はい。それは私にとって、一番でき るレベルだと思います。 I don’t know that level, either. It’s the level that I can attain. That’s not sufficient for others (laugh). Probably, the level where I can write academic papers, real papers. Papers about serious topics. Yes, that’s the highest proficiency level possible for me. (Interview, 08/04/2010) まだまだですが ‘But, still a long way to go’ she added. I told her that it would not be so long. She looked at my face and said, うそをつかないでよ ‘Don’t tell a lie’ and laughed. Naiya believed that there was a gap between her current level of proficiency and the level at which she wished to be. Therefore, she decided to come to Greenville, even though she had been told by her Japanese language instructor at her university that it would be really stressful to live and study in an environment where English was not allowed, because she believed that nine weeks of study at Greenville would enable her to attain the level she wanted. ２週間がたって、髪をむしってると思いました ‘I thought I would be pulling my hair out after two weeks,’ Naiya laughed. I asked Naiya about her future goals. She told me it would be 分不相応 [bun fu sou ou] ‘beyond one’s limit’ for her. Bun fu sou ou literally means being inappropriate (fu 218 sou ou) to your bun. According to a Japanese dictionary (Daijirin, 2006), bun refers to “the social ranking/status or the abilities that a person has (original in Japanese).” The idea of bun is based on the feudal system during the Edo period (1603–1867) when the social classes were strictly divided, and the social hierarchy determined people’s lives. Under the feudal system, you were expected to know your bun. You were allowed to live only within the limits of your bun. If you ever crossed your bun, you were subjected to some social sanction. The feudal system in Japan came to an end with the beginning of the Meiji restoration in 1868; yet, the ideas of bun sou ou ‘within one’s limits’ and bun fu sou ou ‘beyond one’s limits’ remain in the social value system of modern Japanese society. Naiya told me that she learned the expression bun fu souou ‘beyond one’s limits’ in class. Her future goal was, according to Naiya, to live a life that would be a little bun fu sou ou ‘beyond one’s limits’ to her. 理想の分不相応の生活は、行きたい所があっ たら行ける生活、それで、どこでも旅行がで きて、いろいろな人に会える生活。それが一 番いい生活。でも、その生活ができるように お金が必要でしょう。 My ideal bun-fu-sou-ou ‘beyond-my-limits’ life is a life in which I can go anywhere I want to go, I can travel anywhere, and I can meet many people. That’s the best life. But, I would need money in order to have a life like that. (Interview, 08/04/2010) To realize her ideal bun fu sou ou ‘beyond one’s limits’ life, there were several processes that Naiya needed to take. Going to college was the one such process. In each process, there would be fun times and hard times and things that Naiya would like and would not like. Yet, she had to accept and cope with all of them to complete one process and move onto the next. For Naiya, Greenville was one process that she needed to go through to reach the proficiency level she hoped to attain in Japanese. Therefore, regardless of her likes and dislikes, 全部のことをしなければなりません ‘I have to do everything,’ it was the task that Naiya had given to herself while she was studying at Greenville. いつも人生にたくさんプロセスがありあます ‘There are always many 219 processes in life,’ she told me. In the 20 years of her life, Naiya had probably gone through many processes. She stated: 普通の人間のように、いろいろな経験があり ますね。その経験をして、何か、そういう lesson を取って、もっといい人間になりま す。まあ、時々もっと悪い人間になりますが （笑い）。今、大学に入って、日本に留学す ることができました。それは、子供の時、全 然そんなことができないと思いました。（中 略）私のおばあちゃんがよく言ったことは、 いつも自分の力でやりたいことをやるという ことです。「やりたいことがあったら、やり なさい」と言います。だから、私はいつも次 にあることのためにがんばります。今はうれ しいですが、１年間後、もっとうれしくなり ます。その考えがありますから、もう日本に 行きましたが、次の所、どこでしょう？次の 言語はどこ？次の服はどこ？何？そんな考え 方。 Like normal people, I have had various experiences in my life. Through such experiences, I learned a lesson and became a better person. Well, I become a worse person (laugh). Now, I’m in college, and I was able to study abroad in Japan. That’s something that I never thought would be possible when I was a child. . . . The thing that my grandmother often told me was to do things on your own. “If you have something that you want to do, do it,” she said. So, I always work hard for my next stage. I am happy now, but I will be happier after one year. I think like that. So, although I have already been to Japan, I am thinking where will be the next place? Where is my next language? Where, what will be my next clothes? I think like that. (Interview, 08/04/2010) Separation When Naiya decided to go to Greenville in the summer of 2010, she knew what she was going to put herself into—life without English. With a sense of responsibility in her mind, she arrived in Greenville. After facing the reality of the Greenville immersion program, contrary to her expectation, she felt that 意外に私は大丈夫 ‘unexpectedly, I am all right.’ While seeing her friends go through difficult times emotionally, she found herself doing fine in the new environment. As she participated in the daily school activities, Naiya soon recognized the existence of two groups in the Japanese School. One was the Japanese group, and the other was the student group. Those who belonged to the Japanese group were 日本人と日 本語がペラペラに話せる人 ‘Japanese people and those who can speak Japanese like a native.’ Those who belonged to the student group were 日本語を勉強している学生 ‘students who are learning Japanese.’ Furthermore, Naiya thought that these two groups would never intersect except superficially. She stated: 220 Excerpt 17 Interview. N: Naiya; R: Researcher N: 学生にとって、グリーンビルに二 つのグループがあります（笑い） 日本語を勉強している学生と日本 人と日本語がペラペラに話せる 人。その二つのグループは、全 然、まざ、まざる？ まざる？ N: For students, there are two groups at Greenville (laugh). Students who are studying Japanese and Japanese people and those who speak Japanese like a native. Those two groups never get mi, mix? Mix? R: まざる？ R: Mix? N: まざらい。 N: Never mixed. R: え、じゃ、こっちのグループは、 先生とか私とか、他に学生も入 る？ R: Well, then, this group includes the teachers and me. Are the students in this group, too? N: いいえ、学生はペラペラじゃない から。 N: No. Because students don’t speak like a native. R: じゃあ、こっちのグループは、日 本人、だ。 R: Then, this group, includes, Japanese. N: はい、日本人。(二人の笑い) ちょ っとひどいね。 N: Yes, Japanese. (N & R laugh) It’s terrible. R: 何それ？ R: What is that? N: ごめんなさい。でも、それは本 当。日本人（笑い）と学生。 N: I’m sorry. But, it’s true. Japanese (laugh) and students. (07/12/2010) I thought about who else would belong to the Japanese group. Then I realized that all of the Japanese people in the Japanese School were teachers except the director and me. There were three Japanese student interns, but they were part of the teaching team. In Naiya’s mind, “Japanese people” meant the teachers, and she saw a separation between the Japanese/teacher group and the student group. Naiya’s recognition of the two groups in the Japanese School was indeed a legitimate observation. Naiya attributed her sense of separation between the teachers and the students to a cultural difference between the United States and Japan, specifically the difference in the teacher–student relationship between the U.S. culture and the Japanese culture. 日本の文 化は先生と学生が友達になることは嫌ですね、だめでしょう ‘The Japanese culture doesn’t like that teachers and students become friends. It’s not good, is it?’ Naiya said. 先 221 生は目上だから ‘Because teachers are meue [social superiors],’she also said. Meue ‘social superiors’ refers to someone who is older, more experienced, and has a higher social status. As opposed to meue ‘social superiors,’ meshita ‘social junior’ refers to someone who is younger, less experienced, and has a lower social status. In teacher– student relationships, teachers are considered meue ‘social superiors,’ and students are considered meshita ‘social junior.’ According to the sociocultural practice of the Japanese culture, meshita ‘social junior’ is expected to show linguistic politeness toward his/her meue [‘social superior’] by the use of keigo ‘honorific language.’ In class, level 4 students were explicitly taught to use keigo ‘honorific language’ when speaking to teachers. Naiya perceived this linguistic practice of emphasizing the meue ‘social superiors’/meshita ‘social junior’ relationship as a 冷たい関係 ‘cold relationship’ and a barrier to building a 本当の関係 ‘real relationship’ with the Japanese teachers. Furthermore, Naiya felt that there was a difference between the practice of the Japanese School and the sociocultural practice of Japan. At one the hand, the students were required to live in a dorm with their teachers and were expected to interact with them all the time; on the other hand, the Japanese culture’s linguistic and sociocultural norms separate teachers and students. Naiya found this a “big contradiction (original in English).” She stated: Anytime I came to one of the parties, like the French xxx party when I was there, students were always interacting with their teachers. But, teachers were always drinking with them and partying dada. It’s different [be]cuz in the Japanese culture, it’s already a separation between teacher and student. So, I found it contradictory that they were say, yeah you are going to live and hang out with sensei ‘teachers.’ I’m like, but it’s Japanese. You don’t live and hang out with your sensei ‘teachers.’ It’s your sensei ‘teachers.’ Sensei ‘teachers’ [singing voice], you know. So, I found that to be a big contradiction. And, this [is?] how I knew this is not going to work out like that because I’m living, eating, and always seeing someone else. They were my tomodachi ‘friends’ [pronounced slowly and clearly]. They were not my sensei ‘teachers.’ That’s why it’s just, it’s not going to work out, especially in a culture like Japanese, you know. Maybe in American xxx, you are going to live [with] and talk to your professor. Yeah, you can do that. I would be able to do that like 222 make my professors my tomodachi ‘friends.’ But, in Japanese it’s not the same. There is always a separation. (Interview, 08/12/2010. Original in English) Naiya’s sense of separation was also psychological. “I can’t separate jugyou sensei ‘classroom teachers’and regular person sensei ‘teachers,’” she said. To Naiya, sensei ‘teachers’ were the people whom she would see in class. They would give her homework, correct her language mistakes, and evaluate her achievement. However, they were not the people whom she would relate to as a person once she stepped out of the classroom. I don’t have much outside interactions with senseis ‘teachers’ and I’m okay with that (short pause) because, it’s weird to me. I can’t separate jugyou sensei ‘classroom teacher’ and regular person sensei ‘teacher.’ Honestly, I can’t. That’s how I always feel like I’m xxx. I can’t just say, “Hey sensei ‘teacher,’ what did you do today?” I have to think. “Ah! I have to change the Keigo ‘honorific language.’ I have to make sure it’s right tense (emphasis). All else [?] they are going to say, “No!” (laugh) That was wrong, and it hits me, so (laugh), that’s the way it is. Yeah. (Interview, 08/12/2010. Original in English) In the course of the nine weeks at Greenville, Naiya did not seek any opportunity to talk and interact with teachers outside of class. She had minimal interaction with them. She never visited any of her teachers’ office hours. She preferred to study alone in her room or sometimes with her friends. In the dining hall, she carefully avoided being seated with a group of teachers. The physical separation between the teachers and the students seemed also to be a factor that constructed her sense of separation. In Greenough Hall, the instructors’ offices were located on the first floor. There were a few students who lived on the first floor, but most students lived on the second to the fifth floor. Naiya felt that the teachers were “different from us” because senseis ‘teachers’ were always on ikkai ‘the first floor’ and did not “go out drinking and partying or stuff like that.” To Naiya’s eyes, the separation was created by the teachers themselves by physically separating themselves from the students—in Naiya’s words, by “maintaining their sensei-ness ‘teacher-ness’.” As long as 223 they physically separated themselves from the students and maintained the “sensei-ness ‘teacher-ness,’ Naiya felt that they were “not quite human.” The truth of the matter is outside the classroom you don’t see the senseis ‘teachers.’ If you see them, it’s only to pass them and say konnichiwa ‘hello.’ Honestly, I mean all the senseis ‘teachers’ were always on ikkai ‘the first floor,’ right? Every once in awhile I see them walk around ikkai ‘the first floor’and come out of their office, and go to sleep, but that’s another reason why they are so different from us. They don’t go out drinking and partying or stuff like that, so they maintain their sensei-ness ‘teacher-ness?’ (laugh) because they maintain the sensei-ness, they are not quite human so we can’t really become friends with them and interact, all stuff like that. (Interview, 08/12/2010. Original in English) Naiya’s sense of separation between teachers and students was also in effect in her relationship with her American professors and Japanese language teachers whom she had met in her university or Japan, according to Naiya. However, such separation had gradually vanished as she got to know them better and discovered the 人間らしいこと ‘human things’ that they did, such as making mistakes and telling jokes. Naiya particularly found the significance of telling jokes in human relationship building. According to her, that was because she was a New Yorker (according to Naiya, New Yorkers love sarcasm) and liked to laugh. Therefore, in building a teacher–student relationship, she found, 冗談を言える先生、それは私にとって一番大事 ‘teachers who can tell jokes, that’s the most important thing for me.’ In the Japanese School, however, Naiya was not able to break through her sense of the separation between the teachers and the students. The linguistic, cultural, psychological, physical, and discursive barriers were always on Naiya’s mind, and she felt 先生と話したくない ‘I don’t want to talk to teachers.’ Excerpt 18 Interview. N: Naiya; R: Researcher N: 先生は本当に違う世界から来ま した。なんか、そうですよね？ N: Teachers come from a different world. Isn’t that so? R: それは、先生という人？ 別に R: Do you mean teachers in general? 224 Not related to Japanese or Americans? 日本人、アメリカ人関係なく？ N: うん、先生。でも、特に日本語 の先生。どうしてでしょうね 。 N: No, teachers. But, Japanese language teachers in particular. I don’t know why. R: それは、じゃあ、グリーンビル の先生だけじゃなくて、南山で も、ウイリアムズさんの大学で も日本人の先生という意味？そ れとも、グリーンビルの日本語 の先生という意味？ R: Do you mean not only the Greenville teachers [the Japanese language teachers in the Japanese School] but also the teachers at Nanzan and your university? Or, you mean only the Greenville teachers? N: ああ、違うねぇ。南山の先生 は、その separation がだんだん消 えました。そして、授業の外で 先生と話せるようになりまし た。でも、グリーンビルでその 時間がありませんね、９週間だ けありますから。先生と仲がよ くなることは難しい、私にとっ て。私、本当に、友達になるこ とは、難しい、なりにくい。先 生は目上だから。目上だから、 あまり話したくない。先生は、 私を直せるから。そして、直す 時ちょっと恥ずかしくなります から、先生と話す時、会話じゃ なくてテスト、テストのような 気がします。だから、緊張して あまり先生と話したくない。 N: Oh, they are different. As for the Nanzan teachers, the separation gradually went away, and I was able to talk to teachers outside of class. But, at Greenville, we don’t have enough time. We have only nine weeks, so it’s difficult to become close to the teachers [in the Japanese School] for me. It’s really difficult to become friends. They are meue ‘social superiors.’ Because they are meue ‘social superiors,’ I don’t want to talk to them. Because the teachers can correct me, and when they correct me, I feel embarrassed. So, when I talk to teachers, I feel like I am having a test, not a conversation. So, I get nervous and don’t want to talk to them. 南山の時は、どんなことがきっ かで、separation がなくなってっ たの？ R: When you were at Nanzan, how did the separation go away? N: 先生は、人間らしいことをしま す。 N: Teachers did human things. R: (笑い) R: (Laugh) N: 例えば、間違えたり、冗談を言 ったり。冗談を言える先生、そ れは私にとって一番大事。 N: For example, they made mistakes and told jokes. Teachers who can tell jokes, that’s the most important thing for me. R: (08/04/2010) 225 Resistance Embarrassment ウルフパックみたい ‘Like a wolf pack,’ Naiya, one day, described a group of teachers with whom she had sat at dinner the day before. I stopped sipping Snapple lemon tea through a straw and tried to comprehend what Naiya had just said. I remembered seeing Naiya seated with a group of teachers in the dining hall. Naiya and Luke (level 2) were the only students at the table. I peeked at Naiya while I was having my meal. She sat there silently. She was not eating much. She laughed occasionally, which indicated that she was listening to other people’s talk. 私、食べられちゃうから （笑い）そんな気持ち。ずっと静かでした。それで、早く出ました ‘I would be eaten (laugh). I felt like that. I was quiet the whole time. Then, I left early,’ Naiya described her feelings afterwards. Her descriptions were always unique and vivid. The whole world was filtered through her lens and presented to me in various forms of reality. ウィルソン さんしかいない、学生は ‘Wilson [Luke’s last name]-san is [was] the only student,’ Naiya said and sighed. Excerpt 19 Interview. N: Naiya; R: Researcher あ、あと、もう一つひどい。昨 日、はい、昨日、晩ご飯の時、 たくさん先生と食べした。（日 本語を）間違えました。（笑 い）もう、そんなこと、もうこ れからしたくないよ、ほんと に。（テーブルにいた先生の名 前を挙げていく）ウィルソンさ んしかいない、学生は。(溜め 息) N: Oh, one more terrible thing. Yesterday, yes, yesterday, I ate with many teachers at dinner. I made mistakes [in Japanese] (laugh). I don’t want to do that from now on, really. (Naiya lists the names of the teachers who were seated at the table.) Wilson-san was the only student. (Sigh) R: どうしてそんなに先生と話すの が嫌なの？ R: Why do you dislike [feel unpleasant, or reluctant] talking to teachers? N: なんででしょうね。先生だか ら。(笑い) N: I don’t know why. Probably because they are teachers. (Laugh) R: (笑い) R: (Laugh) N: 226 N: (笑い) ほんとに。ほんとに話し たくない。特にグループの先 生。一人ずつ、多分できます が、グループの先生は wolf pack みたいね。ああー、私食べ られちゃうから（笑い）。そん な気持ち。ずっと静かでした。 それで、早く出ました。 N: (Laugh) Really. I really don’t want to talk [to teachers], especially a group of teachers. I probably can [talk to a teacher] individually but, a group of teachers look like a wolf pack. Ahh, I might be eaten (laugh). I felt like that. I was quiet the whole time. Then I left early. (07/01/2010) Naiya’s feeling 先生と話したくない ‘I don’t want to talk to teachers’ was one of the most difficult feelings for me to understand. No matter how hard I tried not to think like a teacher and look at things through my teacher’s eyes, I could not deny myself as a Japanese language teacher. I kept asking myself what made Naiya so reluctant to talk to teachers and tried to understand the world of Naiya. Another feeling that Naiya repeatedly addressed was her embarrassment when she talked to teachers. Naiya felt that the nature of the conversation would change when a teacher (or teachers) was (were) present. When only students were talking at a dining table, they could talk freely without worrying about the accuracy, structure, or the complexity of their language. In Naiya’s words, 内容だけが必要 ‘only content is necessary.’ When instructors were present in a conversation, however, they did not let the students invent words or use other linguistic shortcuts. They made sure that the students paid attention to the accuracy of their talk. They provided corrections on linguistic errors and signaled students’ language problems. To Naiya’s eyes, such a linguistic interaction was reflected as 会話じゃなくてテスト ‘a test rather than a conversation,’ which made Naiya nervous and not want to talk with the instructors. She explained: 私はよく、たくさん先生がいるテーブルに 座 ったら、ちょっと静かになりました。でも、 たくさん学生がいるテーブルに座ったら、も っと元気になります。他の学生が私の間違い がわからないとか、気にしないから、内容だ けが必要？ でも、先生だったら、文法と構成 と長さ、そんなことが（笑い）必要になっ て、すごく緊張して間違えます。 I often, if I was seated at the table with many teachers, I became quiet. But, if I am seated at the table with many students, I become more active. Other students do not notice or do not care about my mistakes. So, all I need is content. But, with teachers, I need grammar, structure, and length (laugh). So, I get very nervous and make mistakes. (Interview, 07/26/2010) 227 先生は、私を直せるから、そして、直す時、 ちょっと恥ずかしくなりますから、と話す 時、会話じゃなくてテスト、テストのような 気がします。だから、緊張してあまり先生と 話したくない。 Since teachers can correct me and I feel embarrassed, I feel like I am having a test rather than having conversation when I talk to teachers. So, I get nervous and don’t want to talk with the teachers much. (Interview, 08/04/2010) Correction is, in a sense, a unique and sensitive act. It is unique because it occurs in specific contexts. It is sensitive because it involves power. Correction often occurs when people are learning something new or are acquiring new skills or behaviors. Parents correct their children. Teachers correct their students. Whatever the relationship may be, it implies that the one who corrects possesses more power than the one who is corrected. Furthermore, corrections can be perceived differently—as an embarrassment, indignity, apprehension, encouragement, and learning opportunity, depending on various contextual and personal factors. Naiya took the teachers’ corrections as a source of embarrassment. Being corrected is, more or less, embarrassing to anyone because it involves the denial of the behavior or the language that the person has performed or used. It communicates that the person’s behavior or language is wrong, which probably hits anyone’s feeling to some degree even though the power relation between the one who is correcting and the one who is being corrected is as clear as a teacher–student relationship. Correction can occur not only in a teacher–student relationship but also in a student–student relationship. There are, again, individual differences among students with respect to how they perceive peer-initiated corrections. Some students are more open to peer corrections and some are less, and, of course, the openness would vary depending on contextual factors as well. Naiya views peer corrections negatively. 先生になる人がいる ‘There are students who become a teacher,’ Naiya said. She continued: 時々それ [間違いを直すこと] は、ほんとに役 に立つからいいと思いますが、時々、声はち ょっと（笑い）、そんな、ええと、言葉は何 ですか、condescending、「私はあなたよりい い」という声のトーンで直して、嫌な感じ。 私はみんな日本語を勉強しますから、みんな Sometimes it [correcting mistakes] is really useful, so I think it’s good, but sometimes the voice is a little (laugh), that, well, what’s the word, condescending. They [people who become a teacher] correct with the “I am better than you” type of tone, and I feel 228 は同じだと思います。 displeased/annoyed. I think everyone is the same because we all study Japanese. (Interview, 07/01/2010) 私は人間よ (笑い) 日本人じゃない。もちろん間違いがある ‘I’m a human being (laugh), [I’m] not a Japanese. I, of course, make mistakes’ and 先生じゃないよ。みんな 同じ。そして、間違いがあってもわかるでしょ ‘[We are] not teachers. Everyone is the same, and we understand each other even though there is a mistake,’ Naiya added. No matter how willing or unwilling one is to accept peer corrections, the power structure of the relationship between the provider and the receiver of the correction does not change. In other words, peer correction creates a temporary power imbalance between the students. In Naiya’s mind, the students were みんな同じ ‘everyone is the same.’ Naiya perceived peer-initiated corrections negatively because she believed that the students were all equal; therefore, no student should be in a position to correct the others. That was the teachers’ job. 間違いがあってもわかるでしょ ‘We understand each other even though there is a mistake.’ Don’t act like you are better than others. We are all equal. Don’t be a sensei ‘teacher.’ These were the messages that I heard in Naiya’s voice. Silence Another phenomenon that puzzled me was Naiya’ silence in conversation—more precisely, her silence in conversation when one or more teachers were present. I illustrate Naiya’s different interaction patterns with the following seven excerpts (excerpts 20–26). The first three excerpts (excerpts 20–22) show Naiya’s interaction with other students in the dining hall. Naiya was initially seated with Jen (level 3), Yan (level 4), Alice (level 4), and Kevin (level 2). Latasia (level 3) and Scott (level 2) joined the table later. No instructor was present in this conversation. Yan and Alice were Naiya’s classmates. Latasia was Naiya’s closest friend at Greenville. They came to Greenville from the same university and stayed close while they were at Greenville. Scott was also Naiya’s friend, whom she had met at Greenville. 229 The conversation starts with Naiya’s question whether her peers are going to continue studying Japanese after Greenville (excerpt 20). In line 1, Naiya initiates a question and asks Kevin if he is going to continue studying Japanese after Greenville. Naiya was probably surprised, in an earlier conversation, to learn that her close friend, Scott, would not continue studying Japanese after Greenville. After this unexpected discovery, Naiya tries to find out whether other students are going to continue studying Japanese after Greenville. Kevin answers no. He states that he came to Greenville to fulfill a language requirement (line 6). In line 8, Jen joins the conversation and expresses her surprise at Kevin’s answer. After hearing Kevin say Japanese is not his 一番好きなも の ‘most favorite thing,’ Naiya pretends to cry to express her sadness perhaps to learn that Kevin does not have the same passion for studying Japanese as Naiya does. In turn 17, Naiya directs the same question to Alice. This time, Naiya expresses her joy in finding a person who plans to continue studying Japanese after Greenville. In line 20, Alice expresses her negative opinion about not continuing studying Japanese after Greenville. In the following turn, Naiya agrees with Alice and elaborates on her statement by saying, せっかくグリーンビルに来ましたから、続ける ‘Since we made a lot of efforts to come to Greenville [to study Japanese], we will continue [studying Japanese].’ She uses the adverb sekkaku to express her feeling that she has made a lot of effort (e.g., spending her time, money, and energy) to come to Greenville to study Japanese, so she does not want to waste it. When she pronounces the word sekkaku, Naiya emphasizes it. By placing an emphasis and adding exaggeration, Naiya is possibly trying to mitigate the potential negative pragmatic force of her utterance. Alice’s comment can be taken as a criticism or a disapproval of Kevin’s decision of not to continue studying Japanese after Greenville. By emphasizing and exaggerating her expression, however, Naiya manages to make her utterance sound more like sarcasm rather than criticism or disapproval. 230 Excerpt 20 Lunch conversation. N: Naiya; K: Kevin (level 2); JN: Jen (level 3); A: Alice (level 4); L: Latasia (level 3) 1 N: グリーンビルが終わって、 日本語を続けますか？ 1 N: Will you continue studying Japanese after Greenville is over? 2 K: (発話なし) 2 K: (No verbal response) 3 N: は（息をのむ）、スコット さんと同じ？ 3 4 K: [私は 4 K: [I 5 N: [続けない？ 5 N: [You won’t continue? 6 K: 私は、language requirement を、終わりたいのでここに 来ました。 6 K: I I came here because I want to finish my language requirement. 7 N: [Oh, ほんとう？ 7 N: [Oh, really? 8 JN: [それだけ？ 8 JN: [That’s it? 9 K: はい 9 K: Yes 10 N: ええ（予想外の答えに驚い ている） 10 N: Eeh [Expression of surprise or disagreement] 11 JN: どうして日本語？ 好きだ から？ 11 JN: Why Japanese? Because you like it? 12 K: 今わかりません。(笑い) 12 K: Now I don’t know. (Laugh). 13 N: (笑い) 13 N: (Laugh) 14 K: おもしろい、でも、私の一 番好きなものじゃない。 14 K: It’s interesting, but it’s not my most favorite thing. 15 N: (泣くまね) 15 N: (Pretending to cry) 16 JN: 悲しいですね。 16 JN: It’s sad. 17 N: だれも、アリスさん？ 17 N: No one, Alice-san? 18 A: もちろん 18 A: Of course 19 N: わあ!（笑い） やった!（笑 い） 19 N: Wow! (Laugh), Yeah! (Laugh) 20 A: どうして、グリーンビルに 来て、続けないのかわかり ません 20 A: I don’t understand why you [or people in general] won’t continue after coming to Greenville 21 N: ん、そうですね、せっかく （強調）、ねぇ。せっかく グリーンビルに来ましたか ら、続ける、いいね。 21 N: Yes, that’s right. Since we made a lot a lot of effort (emphasis) to come to Greenville, we will continue. That’s good. Ha (gasping) same as Scottsan? 231 (JN and Yan start talking. N, A, and K remain silent. Latasia joins the table.) (JN と Yan が話しはじめ る。N, A, K は黙ったま ま。Latasia がテーブルに加 わる） (07/30/2010) After Naiya’s comment, the conversation moves away from the topic of whether students will continue to study Japanese after Greenville or not (excerpt 21). However, in line 27, Kevin re-opens the topic and asks Naiya, 日本語を続くつもりですか ‘Do you plan to continue Japanese?’ Kevin used the verb tsuzuku ‘to continue’ in his question. However, tsuzuku is a wrong verb choice. Tsuzuku is an intransitive verb. Kevin should have used a transitive verb, tsuzukeru ‘to continue.’ When Naiya asked the same question earlier in line 1, she used the transitive verb, tsuzukeru. Considering the level of her Japanese language proficiency, it is likely that she noticed Kevin’s wrong verb choice. However, she does not say anything about his verb choice and continues the conversation. She answers that she will continue studying Japanese because it is her major. In the following line, Kevin initiates another question. This time, he asks about her future job plans. After a 5-second pause, Naiya answers that she doesn’t know. In the following turn, Alice joins in the conversation and starts talking about her experience of being asked a similar question. The conversation ends with Naiya’s comment that it is fun to study Japanese, but she is not sure if she will use much Japanese in the future (line 37). Excerpt 21 Lunch conversation (cont.). N: Naiya; L: Latasia; K: Kevin; A: Alice xxx? You, really, don’t come to the dining hall at all. 22 N: xxx? あなた、ほんと、全 然、晩ご飯に来ません。 22 N: 23 L: え、え、え？ 23 L: Ha, ha, ha? 24 N: 全然晩ごはんを食べません ね？ 24 N: You don’t eat meals, do you? 25 L: 金曜日と、もく（木曜日と 言いかける)、土曜日と、月 曜日だけ。 25 L: Friday, Thr (starting to say “Thursday”), Saturday, and Monday only. 26 N: Oh, Oh, xxx 26 N: Oh, Oh, xxx 232 (2 seconds) (Yan starts talking to JN.) (２秒) (Yan が JN に話しかける) 27 K: 日本語を続くつもりです か？ 27 K: Are you planning on continuing [wrong verb choice] studying Japanese? 28 N: はい、もちろん。まあ、専 攻。(笑い) 28 N: Yes, of course. Well, it’s my major. (Laugh) 29 K: わかります。 29 K: I see. (4 seconds) (Y and JN are still talking.) (４秒)（Yan と JN はまだ話 し続けている） 30 K: どんな仕事ほしいですか？ 30 K: What kind of job do you want? (5 seconds) (５秒) 31 N: よくわかりません。 31 N: I don’t know. 32 A: 私と同じです。 32 A: The same as me. 33 N: ねえ（A に同意） 33 N: Ne (N agrees with A.) 34 A: 私も日本語を専攻してい て、ええと、人々は、何の 仕事がほしいですか。 34 A: I am majoring in Japanese, too, and (filler) people [ask] me what kind of job I want. 35 N: ねえ [いつも私 35 N: Ne (agreement) [I always 36 A: 36 A: [日本語は楽しいです。 fun. 37 N: ねえ。楽しいだから、専攻 しています。でも、なん か、将来に日本語がある か？ さぁ。(笑い) 今、おも しろい。 37 N: [Japanese is Ne (agreement) because it’s fun, that’s why we are majoring. But, uhm, do I have Japanese in the future? I don’t know. (Laugh) It’s fun now. (07/30/2010) About six minutes later, Naiya, Latasia, and Scott start to talk (excerpt 22). Latasia initiates a new topic by saying 今日の鳥肉はとても juicy ‘today’s chicken is very juicy.’ From line 39 through line 43, Latasia and Naiya express their pleasant surprise about the chicken. In lines 42 and 44, Scott shows disagreement. His tone of voice in line 44 clearly indicates disagreement with Latasia and Naiya. In line 45, Naiya catches Scott’s cynical tone and asks the reason for his disagreement. Scott is a vegetarian. Latasia knows that Scott is a vegetarian but Naiya does not. In fact, Naiya thinks that she has seen Scott eat chicken before. Latasia and Scott say that it was tofu wrap that Naiya saw. Naiya is, however, still suspicious and tells Scott not to lie (line 57). From line 60 233 through line 63, Naiya, who is still not completely convinced that Scott is a vegetarian, tries to have Scott eat meat. However, Scott’s persistent rejection of eating meat finally convinces Naiya that he is a vegetarian (line 66). The conversation moves away from the topic of Scott’s vegetarianism, and Naiya starts talking to Latasia and Jen about other things. Seven minutes later, Naiya re-opens the topic of Scott being a vegetarian and asks him, 魚も食べられない？ ‘You cannot eat fish, either?’ in line 67. After learning that Scott has been a vegetarian since he was 13 years old, Naiya tells Scott that he is not following a fad, mixing the English word “fad” in her statement. Naiya expresses her negative opinion about those who temporarily become vegetarian. In line 76, Naiya initiates another question and asks Scott if he was all right when he was in China. Scott’s answer overlaps with Latasia’s comment that there is a lot of tofu in China. After hearing the word tofu, Naiya expresses her dislike of tofu because tofu has no taste. In line 80, Scott tries to explain probably something like tofu itself has no taste but tofu becomes flavorful when it is mixed with other ingredients and seasonings. However, after he states 豆腐だけ味がない、でも、豆腐と、豆腐と ‘tofu itself has no taste, but tofu with, tofu with,’ he encounters difficulty expressing in Japanese what he wants to say. In the following line, Latasia provides help for Scott by using the English word absorb. Excerpt 22 Lunch conversation (cont.). L: Latasia; N: Naiya; S: Scott (level 2) 38 L: 今日の鳥肉はとても juicy。 38 L: Today’s chicken is very juicy. 39 N: ねえ。 39 N: It is. 40 L: はい 40 L: Yes 41 N: びっくりしました。 41 N: I’m surprised. 42 S: そうですか？ 42 S: [Is that so? 43 L: [わたしも 43 L: [Me too 44 S: そうですか？ （皮肉的なト ーン） 44 S: Is that so? (Cynical tone of voice) 234 45 N: え、どうして？ （笑い） 「そうですか？」（N は S の口調をまねる）(笑い) 45 N: Eh? Why? (Laugh) “Is that so?” (N is imitating S’s tone of voice) (laugh) 46 L: ベジタリアンね？ 46 L: You are vegetarian, aren’t you? 47 N: Oh、ベジタリアン？ 47 N: Oh, you are vegetarian? 48 S: うん 48 S: Yes 49 N: ほんと？ 49 N: Really? 50 S: はいはいはい 50 S: Yes yes yes 51 N: チキンを食べましたね？ 51 N: You ate chicken [before], didn’t you? 52 L: 肉を食べません。(笑い) 52 L: He doesn’t eat meat. (Laugh) 53 N: ほんと 53 N: Really 54 N: でも、私はスコットさんが 肉を食べたことを、見る気 がします。 54 N: But, I think I have seen Scott-san eat meat. 55 L: たぶん、とうふ wrap 55 L: Probably, tofu wrap 56 S: はい、とうふ wrap 56 S: Yes, tofu wrap 57 N: うそをつかないでよお、大 丈夫。 57 N: Don’t lie. It’s okay. 58 S: 大丈夫です。xxx 58 S: I’m all right. xxx 59 L: (笑い) 59 L: (Laugh) 60 N: 肉はいい！ 60 N: Meat is good! 61 S: うそです。 61 S: That’s a lie. 62 L: 肉が大好きね。(笑い) 62 L: You like meat. (Laugh) 63 N: 肉はいいよ。ほんとに？ 食 べてみたくない？ 63 N: Meat is good, you know. Really? Don’t you want to try? 64 S: ほんと、ほんと 64 S: Really, really. 65 N: ほんと？ 65 N: Really? 66 S: はい 66 S: Yes (Naiya starts talking to Latasia and Jen.) (7 minutes) (Naiya は Latasia と Jen に何 か話しはじめる) (7 分) 67 N: あ、魚も食べられない？ 67 N: Oh, you can’t eat fish, either? 68 S: (発話なし) 68 S: (No verbal response) 69 N: いつから？ 69 N: Since when? 70 S: あの、１３歳 70 S: Uhm, 13 years old 71 N: ああ、じゃあ、fad じゃい ない。 71 N: Oh, then you are not following a fad. 235 72 L: Fad じゃない 72 L: Not a fad 73 N: No、ん、みんなはちょっと なんか、fad。 73 N: No, um, everyone is like, fad. 74 L: 私も[１週だけ 74 L: I was too. [Only for a week 75 S: [１３歳の時にベジタリ アンになりました、あの、 75 S: [I became a vegetarian when I was 13, uhm, 76 N: 中国に行った時、大丈夫で した？ 76 N: Were you all right when you went to China? 77 S: [大丈夫でした 77 S: I was all right. 78 L: [たくさん豆腐がある 78 L: There is a lot of tofu 79 N: 豆腐、わ（嫌いという口 調）味がない 79 80 S: はい、豆腐だけ味がない、 でも、豆腐と、豆腐と 80 S: Yes, tofu only has no taste, but tofu with, tofu with 81 L: Absorbs ね？ 81 L: Absorbs, right? 82 S: Absorbs、はい 82 S: Absorbs, yes Tofu, woo (negative tone), no taste (07/30/2010) In the excerpts above (excerpts 20–22), Naiya engaged in various conversational activities with the other participants. She initiated a topic of conversation, asked and answered questions, expressed her likes and dislikes, stated her opinions, tried to be humorous, and mitigated the pragmatic force of her utterances. Although Naiya took more turns than the other participants in the conversation, she never dominated the conversation. Rather, Naiya and the other students mutually engaged in the construction of talk. The following four excerpts (excerpts 23–26) show Naiya’s participation in conversation when an instructor is present. The four experts are taken from two lunch conversations. In excerpts 23 and 24, Naiya is seated with Mark (level 4), Brian (level 2), and an instructor (level 3). Mark is Naiya’s classmate. Brian is a level 2 student. A few minutes later, the Instructional Technology (IT) course instructor joins the table. Before this excerpt, Mark and the instructor were talking about the food rules of Orthodox 236 Judaism. Mike practices Orthodox Judaism and was explaining the rules of kosher food to the instructor. In the 6-second silence after the conversation between Mark and the instructor was finished, Brian joins the table (excerpt 23). In line 5, after another 6-second silence, the instructor initiates a new topic by saying あとちょっとですね、おつかれさまでした ‘We are almost there. Good work.’ Naiya responds to the instructor’s statement by showing agreement. She says, うん、ね ‘Yes, we are.’ うん ‘un’ is an informal expression of hai ‘yes.’ ね ‘ne’ is a sentence-final particle that has various functions. In this case, Naiya is expressing agreement or shared understanding that the program is getting close to the end. Considering that Naiya is speaking to an instructor, however, hai, so desu ne ‘yes, we are’ with an addressee honorific would be the pragmatically appropriate answer. Nevertheless, the instructor does not correct Naiya’s pragmatic error. From line 11 through line 17, the instructor tries to find out the name of the head instructor of the course in which Brian is studying. After confirming that the head instructor of the course is Sato-sensei, the instructor starts asking Brian about what he (his class) is going to perform at the upcoming talent show (lines 17–25). Brian tells the instructor that they are going to sing a song. In line 29, the instructor directs the same question to Naiya and Mark. The instructor knew from Mark’s response that Naiya and Mark were classmates. After a 2-second pause, Mark starts explaining what the level 4 students are going to perform (lines 31–34) at the talent show. In line 35, the IT course instructor joins the table. Excerpt 23 Lunch conversation. N: Naiya; M: Mark (level 4); B: Brian; I: Instructor; IT: IT instructor 1 I: あら、こんにちは 1 I: Ah, hello 2 B: こんにちは（B がテーブル に加わる） 2 B: Hello (B joins the table) (６秒) (6 seconds) 237 3 I: ウイリアムズさん（N の苗 字）とクラスメートです か？ 3 I: Are you classmates with Williams [N’s last name]san? 4 N: うん 4 N: Yes (6 seconds) (６秒) 5 I: あとちょっとですね。 5 I: We are almost there. [Good work [おつかれさまでした 6 N: [うん、ね 6 N: [Yes, we are 7 M: あとちょっとですけど、ま あ 7 M: We are almost there, but well 8 I: けど、これからがもっと大 変ですね。 8 I: But, it is going to be harder from now on. 9 M: そうですね。 9 M: That’s right. (２秒) 10 10 (2 seconds) 11 I: ウィルソンさん[B の苗字] は、さとう先生[head instructor of level 2]の学生で すか？ 11 I: Wilson [B’s last name]-san, are you Sato-sensei’s [head instructor of level 2] student? 12 B: (発話なし) 12 B: (No verbal response) 13 I: クラスメートですか？（N と M をさしているよう） 13 I: Are you classmates? (T is seemingly pointing at N and M.) 14 B: いいえ 14 B: No 15 I: 先生は？ 15 I: [Who is] your teacher? 16 B: あ、さとう先生 16 B: Oh, Sato-sensei 17 I: さとう先生。学芸会は何を しますか？ 17 I: Sato-sensei. What will you do at the talent show? 18 B: ああ、「るるる」という歌 です。 18 B: Uhm, the song called Ru Ru Ru. 19 I: ん？ 19 I: N? 20 B: るるる 20 B: Ru Ru Ru 21 I: ああ 21 I: Oh 22 B: [という 22 B: [called 23 I: [「るるる」という歌、いい ですね。 23 I: [song called Ru Ru Ru. That’s good. 24 B: [そうですね。 24 B: That is so. 25 I: [いいですね。 25 I: That’s good. (2 seconds) (２秒) 26 I: もう練習できました？ 26 I: Have you practiced it? 27 B: 昨日の晩、xxx 27 B: Last night, xxx 238 28 I: xxx 28 I: (2 seconds) (２秒) 29 I: 何をするんですか？（N と M に向かって） 29 (２秒) 30 M: まあ、あの、テレビの番組 のスキット 31 32 I: ああ、そうなんですか。へ ぇ（短いポーズ）あれです か、「あるあるある」です か？ 33 M: 34 30 xxx I: What will you do? (talking to N and M) (2 seconds) M: Well, uhm, a skit of a TV program 32 I: Oh, is that so. Wow (a short pause) Is that it, Aru Aru Aru? そう、あ、そういうことで す。グリーンビルについ て、おもしろいトリビアを 見せるつもりです。 33 M: Yes, that’s right. We are planning on showing funny trivia about Greenville. I: ああ、そうなんですか。へ ぇ。あ、こんにちは 34 I: Oh, is that so. Wow. Ah, hello 35 IT: ここ空いてますか？ いいで すか？ 35 IT: Is this open? May I? 36 I: あ、どうぞ、どうぞ 36 I: Ah, please, please 37 IT: こんにちは 37 IT: Hello 38 N: こんにちは 38 N: Hello 31 ! ! (07/29/2010) After a 12-second silence, the instructor initiates another topic (excerpt 24). This time, she asks, ７週間で一番楽しかったことは何ですか？ ‘What was the most fun thing during the past seven weeks?’ and directs the question to Brian (line 39). Brian does not understand at first and asks the instructor to repeat the question. The instructor’s question, ７週間で一番楽しかったことは何ですか？ ‘What was the most fun thing during the past seven weeks?’ is not an easy question to answer, although the sentence structure is simple, because it requires an addressee to reflect on the past seven weeks, recall the events and experiences, and decide which event/experience has been the most fun. Brian’s initial answer is わかりません ‘I don’t know,’ and then he names the karaoke party that took place a week before. In line 50, the instructor asks the same question to Naiya. Naiya immediately answers, 祭の、なが、流しそうめん ‘flow, flowing Japanese noodle at the 239 [summer] festival,’ which took place at the end of the fourth week. In line 55, the instructor asks the same question to the IT instructor. Since the question is addressed to him shortly after he has returned to the table (from the food section), and also, since he has spent only two weeks at Greenville (he arrived at the end of the fifth week), he is not able to answer the instructor’s question on the spot. After asking three people (Brian, Naiya, and the IT instructor) the same question, this time the instructor (line 60) tells Brian to ask the same question to Masuda-sensei, another instructor (who has probably joined the table afterwards). In line 61, Brian asks the question to Masuda-sensei. Excerpt 24 Lunch conversation (cont.). I: Instructor; B: Brian; N: Naiya; IT: IT instructor 39 I: 今日クラスで話したんです けど、７週間で一番楽しか ったことは何ですか？ 39 I: I talked about this in class today. What is the most fun thing during the past seven weeks? 40 B: すみません、もう一度お願 いします。 40 B: Excuse me, one more time, please. 41 I: グリーンビルに来てから、 今まで、今日まで？ 41 I: Since you came to Greenville, so far, until today? 42 B: あ、そうそう 42 B: Oh, right right 43 I: 一番楽しかったことは 43 I: The most fun thing 44 B: わかりません。 44 B: I don’t know. (2 seconds) (２秒) 45 B: イベント？ 45 B: Event? 46 I: イベントでもいいですよ、 Maclean のお昼ごはんでも いいですよ。(笑い) 46 I: Events are fine. Lunch at Maclean is fine. (Laugh) 47 B: ああ、たぶん、カラオケパ ーティー 47 B: Ah, probably, Karaoke party 48 I: カラオケパーティー、あ あ、そうなんですか。 48 I: Karaoke party, oh, is that so. 49 B: 49 B: I think. 50 I: ウイリアムズさんは？ 50 I: How about you, Williams [N’s last name]-san? N: 祭の、なが、流しそうめん 51 N: Naga, nagashi somen [flowing Japanese wheat noodle] at the [summer] 51 ! だと思います。 ! 240 festival 52 I: 流しそうめん？ 52 I: Nagashi somen? 53 N: はい、それは楽しかった。 53 N: Yes, that was fun. (2 seconds) (２秒) 54 IT: いただきまあす（IT は食 べ物をとって、テーブルに 戻ってきたよう） 54 IT: Itadakimasu [an expression before having a meal] [IT is back at the table.] 55 I: グリーンビルに来て、今ま でで、一番楽しかったこと は何ですか。今年の夏、一 番楽しかったこと 55 I: What has been the most fun thing so far since you came to Greenville? This summer, the most fun thing 56 IT: 今までで、笑い、一番、楽 しかったこと？ 56 IT: So far, (laugh) the most fun thing? (5 seconds) (５秒) 57 IT: 何でしょうね。(短い沈黙) (笑い) あ、でも、この食堂 で、朝、ソーセージとかあ るのは、楽しかったという か、うれしかったですね。 57 IT: I wonder what that is (short pause) (laugh) Oh, in the dining hall, when there were sausages in the morning, I had fun, or rather, I was happy. 58 I: (笑い) しぶいですね 58 I: (Laugh) Interesting 59 IT: なかなか台湾にはないんで すよ。だから、ちょっとう れしかった。 59 IT: It’s hard to find morning sausages in Taiwan. So, I was glad. 60 I: なるほどね。じゃあ、ウィ ルソンさん、増田先生に聞 いてください。 60 I: I see. Then Wilson[B’s last name]-san, please ask Masuda-sensei. 61 B: あ、あん、ああ、あ、グリ ーンビルで、今で、今まで で、一番、好きな、イベン トは何ですか？ 61 B: Uh, uhn, uh, oh, at Greenville, since, so far, what is your favorite event? (07/29/2010) In excerpts 23 and 24, the instructor is playing a dominant role by initiating topics of conversation, asking questions, and assigning who answers which question when. Consequently, the interaction was limited to two people—the instructor and the person to whom the instructor addressed the question. Moreover, the structure of the conversation became similar to that of a chain drill, which is an instructional technique often used in beginning-level foreign language classrooms. The teacher first initiates a question and calls on a few students in turn to answer the question. After the teacher makes sure that 241 students understand the meaning of the question, the teacher calls on another student and has the student reconstruct the question just as the instructor in this excerpt told Brian to do in line 68. In order for learners to reconstruct a sentence, they need to draw their attention to linguistic structure of the sentence as well as its meaning. It is sometimes the case that learners are able to comprehend a question but are not able to reconstruct the question that they just heard. Thus, by having students reconstruct the sentence after meaning-focused practice, the teacher creates an opportunity for students to draw their attention to syntactical structure of the sentence. Naiya, in these excerpts, kept minimal engagement in conversation. She was probably carefully listening to and observing what was happening at the table and participated in the conversation only when it was necessary. For example, when the instructor directed a question to Naiya in line 50 and asked, ウイリアムズさんは？ ‘How about you, Williams [Naiya’s last name]-san?,’ Naiya immediately answered, 祭の、なが、 流しそうめん ‘flow, flowing Japanese noodle at the [summer] festival’ without any pause or filler. In order for Naiya to answer the instructor’s question and name the most fun activity during the past seven weeks, she needed to listen to the conversation and prepare her answer in case the instructor called on her. Naiya, except on this occasion, remained silent even when she had opportunities to speak. For example, in line 29, when the instructor asked Mark and Naiya about the level 4 students’ plan for the upcoming talent show, Naiya remained silent. The 2-second pause (between lines 29 and 31) following the instructor’s question seems to indicate that Mark and Naiya were silently negotiating who would answer the question. With regard to Japanese language ability, Naiya was no less proficient than Mark. She was capable of explaining what the level 4 students were planning to do for the upcoming talent show. However, Naiya chose to remain silent and did not say a word while Mark was explaining to the instructor. 242 The following excerpts (excerpt 25 and 26) also show Naiya’s minimal engagement in conversation when an instructor is present. In these excerpts, Naiya is seated with Nick (level 4), Emma (level 4), Scott (level 2), and an instructor (level 2). Nick is Naiya’s classmate. Scott is a level 2 student and one of Naiya’s close friends at Greenville. They all know each other well. At the beginning, Nick and the instructor were taking about food. After a 14-second silence, Emma comments on Scott’s nails (excerpt 25). Nicole (Smith-san), Scott’s classmate, had painted his fingernails in red. In line 2, the instructor expresses her surprise and asks Scott, どうしたんですか ‘What happened?’ It is not very common that a male student has a red manicure. Scott responds to Emma and the instructor and says, スミスさん、しました ‘Smith-san did it’ (line 3) and selfcorrects his utterance and, this time, says, スミスさんに、させられました ‘I was made/forced to do it by Smith-san,’ using a causative-passive form (line 5). His second utterance (line 5) is, however, not true. It was not Scott who painted his own nails. It was Nicole (Smith-san). In line 7, the instructor provides corrective feedback by saying, 「さ せられました」は、スコットさんがしました ‘Saseraremashita [causative-passive form of ‘do’] means you did it.’ Scott notices that he needs to reformulate the form. From line 10 through line 16, the instructor and Scott engage in a reformulation process. In line 16, with the scaffolding of the instructor, Scott is finally able to reformulate the form. In the following turn, the instructor provides a metalinguistic comment to reinforce Scott’s understanding. In the next turn, Scott confirms his understanding. Excerpt 25 Lunch conversation. N: Naiya; NK: Nick; S: Scott; I: Instructor 1 NK: スコットさんの爪が好きで す。爪が好きです。 1 NK: I like your nails, Scott-san. I like your nails. 2 I: お、どうしたんですか？ 2 I: Oh, what happened? 3 S: スミスさん、しました。 3 S: Smith-san [level 2 student] did it. 4 I: ああ、そうですか。 4 I: Oh, is that so. 243 5 S: 私は、スミス、スミスさん に、させられました。 5 S: I was forced/made to do it by Smith, Smith-san. 6 NK: 私もきれいな爪ほしい。 6 NK: I want pretty nails, too. I: 「させられました」は、ス コットさんがしました。 7 I: Saseraremashira [causativepassive form] means you did it. 8 S: スミスさんしました。あの 8 S: Smith-san did it. Uhm 9 I: うん、じゃあ 9 I: Yes, then 10 S: 私は、スミスさんに 10 S: I, by Smith-san 11 I: うんうんうん 11 I: Yes yes yes 12 S: さ、せられ 12 S: Sa, serare [causative-passive form] I: されました 13 ! I: Saremashita [passive form] S: Oh, さ、させられました 14 S: Oh, sa, saseraremashita [causative-passive form] I: されました 15 ! I: Saremashita [passive form] S: されました、Oh、されまし た 16 S: Saremashita [passive form], oh, Saremashita [passive form] I: Passive.「させられました」 は causative-passive だから 17 ! I: Passive. Saseraremashira [causative-passive form] is causative passive, so 18 S: Oh、はいはいはいはいはい 18 S: Oh, yes yes yes yes yes 19 NK: ニックもきれいなつめほし いの。 19 NK: I want pretty nails too. 20 I: (笑い) じゃあ、スミスさん にお願いしたら、どうです か？ 20 I: 7 13 ! ! 14 15 ! 16 17 ! ! (Laugh) Then why don’t you ask Smith-san? (NK and T are looking around the dining hall and trying to find Smith) (08/03/2010) The topic of the conversation moves to Nick, who said that he wanted to get his nails painted like Scott’s. However, in line 21 (excerpt 26), the instructor redirects the topic of conversation back to Scott by asking, 嫌でしたか ‘Were you annoyed?’ This move can be considered an initiation of providing more corrective feedback. Since Scott used passive form in his reformulation (line 37), the meaning of the sentence implies that he was annoyed by Nicole’s (Smith-san’s) action of painting his nails in red. However, Scott’s attitude probably does not indicate annoyance. Thus, it is likely that the instructor 244 asked the question (line 21) in order to confirm Scott’s intended meaning. In line 28, Scott says that he likes the manicure. As the instructor thought, Scott did not mean that he was annoyed by Nicole’s (Smith-san’s) action of painting his nails in red. He actually liked it. In the following turn, the instructor recasts the sentence, using another form (a receiving verb) to indicate the speaker’s favorable attitude or appreciation toward a third person’s action. It is uncertain whether Scott noticed the instructor’s corrective intent. He continues to focus on the meaning (he likes his manicure) and starts talking about his feelings. He tries to explain that his self-esteem increased, and he now feels like Beyoncé. Naiya starts laughing as soon as she hears Scott say 私の self-esteem ‘my selfesteem’ (line 30). Scott finishes his sentence with the instructor’s help (line 35). Naiya starts laughing again when Scott says that he feels like Beyoncé. Excerpt 26 Lunch conversation (cont.). I: Instructor; S: Scott; N: Naiya 21 I: え、嫌でしたか？ 嫌でし たか？ 21 I: Were you annoyed? Were you annoyed? 22 S: いやです 22 S: Annoyed 23 I: うん、迷惑でしたか？ 23 I: Yes, was it annoying? 24 S: Oh、私にとって、あの 24 S: Oh, for me, uhm (2 seconds) this is Smith-san’s idea. (２秒) これはスミスさんの 考え。 25 I: スミスさんの考えですか？ 25 I: Smith-san’s idea? 26 S: はい 26 S: Yes 27 I: じゃあ、でも、スコットさ んはどうですか？ 27 I: Then, but, how about you? 28 S: あのう、好きです。 28 S: Uhm, I like it. I: じゃあ「されました」じゃ なくて「してもらいまし た」ですね。 29 ! I: Then it’s not saremashita [passive form] but shitemoraimashita [an expression of appreciation]. 30 S: はい、好きです。(２秒) 私 の self-esteem 30 S: Yes, I like it. (2 seconds) My self-esteem 31 N: (笑い) 31 N: (Laugh) 32 S: (ジェスチャー？) 32 S: (Gesture?) 29 ! 245 33 N: わあ（笑い） 33 N: Wow (laugh) 34 I: (笑い) 34 I: (Laugh) 35 S: あの xxx 35 S: Uhm xxx 36 N: Oh oh（笑い） 36 N: Oh oh (laugh) 37 I: あがりました？ 37 I: Went up? 38 S: あがりました 38 S: Went up 39 I: 高くなりました？ 39 I: Became higher? 40 N: (笑い) いいですね。 40 N: (Laugh) That’s good. 41 S: 今、私はビヤンセの気持ち があります。 41 S: I now feel like Beyoncé. 42 N: ビヤンセ？ （笑い） 42 N: Beyoncé? (Laugh) 43 I: (笑い) とてもきれいです 43 I: (Laugh) Very pretty 44 S: 好きだったら、あの、指輪 [指？] 44 S: If you like, uhm, ring (He probably meant fingers) 45 N: あ、あ、あ（笑い）あ、そ うそうそう 45 N: Ah, ah, ah, (laugh) ah, that’s so so so. 46 I: あれ、でも、スミスさんは していませんね。 46 I: But, Smith-san is not wearing [manicure]. (2 seconds) (２秒) 47 I: 自分はしてないの？ 47 I: Isn’t she wearing [manicure] for herself? (08/03/2010) In excerpts 25 and 26, the instructor is engaging in incidental focus-on-form. She provides various forms of corrective feedback and tries to draw the students’ attention to form while also having them engage in real communication. For example, the instructor draws the student’s attention to the possible incorrect use of an inference morpheme (line 7). She provides recasts (lines 13 and 15). She also draws the student’s attention to the difference between passive and causative-passive forms (line 17). Finally, she corrects the erroneous use of passive form (line 29). All feedback except the last one resulted in subsequent modification by the student. Furthermore, the instructor provides scaffolding for the student. From line 12 through line 17, Scott notices his incorrect use of causativepassive form and tries to reformulate it as a passive form. However, he has trouble with 246 the reformulation. The instructor persistently provides recasts along with encouragement to Scott until he is finally able to reformulate the correct form by himself. In this conversation, Naiya did not say a word until line 31. In parallel with the conversation between Scott and the instructor, another conversation was taking place among Nick, Emma, and Alex (a level 2 student who joined the table later). Naiya, however, did not join their conversation and just listened to the conversation that took place between Scott and the instructor. Considering Naiya’s language proficiency, she probably understood everything that was going on between Scott and the instructor— Scott being corrected on his mistakes and the instructor correcting his mistakes. Nick, who noticed Naiya’s silence, later told Naiya, ウイリアムズさん、今まで何も言わなかっ たよ。言葉一つも言わなかったよ ‘Williams [Naiya’s last name]-san, you didn’t say [haven’t said] anything, not even a word.’ As listening to Nick’s comment, Naiya started to laugh. Then Nick went on, それは私の知ってるウイリアムズさんです ‘That’s the Williams-san I know.’ I initially hypothesized that Naiya might be resisting the power that the teachers possessed over the students. Using Bourdieu’s (1991) metaphors, teachers possessed various kinds of social and cultural capital, including linguistic abilities, knowledge, experiences, social status, and so forth. At Greenville, the teachers not only possessed such symbolic power but also were officially granted the right to exercise it for the purpose of L2 teaching and to promote students’ learning. The following excerpt (excerpt 27), however, caused me to reconsider and ultimately change my hypothesis. The excerpt is taken from a dinner conversation. Naiya was seated with the director of the Japanese School, Luke (level 2), Sunny (level 2), and the instructor of the instructional technology (IT) course. Before this excerpt, the director, Sunny, and the IT instructor were talking about lamb and the kinds of meat that Korean people eat. After a 7-second silence, the director starts talking to Luke (line 1). あ、ごめん、ごめん、じゃ あ ‘Oh, sorry sorry, then’ seems to indicate that they had talked about this topic earlier. 247 He asks Luke if he was born in Indianapolis and has lived there his whole life. However, Luke does not understand the director’s question (line 2). The director recasts the word う まれた ‘was born’ twice (lines 3, 5), but Luke still does not get it. He says that he doesn’t understand (he probably meant that it was more difficult for him to understand) male speakers’ speech. The director tries to rephrase the question twice (lines 7 and 9), but Luke still does not understand since he doesn’t know the word うまれた ‘was born.’ In the next turn, he asks what うまれた ‘was born’ means. In line 11, Naiya enters the conversation, probably with the intention of answering Luke’s question. Before Naiya provides the answer, the director starts acting out, probably, the scene of a mother giving a birth (line 13). Due to the Language Pledge, the use of English is not an option. After the director’s performance, Luke finally understands the meaning of うまれる ‘to be born.’ From lines 14–21, Naiya mediates the conversation between the director and Luke and makes sure that Luke undersood the question being asked by the director. After a short pause, the director asks the same question to Naiya (line 22). She answers that she was born in New York. Then, in line 26, the director says that he was born in a hospital. This utterance is intended to be a joke. Naiya understood the illocutionary force of the utterance. In the following turn, she tells the director that his joke is ちょっとつまらないね ‘a little lame’ (line 27). Naiya’s comment causes laughter. In the next turn, the director praises Naiya by saying そのくらい言えるようになったら大 丈夫だな ‘if you can say things like that [in Japanese], [your Japanese language skills] are good.’ Excerpt 27 Dinner conversation. D: Director; L: Luke (level 2); N: Naiya; S2: Sunny (level 2) 1 D: あ、ごめん、ごめん、 じゃあ、ジョンソンさん は、インディアナポリス 1 D: Oh, sorry, sorry, then Johnson [L’s last name]san, you have lived in 248 Indianapolis since you were small? Were you born there, too? に、小さい頃からずっと いたの、生まれたのもイ ンディアナポリス？ (Short pause) I’m sorry. I didn’t understand. 2 L: (短いポーズ) すみませ ん、わかりませんでし た。 2 L: 3 D: うまれた（はっきり、ゆ っくり） 3 D: Born (clearly and slowly) 4 L: うまれて？ 4 L: Born [wrong pronunciation] 5 D: うまれた（はっきり、ゆ っくり）ところ 5 D: The place [where you were] born (clearly and slowly) 6 L: ええ（短いポーズ）ほん とに、男の人が全然わか りません。[xxx 6 L: Eh (short pause) really, I don’t understand men [male speech] at all. [xxx 7 D: [うまれた、ど こでうまれましたか？ （はっきり、ゆっくり） 7 D: [born, where were you born? (clearly and slowly) 8 L: あ 8 L: Uh (4 seconds) (４秒) 9 D: うまれた所はどこです か？ 9 D: Where is the place you were born? 10 L: あの、うまれる、何です か？ 10 L: Uh, what is umareru [born]? 11 N: うまれる？ 11 N: Umareru [born]? 12 L: はい 12 L: Yes 13 D: [うまれる、うまれる、う まれる、おりゃあ（子供 が生まれる場面をジェス チャーで再現しているよ う） 13 D: [Umareru, umareru, umareru, (D seems to be acting out a scene of giving birth) 14 N: [なんか、お母さんは（笑 い）そんなこと（笑い） 14 N: [(Filler) mother (laugh) like that (laugh) 15 S2: 生まれます？ 15 S2: Umaremasu? 16 N: はい 16 N: Yes 17 L: はい 17 L: Yes 18 N: そして、ずーっと 18 N: And since then 19 L: はい 19 L: Yes 20 N: インディアナ？ 20 N: Indiana? 21 L: はい 21 L: Yes (Short pause) (短いポーズ) 22 D: ウィリアムズはどこで生 まれた？ 22 D; Williams [N’s last name], where were you born? 249 23 N: ニューヨーク 23 N: New York 24 D: ニューヨークか 24 D: New York 25 N: はい 25 N: Yes 26 D: 私は、私は、病院で生ま れました。 26 D: I, I was born in a hospital. 27 N: あ、は、は、ん、ちょっ とつまらないね。 27 N: A, ha ha ha, nm, [it’s] a little lame. (Multiple people are laughing) (複数の人の笑い) 28 D: そのくらい言えるように なったら大丈夫だな。 28 D: If you can say things like that [in Japanese], [your Japanese language skills] are good. (08/03/2010) In this excerpt, Naiya did not remain silent. She tried to be a sort of mediator between the director and Luke, who had trouble understanding the question. Furthermore, she provided a blunt evaluation of the director’s humor. Her speech act (evaluating the director’s humor) could have been considered a face-threatening act; however, the director took it as a sign of high language proficiency. In considerations of power, the director was at the top of the hierarchy. He was the person who possessed the most power in the Japanese School. However, in this excerpt, Naiya played a role of a co-constructor of the conversation. This excerpt suggests that symbolic power was not the factor contributing to Naiya’s nontalk in conversation. If it is not power, then what is it? One explanation is that Naiya did not perceive the director as a teacher, and the reason for that is that he did not create the sensei-ness ‘teacher-ness’ that Naiya saw in the other teachers’ actions, attitudes, and demeanors. As the director himself mentioned (Chapter 3), he created his own way of relating to the students, motivating them to learn Japanese and providing them with learning opportunities. Partly as his administrative strategy and partly as his personality, the director created different discourses from those of the instructors and engaged in different practices from the instructors’. The excerpt above gives a glimpse of his engagement with 250 his students. “What can I do to become funny in my second language like Kitanosensei?”—this is a question that a student asked at the first lecture given by an invited scholar. As seen in the excerpt above, he often told jokes to his students and made them laugh. It is possible that Naiya intuitively grasped the different types of practices that the people in the Japanese School created and engaged in. Among those, she felt resistance toward the practices that the teachers created and engaged in. The activities in which the teachers engaged in the Japanese School had a purpose—providing learning opportunities for students. Naiya, however, perceived such teacher activity as a difference between the teachers and the students. Her perception, combined with her sense of separation, made Naiya resist participation in the teachers’ practices. Naiya carefully listened to other people talk and interpreted what was happening at the lunch/dinner table. The more the teachers engaged in their teacherly practices, the quieter she became. Japanese is only an obstacle Naiya occasionally expressed her frustration about the difficulty of communicating with teachers in Japanese. どうして先生は私をわかりませんか？ 恥ずか しいね ‘Why don’t teachers understand me. It’s embarrassing,’ she said. 友達はいつもわ かります ‘My friends always understand me,’ she raised her shoulders. She continued: Excerpt 28 Interview. N: Naiya; R: Researcher 1 N: 私たちの考えは同じ。いつも友 達は英語から日本語に（笑い） 訳していますから、だから、他 のアメリカ人の間違い、全然気 づけません。口が開いて、もう （強調）何かを言う、わかりま す。だから、私とウィルソンさ ん、あまり話しません、手振り でわかるから（笑い）ほんと に、sign language みたい、わか ります。 1 N: Our thoughts are the same. My friends always translate from English to Japanese (laugh), so [we? they?] cannot notice other Americans’ mistakes at all. As they open their mouths, and I already (loud voice) know what they are going to say. So Wilsonsan and I don’t talk much. We understand each other from the gestures, so (laugh) really, it’s like 251 sign language. We understand. 2 R: 言葉は、日本語はいらない？ 2 R: No need for language, Japanese? 3 N: はい、そうそうそう。(笑い) 日本語は、ちょっと、ああ、 英語の言葉も忘れてしまいま した(笑い)。あの、日本語は medium ですが、私たちアメリ カ人だから、わかる(強調)。 3 N: Yes, that’s right. (Laugh) Japanese is a little (filler), oh, I forgot the English word, too (laugh). Well, Japanese is a medium, but since we are Americans, we understand (louder voice). 4 R: Medium はいらない。 4 R: You don’t need a medium. 5 N: はい、そうそうそう。日本語 は obstacle だけ。 5 N: Yes, that’s right. Japanese is only an obstacle. 6 R: (溜め息) (笑い) 6 R: (Sigh) (Laugh) 7 N: (笑い) ちょっと会話の obstacle です。日本語に、日本語を気 にしないで ほんとに話しま す。手振りとか顔の表現と か、そんなこと。ひどいけ ど、本気です。 7 N: (Laugh) Obstacle to conversation. We talk without paying attention to Japanese. [We rely on] Gesture, facial expressions, things like that. It’s terrible, but I am serious. 8 R: 友達だから、言葉で言わなく ても、何を考えてるかわかる んだ。 8 R: Because you are friends, you understand each other without words, what he/she is thinking about. 9 N: 友達だけじゃなくて、学生、 わかります。会話の context が わかったら、相手の言葉を言 う前にわかります。 9 N: Not only my friends, I understand the students. If I understand the context of a conversation, I understand the student’s words before he or she actually says them. 10 R: 言う前にわかる？ 10 R: Before saying? 11 N: 私にとって、言う前にわかり ます。 11 N: For me, I understand before they say. (08/04/2010) The fundamental function of language is to serve as a medium of communication. Although people use other mediums, such as gesture and facial expressions, language is the most powerful and efficient medium of human communication. However, Naiya reminded me that it was not always the case in L2 conversation. At Greenville, the majority of the students are native speakers of English who were born and raised in the United States. In this sense, they were homogeneous in terms of their linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, as Naiya says, 会話の context がわかったら、相手の言 252 葉を言う前にわかります ‘If I understand the context of a conversation, I understand the student’s words before he or she actually says them’ because 私たちの考えは同じ ‘our thoughts are the same.’ Naiya gradually started to perceive Japanese as an 会話の obstacle ‘obstacle of conversation’ rather than an effective medium of communication. Many of Naiya’s friends at Greenville were level 2 students. Considering the level of their Japanese language proficiency, it was a challenge for them to carry on a conversation in Japanese in the same way as they could in English. As they started to realize that the L2 was not working well as a medium of communication, they started relying less on the language and more on other mediums such as context, background knowledge, gestures, facial expressions, laughter, and so forth. The following excerpt (excerpt 29) shows a conversation among Naiya and her friends. In this excerpt, Naiya is seated with Nick (level 4), Scott (level 2), and Yan (level 4). In line 1, Nick starts talking about Scott’s red manicure. Nick tells Scott that he had thought that he liked Scott’s manicure but now he doesn’t want one for himself because he likes Scott’s akaiyoko. The word akaiyoko is seemingly a Japanese word. Akai means red and yoko means side. However, akaiyoko (red side) does not make sense. Scott initially does not understand what Nick means by akaiyoko (red side), but he seems to realize what akaiyoko (red side) is (line 4). Yan, in line 7, notices Scott’s manicure. Scott’s manicure is not new knowledge to Nick and Naiya but it is to Yan. Yan expresses his surprise. Scott does not respond to Yan but says, これは、私の burgundy frost 性格で す ‘This is my burgundy frost personality.’ Burgundy frost is probably the color of the nail polish. From lines 9–18, Scott, Naiya, and Nick engage in conversation about Scott’s “burgundy frost feeling.” Yan (who does not know Scott well), however, is not able to follow the conversation and says, わかんないよ ‘I don’t understand.’ In the following turn, Scott suggests that they talk about this topic later at a bar. 253 Excerpt 29 Lunch conversation. N: Naiya; S: Scott (level 2); NK: Nick (level 4); Y: Yan (level 4) 1 NK: [S のマネキュアが] よかっ たと思ったけど、今、ほし くない。なぜなら、スコッ ト君のあかいよこ？ 1 NK: I thought that [your manicure] was good, but now I don’t want it because your akaiyoko [red side?]? 2 S: (発話なし) (２秒) 2 S: (No verbal response) (2 seconds) 3 NK: あかいよこ？ 3 NK: Akaiyoko? 4 S: あかいよこ、はいはい 4 S: Akaiyoko, yes yes 5 NK: すきですから。 5 NK: I like it. 6 S: [Oh、ありがとう。 6 S: [Oh, thank you. 7 Y: [え、ちょっと、つめ、え え！ 7 Y: [Eh, your nails, ee! 8 NK: きれいでしょ？ 8 NK: Isn’t it pretty? 9 S: これは、私の burgundy frost 性格です。 9 S: This is my burgundy frost personality. 10 N: Burgundy frost? （笑いなが ら） 10 N: Burgundy frost? (Laughing and speaking at the same time) 11 S: あの、今日は、burgundy frost な日です。 11 S: Uhm, today is a burgundy frostish day. 12 NK (NK と N は大声で笑う) 12 NK (NK and N are laughing hard.) N N 13 S: 私は起きるとき、あの、 ん、はい、burgundy frost の気持ちがあります。 13 S: When I wake [woke] up, uhm, yes, I have [had] a burgundy frost feeling. 14 N: Burgundy frost はどんな人 ですか？ 14 N: What kind of person is burgundy frost? 15 NK: かなあ 15 NK: [I] wonder 16 S: あの 16 S: Uhm 17 N: Stripper でしょ？ (笑い) 17 N: Stripper, isn’t he/she? (Laugh) 18 NK: ああ、やだ 18 NK: Oh no 19 N: (笑い) 19 N: (Laugh) 20 Y: わかんないよ。 20 Y: I don’t understand. 21 S: あの、バーの時 21 S: Uhm, at a bar 22 N: あ、はい 22 N: Oh, yes (08/04/2010) 254 In the excerpt, Naiya, Scott, and Nick were engaging in a high-context conversation. Because Naiya and Nick know Scott well, they were able to communicate with him by relying more on shared background knowledge and less on language. Accomplishment Naiya’s sort of dual participation pattern in her engagement in the practice of the Japanese School continued until the end of the program. Although she actively sought out opportunities to interact with her friends, she avoided interaction with teachers. From the beginning to the end of the program, Naiya never visited instructors during their office hours. Another pattern that was consistent in her life at Greenville was Naiya’s study pattern. She preferred to study alone in her room, and she spent hours studying Japanese every day. Before coming to Greenville, Naiya had told her friends in college and at home that she would not be able to respond much to their messages on Facebook while she was at Greenville. She had also told them that she would not be able to talk to them on the phone. During the course of nine weeks, she kept minimal contact with her friends outside of Greenville and placed herself in the immersion environment of the Japanese School. The only person whom she kept contact with was her grandmother. When she needed to, she talked to her grandmother on the phone. Naiya had a purpose when she went to Greenville. As her grandmother had taught her, Naiya understood that life consisted of processes. For her, going to Greenville was one such process that she needed to go through and complete to move forward in her life. When she returned to the United States from her study abroad program and realized that 日本語は私を trap してしまいました ‘Japanese language trapped me,’ she had decided to follow her interest and pursue Japanese language study. At the same time, she had also known, “I am free to go on and do my own things but still free to fail (original in 255 English).” In her grandmother’s words, “Go ahead and do that. But if you hate it, you’re still going to stay there (original in English).” Therefore, going to and studying at Greenville was the challenge and also the task that Naiya had given to herself. She was aware that living in the immersion environment where she was not allowed to speak English for an extended period of time was going to be stressful—as stressful as ２週間がたって、髪をむしってると思いました ‘I thought I would be pulling my hair out after two weeks.’ Therefore, for Naiya, “failing” was not an option. Over the course of nine weeks, she enjoyed her free time with her friends in the Japanese School; however, she was also serious about studying Japanese. During the last few weeks of the program, students became busier preparing for various assignments and events in addition to their daily routines. One of them was the final project. For Naiya, the final project was an important assignment. It was an opportunity for her to demonstrate her progress over the eight weeks of the study at Greenville. It was also an opportunity to evaluate her ability to write 本当の論文、そして、 まじめなテーマについての論文 ‘a real paper, a paper on a serious theme’ in Japanese. Naiya chose ワーキングプア ‘the working poor’ for the topic of her final project. In the introductory paragraph, she provided the definition of the working poor and wrote, ワー キングプアはアメリカとヨーロッパの問題だと思っている人が多いですが、日本でも大 変な問題になっています ‘Many people think that the working poor is a problem in the United States and Europe. However, it has become an serious problem in Japan.’ In the main paragraphs, Naiya pointed out various issues contributing to the production and reproduction of the working poor in Japan, including the increasing number of temporary workers due to the slow economy, the vicious cycle between low wages and the high cost of living, lack of support from the government, and Japanese people’s attitudes toward receiving social welfare. At the end, she concluded that the working poor is a social issue, not a personal problem, and that the Japanese government must improve regulations on companies to provide benefits for temporary workers. 256 Naiya presented on the second day of the class presentation. She was the secondto-last person to present. I recalled the first day of the class when the student in level 4 had been asked to introduce themselves. Naiya was the next-to-last person to speak then also. I looked at Naiya. She was standing in front of the classroom, wearing a white tee and pair of gray skinny jeans. She looked sharp and sophisticated with her white plastic D&G glasses. At the beginning, she looked a little nervous but she finished her presentation successfully. On the grading sheet, Noda-sensei commented on Naiya’s final paper: ウィリアムスさんが書いていたように、ワー キングプアは深刻な問題だと思います。私も 知り合いがフリーターをしているので考えさ せられます。とてもわかりやすい説明で、は っきりとした主張が書けていて、すばらしい と思います。 As you wrote, I agree that working poor is a serious problem. A person who I know is also a temporary worker, so I am made to think [about this topic]. I think your paper is excellent. You explained very well and argued your points clearly. When I complimented on her great work, Naiya said, うれしい ‘I’m glad’ and smiled. これは本当に難しかったから、原稿を書くのは本当に難しかったから、うれし い ‘This was really hard, writing the draft was really hard, so I am glad,’ she continued. On the day before Naiya left Greenville, we met at the Grill for the last time. As I watched her face and talked to her, I thought about Naiya whom I had seen for the first time in the dining hall. Nine weeks later, she was still laughing as hard as and as loudly as she had on the first day of the program. However, I could also see a sense of relief on her face and hear a sense of accomplishment in her voice. She was relieved probably because she was released from the responsibility that she had given to herself at the beginning. She felt a sense of accomplishment because she had successfully completed the task that she had set for herself before coming to Greenville. いつも人生にたくさんプ ロセスがありあます ‘There are always many processes in life,’ I recalled Naiya’s life philosophy. She had just completed one process and was moving to another in search of the next destination in her life. 257 Discussion In this chapter, I have described Naiya’s L2 socialization process by highlighting how her sense of separation between the teachers and the students in the Japanese School influenced the way in which she participated in the community of practice of the Japanese School. As previously discussed (Chapter 4), the Japanese School was a hybrid L2 learning social community created for the purpose of learning Japanese. The most unique aspect of the school practice was that all of the Japanese language teachers were native speakers of Japanese who had been professionally trained to teach L2 Japanese. In the director’s words, ここでの全ての活動は学生の日本語の向上のためにある ‘all the activities in the Japanese program are for students to improve their Japanese;’ indeed, the teachers’ responsibility was to facilitate students’ Japanese language development. They were fully aware of their responsibility and faithfully engaged in teacher practices whenever they interacted with students—their students and the students in the other levels. Naiya perceived such teacher practice as not only a difference between the teachers and the students but also the source of separation between them. She felt the existence of two separate groups in the Japanese School and resisted participating in the practice of the teacher group through a form of silence. Duff (2002) and Morita (2002) argued that L2 learners’ silence in classrooms is a form of resistance to the dominant communities of practice, which place them in marginalized positions in classroom communities. When they face an undesirable social practice, instead of exercising their agency to act against it, some L2 learners exercise their agency not to participate in undesirable classroom practice through silence. In this sense, the silence as a form of resistance reported in previous studies is a silence forced on these individuals by members of the dominant communities. Naiya, too, used silence to exercise her agency not to participate in what she considered to be the undesirable practices of teachers. Naiya’s silence is, however, different from that found in previous studies with in two respects. Naiya was not silenced by other members of the community. 258 Rather, it was her self-imposed silence—her decision and choice not to participate in the learning-centered teacher practices when these occurred outside of classroom. In other words, her resistance was directed to the exercise of teacher practice outside the classroom. As found in the study of Alison (Chapter 6), Naiya’s case study has shown an important role of an L2 learner’s interpretation or understanding of the social context in which they are placed. Whereas Alison’s understanding was colored by her ethnic and academic backgrounds, Naiya’s understanding was discursively constructed as she participated in the community of practice, combined with her understanding of the Japanese language and culture. Her emergent perception of the separation between the teachers and the students became a psychological barrier for Naiya and determined the way in which she exercised her agency to participate in the practice of the Japanese School. The most prominent way of her exercise of agency was her resistance to talk as they started to engage in their practice. One of the aspects of the teacher practice that Naiya resisted most was teachers’ correction of errors in students’ language use. Naiya interpreted error correction by teachers outside of class as embarrassing. As in the case of Alison (Chapter 6), whose feeling of embarrassment became an emotional barrier to speak Japanese, Naiya’s feeling of embarrassment also became an inhibiting factor to speak Japanese. Whereas Alison’s feeling of embarrassment was derived from her perception of her inability to speak Japanese, Naiya’s feeling of embarrassment was created by teachers—more precisely, the teacher practice of correcting students’ language errors in conversations outside the classroom. Naiya felt that this practice of error correction was similar to taking a test, and she did not find that it was helpful to her learning. Corrective feedback, especially the type of corrective feedback that draws L2 learners’ attention to linguistic forms while they are engaging in real communication (integrated form-focused instruction), has been argued to play a facilitative role in L2 259 learning (e.g., Spada & Lightbown, 2008; Spada & Tomita, 2010). However, Naiya’s affective response to teachers’ error correction did not make the feedback a learning opportunity. Rather, it created an affective barrier in Naiya’s mind. She found their correction embarrassing, and it limited her opportunities to speak Japanese with them. Naiya’s case study raises an important theoretical question as to the effectiveness of error correction by teachers outside the classroom, specifically the applicability of focus-on-form—whether focus-on-form is a construct applicable to outside the classroom where L2 learners engage in genuine communication, or whether it is a useful learning tool only inside the classroom. In theory, the conversations between teachers and students in the dining hall could provide infinite opportunities to facilitate L2 learning by providing corrective feedback, linguistic and cultural knowledge, and scaffolding through genuine communication. Many L2 learners, whose opportunities to use an L2 tend to be limited to classroom settings, seek opportunities to use an L2 in genuine communication beyond classroom contexts. Some choose to study abroad, where they could immerse themselves in an “environment which most closely resembles the environment of the first language learner: continuously available target language input, in all possible modalities, registers, and domains (Rivers, 1998, p. 492). Yet, their learning opportunities are not always maximized because of various social and individual factors (e.g., Allen, 2010; Iino, 1996, 2006; Kinginger, 2008; Rivers, 1998; Wilkinson, 2002). Naiya was, on the other hand, immersed in the rich affordances of the Japanese School and was surrounded with abundant learning opportunities. Yet, she practically refused to take advantage of such opportunities. She preferred to stay with her friends and to talk about topics of interest. Second language socialization theory and research have not fully examined the place of L2 learners’ emotional and affective responses to the socializing practice of the community. The study of Naiya, along with the study of Alison, suggest that L2 learners’ 260 emotional and affective responses may play an important role in determining how L2 learners exercise their agency in the process of L2 socialization. Nonetheless, over the course of nine weeks, Naiya was able to accomplish her goal of learning Japanese at Greenville. She chose to go to Greenville because she wanted to challenge herself by pushing the limits of her Japanese language ability. Her goal of learning Japanese at Greenville was to be able to write 本当の論文 ‘a real paper.’ On the one hand, Naiya’s agency worked to limit her opportunities to speak Japanese; on the other hand, she made persistent efforts to achieve her goal. Naiya’s grandmother taught her that life was a process. She also taught Naiya not to hesitate to pursue her interests in her life. Pursuing her interests was the very reason why she had decided to come to Greenville. It was also the very reason why she continued to study Japanese. Naiya had given herself a task before coming to Greenville. From that moment, accomplishing the task became her responsibility. From the moment she decided to go to Greenville to study Japanese, Greenville became her process—the process that she needed to complete to move onto the next stage of her life. Therefore, for Naiya, accomplishing her goal of learning Japanese was very important. It was this significance that shaped Naiya’s agency to study Japanese at Greenville from the beginning to the end of the program. As in the cases of Parker (Chapter 5) and Alison (Chapter 6), Naiya’s primary drive for learning Japanese does not involve the exchange of symbolic capital (investment), outlined in the economic metaphors in Norton (2000). Naiya’s desire to gain cultural capital is her pursuit of interest—her mission to finish one process and move to the next stage of her life. Naiya did not have the expectation that her increased cultural capital (acquiring higher Japanese language skills) would be later exchanged for another form of capital. 261 Thus, Naiya’s case study, along with the studies of Parker and Alison, have suggested the diverse, idiosyncratic, and sometimes ambivalent nature of L2 learners’ aspirations to learn an L2, which may not be captured by the notion of investment. 262 CHAPTER VIII: DANIELLE IDENTITIES, AMBIVALENCE, AND TRANSFORMATION Beginning I looked over the large lecture room from the back. Everyone was looking down and was working on a test. The students were taking the placement test. I had volunteered to be a proctor. While watching the students take the test, I was wondering who among them would become participants in my study. Suzuki-sensei approached me and whispered that I should have the next student get ready for the oral interview. While taking the written exam, the students were called out to the lobby of Jefferson Hall for an oral interview one student at a time. I whispered to a female student and let her know that it was her turn. She stood up and started to walk to the door. From her physical appearance, I guessed that she was in her late 40s or early 50s. At the door, I told her to wait. I checked and saw another student still seated at the interview table in the lobby. “Can I go?” the female student asked. I looked at the interview table again. The student was standing up from the chair. I said, はい ‘yes’ and opened the door for her. “Can I go?” It was a low firm voice. I sensed a little bit of irritation in her tone. I followed her with my eyes—short hair, wire rim eyeglasses, and a low, firm voice. Stern and strict, that was the impression that I got from this female student. On the next day, I saw her in the dining hall again. I was seated with a group of older female students. We had finished eating lunch and were talking about our plans for the afternoon. She came to our table and asked us if anyone wanted to go shopping with her. 私は車がありますから ‘since I have a car,’ she said. The others at the table declined her invitation. I didn’t need to go shopping, but I thought that it would be a great chance to get acquainted with her, so I said yes. Instead of going in Danielle’s car, we took mine. I asked what she wanted to buy. She said cranberry juice and vodka. 寝る前にクランベリーウォッカを飲むのが好きなん 263 です ‘I like to drink cranberry vodkas before I go to bed,’ she said. She said that she also needed to go to a pharmacy. She said she was taking several medications. One of them was for migraines. I didn’t ask the details of her medications, but I wondered whether she would be able to survive the nine weeks of the intensive immersion program. After we stopped at a liquor store and a pharmacy, she asked me what I wanted to buy. I told her that I wanted to go to the Ben Franklin downtown. Danielle and I shopped at the Ben Franklin and returned to Greenough Hall. When I dropped her off at the entrance, she stood in front of me and said 本当にありがとうございました ‘I really thank you,’ and bowed. As I drove away from Greenough Hall, I modified my first impression of her. I added another adjective—polite. Danielle was the first person to volunteer to participate in my study. On the day I had announced that I was recruiting participants for my study from level 4 students, she came to my room and expressed her interest. At the final stage of the consent process, I asked her to read the consent form and told her to ask any questions that she might have. Danielle started reading the consent form very carefully. She took so long that I started to worry that she might have second thoughts about participating. I was ready to answer any questions and make necessary accommodations. A few minutes later, Danielle moved her eyes away from the form and looked at me. I waited for her words. She said, ひとつタイ ポがあります ‘There is a typo.’ She pointed to a word on the form. I had misspelled “minutes” as “minuets.” I thanked her for pointing out my spelling mistake and asked if she had any questions about the study procedures. She said no and continued, 私は英語の 先生ですから、英語の間違いが気になるんです ‘I am an English teacher, so I am sensitive about English mistakes.’ I realized that she was checking the accuracy of my English while she was reading the consent form. Danielle was a high school Japanese language teacher. She received her teaching licensure in Japanese as well as in English from a university in the Midwest in 1997. When I met Danielle at Greenville, she had been teaching Japanese at a high school in an 264 East Coast city for ten years. She had also taught English as a second language (ESL) to international students at a college as a part-time instructor during her school break. Engagement Becoming a Japanese language student Greenville had held a special place in Danielle’s imagination since she was in college. One of her friends whom she had met in a theater club attended the Russian School. As an undergraduate, Danielle studied English literature and was actively involved in a theater club throughout her college years. Through theater, she also met her husband, who at that time was a biology student fascinated with Russian drama. They shared the same passion for theater and found love for each other. After she became a Japanese language teacher, spending a summer at Greenville had been her longtime dream. 私の日本語は下手になってしまいましたから ‘My Japanese got bad,’ she said when I asked why she wanted to come to Greenville to study Japanese. Since 1997, when she became a certified Japanese language teacher, she had not had a chance to put serious effort and time into maintaining or improving her Japanese language skills. Being a high school teacher and a wife, she simply had not been able to afford the time and the expenses to do so. In the summer of 2010, she received a grant from her school district for professional development, which was enough to cover part of Greenville expenses. Danielle did not hesitate to take this opportunity. She applied to the Japanese School. In June, she put everything that she would need in her new life at Greenville in her car, left her house on the next day after school was over, and drove to Greenville. At Greenville, she began right away to enjoy her dream life. She, like other older students, settled into a single room on the fifth floor of Greenough Hall. She decorated her room with things that she had brought from home. She had indeed brought various things—books, pictures, a bicycle, and her knitting bag. In her free time, she explored the 265 town of Greenville. She checked out the small shops downtown. She rode her bicycle around the neighborhood. She drove to a neighboring town to find out what was out there. Danielle was, in the simplest term, a person who was full of curiosity, and she was always eager to follow her impulses of curiosity. It was this curiosity, in a sense, that had taken her to Japan. When her husband— back then, according to Danielle, they were not yet married and were in an on-and-off relationship—was invited to join a research team at a university in Japan, he had asked Danielle if she wanted to go with him. At that time, there was nothing much going on in her life, so she agreed. まだまだ若かったから ‘I was still young back then,’ she laughed. At that time, Japan was a country that she knew only through mass media. Although she had some ideas about Japan, she thought, 日本について聞いたことは whole story じゃな い ‘the things that I have heard about Japan is not the whole story’ and wanted to see Japan with her own eyes. In Japan, she found an English teaching job at a private English language conversation school. For the first time in her life, she became a teacher. To her surprise, she found herself enjoying teaching English. やっぱり私はしゃべることが好きです ‘Sure enough, I love talking,’ she laughed. During the three years of her stay in Japan, she taught English to various people, including Japanese school children, a group of engineers, and an 80-year-old woman. No matter where and whom she was teaching, と ても楽しかった ‘it was a lot of fun,’ she said. Furthermore, she found that Japanese people were always kind, welcoming, and helpful. だから、私は日本人が好きになりまし た ‘Therefore, I became fond of Japanese people,’ she told me. With her positive experience of teaching English for three years, she left Japan and headed back to the United States. After returning home, she thought about what she would do next and decided to pursue her career as an ESL teacher. She applied to the teacher certification program at a university, but when she learned that they did not have a certification program for ESL teachers, she enrolled in the certification program for 266 Japanese language teachers. できるかなと思ったけど、勉強してみた ‘I wondered if I could do it, but I tried studying it anyway,’ she said. Danielle’s curiosity and challenging spirit eventually led her to establish herself as a high school Japanese language teacher, and it later brought her to Greenville. She was highly interactive with other members at Greenville, including both students and teachers. As she had described herself earlier, 私は話すのが好きです ‘I love talking,’ she was not hesitant to talk to anyone in the school. In class, she always sat in the center of the front row and was never shy about speaking up. She joined the rakugo club and performed a kobanashi (a comical short story) at the rakugokai10 held at the college theater. She also joined the a cappella club and gave performances at various social events. She was also not shy about expressing her personal feelings and emotions. Within the first few weeks, Danielle became known to most of the members in the Japanese School. I once asked Danielle how she was adjusting to her new life as a student. 一つび くりしたことは、私はだいたい若い人、大丈夫です ‘One thing that surprised me was that I am mostly okay with young people,’ she said. However, contrary to this positive response, she seemed to be having a difficult time adjusting to her new environment. She often suffered from headaches. She had trouble sleeping at night. She looked tired some days. 大丈夫ですか ‘Are you all right?,’ I asked her one day on the way back to Greenough Hall from the dining hall. はい、大丈夫です ‘Yes, I’m all right,’ she said. I knew she was suffering from a migraine. I had overheard the conversation between Danielle and Miyamoto-sensei earlier that morning. She was telling him that she had not been able to finish her homework because of a headache. After a short silence, she 10 Rakugokai was a performance of rakugo by the members of the rakugo club and by the professional rakugo players who were invited from Japan. It was a public event hosted by the Japanese School. 267 continued, 私は日本語を勉強するためにここに来ましたから ‘I came here to study Japanese, so...’ The utterance seemed to be directed to herself rather than to my question. As the first few weeks went by, she seemed to be becoming less confident about her decision to come to Greenville. “I’m too old for this” は日本で何と言いますか ‘How do I say “I’m too old for this” in Japanese?’ she asked me. I could not tell whether she was serious or joking. Having faced the reality of the intensive total immersion program, Danielle was probably going back and forth between two thoughts: her desire to improve her Japanese language skills at Greenville and her self-doubt about whether she would actually be able to finish the program. She was probably struggling with the hard fact of her age compared to most of the Japanese School students. From the end of the third week through the middle of the fourth week, she fell ill. I did not see her for several days. It was not until Wednesday of the fourth week that I was able to see Danielle again. She showed up to the rakugo club practice. The members of the rakugo club were preparing for their performance at the upcoming rakugokai. After the practice, I asked how she was doing. She said she had had some problems adjusting to the new medications, which had been causing her constant headaches, but she was doing better. たくさん宿題をしなければなりませんね ‘I have to do a lot of homework, don’t I?,’ she laughed. I asked if she could perform at the rakugokai, which was going to be held in a few days. The rakugokai was a formal public event hosted by the Japanese School. The other members of the rakugo club had already started practicing their performance while Danielle was sick. I was concerned if she would be ready in time. だいじょうぶだと思います。がんばります ‘I should be fine. I will work hard,’ she smiled. Danielle seemed to be at her worst, both mentally and physically, in the third and the fourth weeks of the nine-week program. I was seriously worried that she might tell me that she was going home. She did, however, manage to recover from her health problems. As she had told me she would, she gave a great performance at the rakugokai. 268 Positioning Danielle visibly stood out in the Japanese School not only because of her active participation in school activities but also because of her appearance. She was distinguishable from the rest of the students in the Japanese School at a glance. Her silver hair, which Danielle called shiraga ‘grey hair,’ made her stand out among the students, most of whom were in their 20s. Danielle was in her early 50s. 私はグリーンビルのおば あさんです ‘I am the grandma of Greenville,’ she joked in conversation with other students. She was open about her age and identified herself as 一番年上の学生 ‘the oldest student’ in the Japanese School. I am the oldest student Danielle’s sense of herself—私は一番年上 ‘I am the oldest’—was manifested in various ways, including the ways in which she viewed human relations in the Japanese School and related with other members of the school. With her disposition that 私は話す のが好きです ‘I love talking’ and her candor to follow and pursue her curiosity, it did not take long for Danielle to establish a unique position in the Japanese School. ああ、サンダ ース[ダニエラの苗字]さんだから ‘Well, it’s Sanders [Danielle’s last name]-san,’ students would say to each other with a wry grin. For example, at the end of the fourth week, a local taiko ‘Japanese drums’ performing group was invited to the Japanese School and gave a workshop on how to play the taiko. Danielle enjoyed the hands-on experience of playing the taiko. She had seen taiko performances before but had never had a chance to play. While participating in the workshop, another thing caught her eyes. It was the leader of the taiko group, a middle-aged Caucasian male who was giving the workshop to the students. After the workshop when the leader was putting the taiko drums back in his van with help of other people, Danielle approached him and started to chat. Then, all of a sudden, she asked, 何 歳ですか ‘How old are you?’ After a little hesitation, the leader laughed and told her his 269 age. He was in his mid 40s. Danielle continued, ああ、そうですか。もう年なのに太って いませんね ‘Oh, is that so? You are already old but not fat.’ After a short silence, the leader laughed and told Danielle, 多分、太鼓をしているからでしょう ‘It’s probably because I have been playing taiko.’ Weight had been one of Danielle’s concerns. She once told me that she had tried a weight loss program and had lost 20 pounds. At Greenville, she often expressed her concern about her weight gain because of the buffet style dining at the school cafeteria. When Danielle saw the leader of the taiko group, she was perhaps curious about how he, a middle-aged Caucasian man, maintained his weight and stayed fit. Considering the sociocultural and contextual factors; the social distance between Danielle and the leader of the taiko group, the social status difference between the two people (the leader was the guest instructor of the taiko workshop), and the sociocultural norms of Japanese, Danielle’s behavior (asking a stranger who is at a higher social status about his/her age in the first time meeting) is considered rude. Moreover, in her question, Danielle used the word nansai ‘how old,’ which is an impolite expression of asking one’s age, instead of a polite expression oikutsi ‘how old.’ Furthermore, Danielle used noni ‘but/although’ as a conjunctive particle to state her opinion もう年なのに太っていません ね ‘you are already old but [noni] not fat.’ Noni not only expresses a contradictory relationship between two events/states but also carries the speaker’s attitude or judgment. The statement もう年なのに太っていませんね ‘you are already old but [noni] not fat’ carries Danielle’s judgment that he is already old and her assumption that old people are fat. The leader of the taiko group, who was a bilingual speaker of Japanese and English, probably understood the pragmatic meaning of Danielle’s statement. His hesitation and laughter and the short silence possibly indicate his understanding of the pragmatic errors that Danielle made. The people who were overhearing the conversation 270 between Danielle and the leader, including instructors, other students, and myself, looked at each other with a wry grin. Wry-grin moments were also observed in her conversations with other students. The following excerpt (excerpt 30) is an example of a wry-grin moment. The excerpt is taken from a dinner conversation. In the beginning of the conversation, Pablo (level 4), Kelli (level 4), and Danielle are talking about the school newspaper distributed by the members of the News Club. Pablo is a member of the News Club and has written a small article based on a short interview with Kelli. After a few minutes of conversation on the topic of the newspaper, Eva (level 4) joins the table, and they start to talk about the presentation they had given in class on the same day. In line 1, Danielle initiates a new topic after an 11-second silence. She tells Pablo that she has a complaint. When talking to Pablo, Danielle uses the address term (a suffix), kun, rather than san. San is a neutral and formal suffix that can be attached to the names of both male and female persons. Kun is generally used to address a male person. When a female person addresses a male person with kun, it indicates that the male person is of either an equal or a lower social status than the female addresser. In this particular context, it is likely that Danielle is positioning herself above him. As soon as Danielle finishes her utterance, someone starts to giggle. Danielle reopens the topic of the newspaper that Pablo has written the article for. Danielle complains that there is no picture of her in the newspaper. In line 2, Pablo says that her picture is on the News Club’s blog. In line 5, Danielle confirms what Pablo has just said. In line 6, Pablo gives an affirmative answer. After listening to the conversation between Pablo and Danielle, Kelli asks if Pablo interviewed Danielle as well. In line 8, he answers no. In line 9, Danielle says that nobody (in the News Club) asked Danielle for an interview. In line 10, Pablo tells that he interviewed only Kelli. In lines 11 and 13, Danielle states that men like to talk to young pretty women, which, implies that that is the reason why no one, including Pablo, asked 271 Danielle for an interview. In line 14, Kelli agrees with Danielle’s statement. But then Kelli says that she and Pablo like to argue, dismissing Danielle’s claim that Pablo interviewed Kelli because she is young and pretty. After learning that Pablo and Kelli like to argue, in line 19, Danielle shifts to her role as a teacher and tells the other students at the table, それはだめです。子供たち、けんかしないでください ‘That is not good. Children, please don’t argue.’ in a high-pitched animated voice. Eva, who has been listening to the entire conversation, aligns herself with Danielle, playing the role of a child and saying, “Yes, teacher” in the following turn. Excerpt 30 Lunch conversation. D: Danielle; P: Pablo (level 4); K: Kelli (level 4); EV: Eva (level 4) 1 D: あ、マ、 マルティネス[P の苗字]君、私はちょっと 文句がありますね。 (誰か のクスクス笑い) 私の写真 はどこ？ [ないでしょう。 1 D: 2 P: [あ、ブ、ブロ グ、ブログで 2 P: A, Ma, Martinez [P’s last name]-kun, I have a complaint for you. (Someone is giggling) Where is my picture? [Not here, you know. [Ah, b, blog, on the blog 3 D: は？ 3 D: Ha? 4 P: ブログ 4 P: Blog 5 D: ブログにありあますか？ 5 D: [Is my picture] on the blog? 6 P: はい、そう。 6 P: Yes, that’s right. 7 K: サンダース[D の苗字]さん もインタビューしました か？ 7 K: Did you interview Sanders [D’s last name]-san, too? 8 P: いいえ 8 P: No 9 D: いええ、誰も私をインタビ ューしませんでしたが。 9 D: No, no one did interview me. 10 P: ケリーさんだけ 10 P: Only Kelli-san 11 D: ケリーさんの方がきれいで すから、はい、わかりまし た。 11 D: Because Kelli-san is prettier [than I am], yes, I understand. 12 K: 私の写真はない。 12 K: There is no picture of me [in the newspaper]. 13 D: でも、男の人は、きれいな 女の人と話したいんです。 13 D: But, men want to talk to pretty women. 272 14 K: うん、でも、パブロさんと 私は、けんかするのが好き です。 14 K: Yes, but, Pablo-san and I like to fight. (Laughter by multiple students) (複数の笑い) 15 D: そうですか。 15 D: Is that so. 16 K: それだけ[です。 16 K: That’s [all. 17 D: 17 D: 18 K: そう、けんか 18 K: Yes, fight 19 D: それはだめです。子供た ち、けんかしないでくださ い (高いアニメ調の声色)。 19 D: That’s not good. Children, please don’t fight (highpitched animated tone of voice). 20 EV: はい、先生 20 EV: Yes, teacher 21 K: 楽しいです。 21 K: It’s fun. 22 P: ケリーさんと私、賛成の意 味は、まだわかりません。 22 P: Kelli-san and I don’t know the meaning of agreement [what it means to agree with each other]. [けんかですか？ [Fight? (07/15/2010) In the excerpt above, Danielle is picking on Pablo. She knows that there is nothing surprising about not finding any pictures of Danielle in the school newspaper because, as she mentioned, nobody interviewed her. It is not known why Pablo told her that her picture was on the News Club blog. Perhaps it was his attempt to get away from Danielle’s direct accusation. The following excerpt (excerpt 31) shows an interaction between Pablo and Danielle on a different occasion. In this excerpt, Danielle is aligning herself with Pablo as classmates. Danielle and Pablo are talking about a quiz at the breakfast table. Level 4 students have had a quiz on kanji and vocabulary everyday since the first week. However, the students have discovered that they need to study only the vocabulary for the quiz that they are having on that day. In line 1, Danielle starts the conversation with humor by saying 今日の難しい小テストのために ‘for today’s difficult quiz.’ Both Danielle and Pablo know that this day’s quiz would not be difficult, compared to the ones that they 273 have had in the past. Moreover, when addressing Pablo, Danielle uses san, not kun as in the previous excerpt. In line 5, Danielle appears to compliment Pablo on his hard work. From line 6 through line 11, Danielle and Pablo share the joy of their unexpected discovery. Excerpt 31 Breakfast conversation. D: Danielle; P: Pablo D: So, Martinez [P’s last name]san, uh, for today’s difficult quiz 2 P: N? たくさん勉強しましたか？ 3 D: Did you study a lot? P: もちろん 4 P: Of course D: マルティネスさんは、なじ みですね。 5 D: Martinez-san, you are a regular. [D probably means that P regularly/consistently works hard.] 6 P: あの、いくらですか？ 6 P: Uh, how much? 7 D: わかりませんが、１ページ だけね。 7 D: I don’t know, but only one page. 8 P: １ページだけ 8 P: Only one page 9 D: 試験の後の小テストはいい んですけど、この、この essay には漢字がないみた いね。 9 D: I don’t mind having a quiz after an exam, but this, this essay doesn’t seem to have kanji 10 P: それだけ、うれしいです。 10 P: That’s all. I’m happy. 11 D: ねえ。私は今日 [今朝] ゆっ くりして、楽しい、ああ、 楽しみにしています [楽し んでいます]。 11 D: Me too [with a sentence-final particle to show agreement]. I’m taking it easy today [this morning], and fun, uh, looking forward to it [enjoying it]. 1 D: So, マルティネス[P の苗字] さん、ああ、今日の難しい 小テストのために 1 2 P: ん？ 3 D: 4 5 ! ! ! ! (07/26/2010) The two excerpts (excerpts 30 and 31) show different roles that Danielle chooses to play in her interactions with Pablo. In the excerpt 31, she positions herself as a classmate and relates with the interlocutor on equal terms. In contrast, in excerpt 30, she positions herself above the interlocutor and almost overpowers him. 私は失礼ですね。で 274 も、あまり気にしません。私は一番年上ですから ‘I’m rude, I know. But I don’t care because I am the oldest,’ Danielle laughed when I asked her to reflect on some of the conversations that she had with other students. Danielle was aware that interacting with Pablo in the way she had done in excerpt 30 was 失礼 ‘rude.’ Even though Danielle was older than Pablo, at Greenville they were classmates and should relate to each other on equal terms. However, Danielle intentionally overpowered him by making a false accusation. For her, it was acceptable behavior because she was 一番年上 ‘the oldest.’ Danielle’s positioning of herself as 一番年上の学生 ‘the oldest student’ influenced the way in which she viewed and interacted with the instructors in the Japanese School as well. In the Japanese School, according to Danielle, 松本先生しか私 より年上の先生がいないんです ‘there are no teachers who are older than I except Matsumoto-sensei.’ Although Danielle was older than the instructors in the Japanese School (except Matsumoto-sensei), she was aware that Japanese sociocultural practice expects students to speak politely to their teachers. Furthermore, she addressed the importance of being polite in communication with others. Her father was a military officer, and she grew up in a family that valued politeness and protocol. 私はまだ時々、 父と話す時、 “sir”を使います ‘I still sometimes use “sir” when speaking to my father,’ Danielle said. When Danielle and I went to the farmers’ market one day, she stopped at a cookie stand. I heard Danielle address the middle-aged woman at the stand as “ma’am,” as shown in the following excerpt 32: Excerpt 32 Conversation at the farmers’ market. D: Danielle; W: Female vendor at a cookie stand 1 D: xxx I’ll have one of those. 2 W: Okay. You want it in a bag? D: No, ma’am. I’ll just put it in my hand and eat it as I wander around. W: Okay (lengthening the vowel o). 3 4 ! (07/31/2010) 275 Despite Danielle’s recognition of the importance of being polite in communication, she consciously and unconsciously kept positioning herself as 一番年上 ‘I am the oldest’ in front of the instructors as well as other students. In excerpt 33, Danielle is talking at the lunch table with a male instructor of level 4, Jennifer (level 2 student in her late 20s, a high school Japanese language teacher), and two other students. Jennifer starts to talk about her otaku ‘nerd/geek’ students in her high school Japanese language class. After Jennifer and Danielle talk for a while about the characteristics of their otaku ‘nerd/geek’ students, Jennifer, in lines 1 and 3, says that her otaku students are immature and childish. In line 4, she says that she herself is still a child. In line 5, Danielle agrees with Jennifer’s assessment of herself and states, ジェンちゃんも子供です からね ‘Jen-chan is a child, too.’ Jen is Jennifer’s nickname. Danielle addresses Jennifer with her nickname plus chan, which is an address term (a suffix) typically used for little girls. In line 12, Danielle further says, 私の視線から、みんなは子供ですが、石田先生も ‘From my perspective, everyone is a child. Ishida-sensei, too.’ In line 13, the male instructor agrees with Danielle’s statement after a short pause. The short pause may be an indication of his reluctance to agree. Although he is younger than Danielle, he is one of her course instructors, and he has a doctoral degree in second language acquisition from a university in the United States. Calling him a child can be taken as a face-threatening act. Excerpt 33 Lunch conversation. J: Jennifer (level 2); D: Danielle; I: Ishida-sensei (level 4 instructor) 1 J: 2 D: 3 J: 4 D: 1 J: I and the nerdy students have a really good re, [relationship, so 2 D: [nnn すごくおもしろい。いつも 笑います。いっしょに（短 いポース）まだちょっと子 供みたい。 3 J: It’s very interesting. We always laugh together (short pause) They are still like children. うん 4 D: Yes 私とそのオタクは本当にい いけい、関係が[あるから [んんん 276 5 J: 私も子供ですから、あの、 まだ 5 J: I am a child, too, uh, still 6 D: ね 6 D: Right 7 J: うん 7 J: Yes 8 D: (笑い) ジェンちゃんも子供 ですからね。 8 D: (Laugh) Jen-chan is a child, too. 9 J: ありがと 9 J: Thank you 10 D: (笑い) でも、私の視線か ら、みんなは子供ですが。 (笑い) 石田先生も (笑い)。 10 D: (Laugh) But from my perspective, everyone is a child (laugh). Ishida-sensei, too (laugh). 11 I: (短いポーズ) そうですね。 (小さい声で) 11 I: (Short pause) That’s right. (Smaller volume) (08/09/2010) On another occasion, Danielle called another male instructor けち ‘a stingy person.’ When the level 4 students gave a group presentation at the end of the fifth week, several instructors were invited as judges. Each group presented a piece of trivia that would surprise the audience. After each presentation, the judges were asked to individually give a score to the group, and the group that received the highest total score was to be awarded a prize at the end. After Danielle’s group finished their presentation, the judges wrote down their scores and showed them to the presenters. Danielle noticed that a young male instructor gave a low score to her group. As she walked by the instructor to return to her seat, she said, xxx 先生、けち ‘Teacher xxx, you are stingy,’ to him. Danielle later told me, 私は失礼でしたね。でも、若くて男の子のように見えました ‘I was rude, I know. But he is young and looked like a boy,’ and laughed. Danielle’s positioning of herself as 私は一番年上 ‘I am the oldest’ was also reflected in her ambivalent attitude toward the use of keigo ‘honorifics’ to the instructors at the Japanese School. At the beginning of the seventh week, the level 4 students received a lesson on keigo and were told that they should use keigo when speaking to the instructors. For the level 4 students, including Danielle, learning keigo was a review because keigo is usually introduced at the end of second-year Japanese. Danielle 277 expressed frustration because she thought that the keigo review should have been done earlier, so that she could have had more opportunities to practice keigo while she was at Greenville. 私は１５年前に敬語を習いましたから、全部忘れてしまいました ‘I learned keigo 15 years ago, so I have forgotten it all,’ she frowned. After the keigo review lesson, Danielle tried to use keigo whenever possible. When she was seated with instructors in the dining hall, she tried to speak using keigo. When she was talking about an instructor with other students, she tried to use keigo in reference to the instructor. On the one hand, Danielle had the desire to speak politely to the instructors in Japanese; on the other hand, she did not see the need to use keigo to them because she was older than the majority of the instructors in the Japanese School. She stated, 松本先 生以外の先生には、敬語を使わなくてもいいと思います。私の方が年上ですから ‘I think I don’t need to use keigo to the instructors [in the Japanese School] except Matsumoto-sensei because I am older than them.’ Danielle seemed to understand the function of keigo as the expression of politeness from a person of a lower status to a person of a higher status in the social hierarchy. Moreover, Danielle measured one’s status based solely on the age difference between the two people. Since Danielle was older than all the instructors (except Matsumoto-sensei), she felt that she did not need to use keigo to them. Excerpt 34 shows Danielle’s ambivalent attitude toward the use of keigo. Right before this excerpt, Danielle was talking with John (level 2) for about ten minutes. After John leaves, Jennifer joins the conversation (line 1). Danielle and Jennifer briefly talk about food. After a 6-second pause, Danielle initiates a conversation with a male instructor (it is unknown when the instructor joined the table). Danielle asks the instructor if he was able to sleep well, using the honorific form of “to sleep” immediately followed by laughter (line 7). However, the form that she used is incorrect. Overlapping with her laughter, the instructor indicates non-understanding by saying ‘ha’ with rising intonation. 278 In the following turn, Danielle rephrases the question while laughing at the same time. However, the form is again incorrect. After a short pause, the instructor recasts the correct form (line 10), which overlaps with Danielle’s speech and laugh. As soon as the instructor finishes his recast, Danielle says は ‘ha’ with rising intonation. Then the instructor recasts the correct form again, followed by brief laughter. In the next turn, Danielle successfully reformulates the form while laughing at the same time. After a 3-second pause, the instructor replies to her question. Then Danielle provides comments on her (in)ability to use keigo. In the following turn, Jennifer joins the conversation and says はい ‘yes.’ In the next turn, Danielle initiates a new topic and starts talking to Jennifer. Excerpt 34 Breakfast conversation: J: Jennifer (level 2); D: Danielle; I: Instructor 1 J: おはようございます 1 J: Good morning 2 D: おはようございます、ジ ェニファーさん。ああ、 何？ 2 D: Good morning Jennifer-san. Ah, what is it? 3 J: 今日の xxx 3 J: Today’s xxx 4 D: ポテト 4 D: Potatoes 5 J: ちょっと 5 J: A little 6 D: ああ 6 D: Oh (６秒) 7 ! (6 seconds) D: 先生、よくお寝になさい ましたか？ (笑い) 7 8 I: え？（D の笑いと重なる) 9 D: 10 I: ! D: Teacher, did you sleep [wrong honorific form] well? (Laugh) 8 I: Ha? (Overlapping with D’s laughter) (笑いながら) よく睡眠な さいましたか？ (笑い) 9 D: (While laughing) Did you sleep [wrong honorific form] well? (Laugh) (短いポーズ) 10 I: (Short pause) Did you sleep [correct honorific form] well 11 D: Keigo (overlaps with I’s recast) (laugh) Ha? お休み[になりましたか 11 D: [敬語（笑い）は？ 279 12 I: (笑い) お休みになりまし たか 12 I: (Laugh) Did you sleep [correct honorific form] well 13 D: (笑いながら) お休みにな りましたか？（笑い） 13 D: (While laughing) Did you sleep [correct honorific form] well? (Laugh) (３秒) (3 seconds) 14 I: はい（小さい声で） 14 I: Yes (lower volume) 15 D: やっぱり敬語はまだまだ 下手です。 (笑い)「いら っしゃる」「おっしゃ る」できますけど、それ 以外、だめです。 15 D: As was expected, my keigo is still poor/bad. (Laugh) I can say irassharu [honorific form of to go, to come, and to be] and ossharu [honorific form of to say], but not others. I am bad. 16 J: (笑い) はい 16 J: (Laugh) Yes 17 D: ああ、きれいですね、あ の、そのイヤリング。そ の指輪もきれいです。 17 D: Oh, [that’s] pretty. That [wrong demonstrative], those [correct demonstrative] earrings. That ring is pretty too. 18 J: ありがとう 18 J: Thank you (07/28/2010) Danielle’s question in line 7 (whether the instructor had slept well the previous night) was probably prompted by the conversation she had with John immediately before. John told Danielle that he could not sleep well the previous night because he had a dream in Japanese and found himself tired in the middle of the night when he was awake from the dream. Then John told Danielle that he had prayed to God to have an English dream. He repeated his prayer by saying 今から英語の夢をお願いします ‘Please let me have an English dream from now on.’ As soon as Danielle heard John say 今から英語の夢をお願 いします ‘Please let me have an English dream from now on,’ she started to laugh very hard. When Danielle initiated a question (whether he had been able to sleep well the previous night) to the instructor (line 7), she probably thought that she should use keigo. However, as Danielle says in line 15, although she can use some of the most frequently 280 used honorific forms, she still has problem using low-frequency honorific forms, such as “to sleep.” It is possible that Danielle was already aware that the honorific form that she used in line 7 was incorrect. In response to Danielle’s question, the instructor says え ‘ha’ with rising intonation. It is unknown whether he did not understand Danielle’s question or whether he intended to offer implicit corrective feedback on her incorrect honorific form. In her following turn, Danielle rephrases the question, using a different verb. At this point, the focus of the conversation has shifted from Danielle’s concern about the instructor’s sleep to her use of keigo. What Danielle appears to be doing is trying out different honorific forms of “to sleep” rather than addressing the instructor politely. In line 10, the instructor’s recast overlaps with Danielle’s new topic initiation. 敬 語は ‘keigo (plus topic marker)’ in her speech indicates that she is going to talk about keigo rather than the instructor’s sleep. ‘Ha?’ in line 11 indicates that Danielle was not expecting to hear feedback from the instructor. It is uncertain how the instructor interpreted Danielle’s use of keigo. The 3-second silence after Danielle’s successful reformation of correct form of “to sleep,” the instructor responds to Danielle’s question (line 14). Danielle, however, does not respond to the instructor’s answer; instead, she initiates a new topic and starts talking to Jennifer. I am a teacher Danielle’s sense of herself that 私は一番年上 ‘I am the oldest’ was combined with her identity as a teacher and together influenced the way she positioned herself in the Japanese School. In level 4, for example, the majority of the students were undergraduate students who had graduated from a high school not long before. A few of them were 18year-olds who just had finished their first year of college. In Danielle’s eyes, her classmates were probably projected as gakusei ‘students’ and overlapped with the Japanese language students in her high school classrooms. 私は先生、みなさんは学生と いう考え、まだ、あります ‘I still think that I am a teacher, and everyone else is a 281 student,’ Danielle stated. She described the students in level 4 as みなさんは大体まじめ な生徒 ‘most students are well-behaved pupils,’ but she recognized one male student, David, who acted as immature as her high school students. She described David as まだ 子供だから、頭はいいけど、自分を他の人の目からあまり見られない ‘because he is still a child, even though he is smart, he cannot look at himself from others’ point of view.’ One day in class, Danielle scolded David in front of everyone. It was a day when the students in the level 4 class gave group presentations. One group came up to the front of the class and started to get ready for their presentation. While the group members were checking their PowerPoint slides, someone pressed the “view” button by accident. The task of the presentation was to present a piece of trivia that would surprise the audience. Showing PowerPoint slides to the audience before the actual presentation could ruin the whole presentation. Laughter erupted from the audience, and suddenly, David started to yell, saying もう見ちゃった！ 見ちゃった！ ‘I’ve already seen it! I’ve seen it!’ Danielle stood up from her seat, looked at David, and said, リー [デイビッドの苗字]さん、静かに してください。わかるでしょ？ ‘Lee [David’s last name]-san, please be quiet. You know, don’t you?’ in a firm voice. After a short silence, some giggling occurred. David murmured something and fell silent. Danielle’s sense of herself as a teacher was manifested in another behavior As Danielle admitted, 私はみなさんの話し方をよく直したいんです ‘I want to correct other students’ speech/utterances,’ she corrected other students’ language errors. Danielle was aware that she was a student, not a teacher, in the Japanese School just like any other student. She was also aware that some students would not welcome her corrections. Nonetheless, she corrected other students’ linguistic errors because it was the practice that she had been engaged in for many years as a high school teacher. She stated: もちろん、大体同じレベルですけど、私の間 違いは同じかもしれませんが、私がわかった Of course, [the level 4 students are] mostly at the same level, and I make the same mistakes 282 ら、その間違いが、わかったら、すぐ（両手 をたたく）直します。例えば、今覚えていな いんですけど、あー、カタカナの発音とか、 すぐ直しますが、ちょっと失礼ですね。だか ら、私はもうしない方がいいかもしれません が、もしクラスメートは何か間違いがあった ら、大体します。しすぎるのは、ちょっと、 失礼だと思うから、時々しない方がいいと思 っていましたね。やっぱり私はまだまだ先生 の考え方がありますね。(笑い) [as my classmates make], but if I know, if I know that there is a mistake, I will immediately [claps her hands once] correct it. For example, I don’t remember now, but uh, the pronunciation of Katakana and so on. I will immediately correct it. It’s rude, I know. So, I probably shouldn’t do it, but if my classmates make mistakes, I mostly do [correct their mistakes]. Overdoing is probably rude, so I thought that I should not do it often. Indeed, I am still thinking like a teacher. (Laugh) (Interview, 07/15/2010) Excerpt 35 shows Danielle’s correction of her classmate’s inappropriate word choice. At the beginning of the class, the instructor, Danielle, and her classmate, Nick were talking about the Kanji ‘Chinese character’ 囲 as in the Kanji compound word 周囲 ‘surroundings.’ Nick mentions that 井 looks like the pound sign (#) on cell phone keypad and starts asking why the sign # is called “pound” in English. In line 1, Danielle starts to explain the reason. In line 3, Danielle tells Nick that # used to be used as the symbol for pound, which is a unit of weight. In line 4, Nick expresses his admiration for Danielle. In his speech, he uses an honorific form of “to know” as in ダニエラさんは、いろんなこと、 ご存知ですね ‘You know [honorific form] many things.’ Although the intent of Nick’s honorific use is unclear, it is possible that Nick used an honorific form because Danielle was older and more knowledgeable. In line 5, Danielle deflects the force of Nick’s compliment by saying, “because I am old.” In line 6, Nick states that he wants to be an old person, using the word toshiyori. Although the English translation of toshiyori is an old man/woman, the Japanese word toshiyori refers to elderly people. Danielle is in her 50s but not old enough to be referred to as toshiyori. In line 7, Danielle corrects Nick’s word choice. She states that referring to her as toshiyori is ちょっと失礼ですよ ‘a little rude, you know,’ and he should use the word, toshiue ‘older’ instead of toshiyori. In line 8, Nick realizes that he made a pragmatic mistake and apologizes Danielle. In line 10, 283 Nick produces private speech in which he is possibly trying to teach himself the word toshiue, for which he did not know the appropriate usage. Excerpt 35 Conversation in a classroom. D: Danielle; I: Instructor; NK: Nick 1 D: あ、むかしむかしは 1 D: Ah, a long time ago 2 I: (全体に) はい、じゃあ、は じめましょう。おはようご ざいます 2 I: (To the whole class) Well, then let’s begin. Good morning 3 D: ほんとのポンド、重さのポ ンドの シンボルでした。 3 D: It was the real pound, the symbol for weight pound. 4 NK: すごおい。ダニエラさん は、いろんなこと、ご存知 ですね。 4 NK: Wow. You know [honorific from] many things. 5 D: そう、年を取ったからね (声が小さくなる)。 5 D: Yes, because I am old (lower volume). 6 NK: すごい。私も年寄りになり たい。 6 NK: Awesome. I want to be an old person [toshiyori]. D: (笑い)「年寄り」はちょっ と失礼ですよ。「年上」の 方がいい。 7 D: (Laugh) Toshiyori ‘old person’ is a little rude, you know. Toshiue ‘older’ is better. 8 NK: あ、すみません。 8 NK: Oh, I’m sorry. 9 D: いいえ 9 D: No 1 0 NK: なんか、スイッチします。 年、上。すみません。 1 0 NK: (Filler) I’ll switch. Toshi, ue. I’m sorry. 7 ! ! (07/30/2010) Whereas some students, like Nick, were more willing to accept Danielle’s correction, some students were less so. One of the level 4 students, for example, described Danielle as a 本当にいい人 ‘really good person’ but うるさい ‘annoying.’ She said that Danielle was 先生、本当に先生。「私の方があなたよりわかる」そんな声 ‘teacher, really a teacher. “I-know-more-than-you” kind of tone’ and imitated Danielle’s tone of voice to me. She continued, 私たちは同級生。この場合、あなたは先生じゃない。 声。直してもいい。でも、声はほんとにうるさい ‘We are classmates. Here, you 284 [Danielle] are not a teacher. The voice. It is okay to correct, but the voice is really annoying.’ Moreover, Danielle was seeing the operation of the Japanese School from a teacher’s perspective. She often expressed her admiration for the school curriculum. She told me that she was impressed with various events and activities that the school offered to students outside of class. 運動会を見て「運動会ができるかな」。でも 私は一人ですから。落語を見て、私の上のレ ベルの学生に、落語を見せて、興味があった ら、落語をしてみたい。 After watching the athletic event, I wondered if I could do [implement] it [at my high school]. But I’m alone. After watching rakugo, I [want to] show rakugo to my higherlevel students, and if they are interested, I want to try doing [implementing] rakugo [at my high school]. (Interview, 07/15/2010) やっぱり私は先生の目で見ていますね ‘After all, I’m looking at [things] with teacher’s eyes,’ she laughed. Danielle seemed to be particularly impressed by the implementation of the rakugo week. プロの落語家をアメリカに呼んで、それぞれのレベ ルをまわっているのは本当にすごい ‘It’s really great that the Japanese School invites professional rakugo players, and they visit each level,’ and 私も教師ですから、これは難 しいとよくわかります ‘Because I am also a teacher, I know this [the implementation of rakugo week] is difficult,’ she stated. During the rakugo week, high-ranking professional rakugo performers were invited from Japan, and the students were not only able to see their performance firsthand but also given the opportunities to interact with them in class. The members of the rakugo club, in particular, received firsthand training from the rakugo performers and were given a chance to perform at the rakugokai, a rakugo performing event open to public at the end of the rakugo week. Danielle was a member of the rakugo club and performed at the rakugokai. 285 Danielle also seemed to be seeing the instructors in the Japanese School from a teacher’s perspective, too. She often expressed her admiration for them. The following statement is, for example, Danielle’s comment on the level 4 instructors. 先生方はチームとして、よくがんばります ね。中級２の４人の先生方は、いつも会議し たり、いつも、well coordinated という授業で すね。それから、この時間目で、に、教えて いない先生もよく来ますね。いろいろ、本当 に私は感動しました。 My teachers work hard as a team. The level 4 teachers always have meetings, and their lessons are always well coordinated. Furthermore, teacher(s) who is not teaching often go to another teacher’s class [to observe]. With various things, I am really impressed. (Interview, 07/15/2010) In her comment, Danielle used the expression よくがんばります (yoku gambarimasu), which is the equivalent of ‘work hard’ or ‘do a good job’ in English, in reference to the level 4 instructors. The verb gambaru indicates that one works hard to accomplish a task or a goal that requires consistent effort and endurance. If you use the word to describe someone else’s action or accomplishment, it becomes an evaluative statement. For example, teachers in Japanese schools often use yoku gambarimashita ‘you did a great job’ to give a positive evaluation to their students. Danielle was clearly aware of the pragmatic force of the expression yoku gambarimasu. At the end of the rakugokai, which took place on July 10, Danielle came to me and asked if it would be appropriate for her to tell the rakugo master (he is one of the high ranking rakugo masters in Japan) yoku gambarimashita. She told me that she was so impressed with his performance and so thankful for the advice and guidance that he had given her that she wanted to express her admiration and appreciation to him. I told her that it would not be appropriate for her to tell the rakugo master yoku gambarimashita. She said, yappari ‘as was expected,’ which is the expression that reconfirms the legitimacy of one’s original thought. 286 Excerpt 36 Conversation after the rakugokai. D: Danielle; R: Researcher 1 D: 村松さん、XXX 師匠に「よく がんばりました」と言うのは 失礼ですか？ 1 D: Muramatsu-san, would it be rude for me to say yoku gambarimshita ‘did a good job’ to Master XXX? 2 R: え、XXX 師匠に？ 2 R: E? To Master XXX? 3 D: XXX 師匠の performance は本当 にすばらしかったですね。そ れに、私たちを本当に親切に 教えてくれましたね。私たち は下手でしたけど（笑い）、 三喬師匠のアドバイスのおか げで、上手にできましたね。 みんな笑ってくれました。だ から、You did a wonderful job. Thank you very much. 3 D: Master XXX’s performance was really wonderful. Also, he taught us really kindly. We were bad (laugh), but because of his advice, we were able to perform well [tonight]. Everyone laughed [at our performance]. So, “You did a wonderful job. Thank you very much.” 4 R: 「よくがんばりました」は失 礼ですね。日本語だと「本当 にすばらしかったです。どう もありがとうございました」 とか。 4 R: Yoku gambarimshita is rude. In Japanese, you can say, “It was really wonderful. Thank you very much” or something. 5 D: やっぱり。 5 D: Yappari ‘As I expected.’ (07/10/2010) An evaluative comment such as yoku gambarimashita can be only given from the person who has enough knowledge, expertise, and experience to judge one’s action and achievement. In the context of rakugo performance, Danielle is not in the position to evaluate the rakugo master’s performance. After Danielle thanked me, she went to the rakugo master’s green room and told him, 大変すばらしかったです。ありがとうござい ました ‘It was so wonderful. Thank you very much’ and bowed. Danielle was aware of not only the pragmatic force of yoku gambarimasu but also the sociopragmatic practice underlying the linguistic expression yoku gambarimasu. Despite my explanation, Danielle continued to use yoku gambarimashita ‘did a great job’ to express her admiration for the instructors in the Japanese School. Excerpt 37 shows Danielle’s use of yoku gambarimashita ‘did a great job’ with regard to the performance of the level 4 instructors. The excerpt is taken from a lunch conversation 287 during the ninth week. In this excerpt, Danielle is seated with Jake (bilingual secretary), Sarah (level 5 student), and Adam (level 5 student). Before this excerpt, they were talking about a level 5 instructor who had taught in the Japanese School the previous summer. Jake mentioned that she was not teaching at Greenville because she was taking a break but might come back next summer. Danielle probably misunderstood what Jake had said about the instructor. She probably thought that the instructor took a break because she taught the level 5 by herself in the previous summer. In line 1, Danielle says that it is impossible for one instructor to teach a course alone because Greenville is tough for instructors as well as students. After 2-second silence, Danielle further states that in her level 4 course, there were four instructors for 15 students, and they did a great job, using the expression yoku gambarimashita. In this utterance, she also uses the adverb kekkou ‘fairly’ to describe the degree of greatness. Kekkou ‘fairly’ can express (a) a state that is not perfect but is good enough or (b) an outcome that exceeded the speaker’s expectation. Therefore, Danielle’s utterance could be interpreted as saying that (a) the level 4 instructors did a good enough job or (b) the level 4 instructors’ performance exceeded Danielle’s expectation. The 13-second silence following Danielle’s utterance in line 2 may indicate the confusion among the other students at the table. Given their proficiency levels, they are probably not sure how to interpret Danielle’s utterance. In line 3, breaking the silence, Danielle continues that she doesn’t want to take a job in which she would have to work from early in the morning until late at night. After Danielle’s utterance, another long silence follows. After the silence, Sarah changes the topic. Excerpt 37 Lunch conversation: D: Danielle 1 D: 夏学校は先生方にもつらいで すから、一人で教えるのは無 理でしょう。 (２秒) 1 D: Greenville is tough for teachers, too, so, it’s probably impossible to teach by himself/herself. (2 seconds) 288 2 ! D: 2 ! だから、私たちの１５人の中 級２年生には、先生方が４人 いましたね。でも、けっこう よくがんばりましたね、先生 方は。 D: (13 seconds) (１３秒) 3 D: That’s why there are four teachers in our 15 students level 4 course. But, they kekkou yoku gambarimshita ‘did a fairly great job.’ 3 朝早くから夜くまで。実は私 は怠け者ですから、そういう 仕事したくないんです。 D: From early in the morning until late at night. Because I am lazy, I don’t want to do that kind of job. (15 seconds) (１５秒) (08/10/2010) Danielle’s intent in her use of adverb kekkou ‘fairly’ is unknown. Considering the admiration that she previously expressed for the level 4 instructors, it is possible that she used it to emphasize the degree of greatness. Whether Danielle is emphasizing or mitigating the force of evaluative comment, in this excerpt Danielle states her evaluation of the level 4 instructors’ job at Greenville from another teacher’s point of view. Struggle In the beginning of the program, I often saw Danielle hanging out with her fifthfloor friends. As weeks went by, she gradually started to spend her free time with her classmates, especially with younger students in level 4. Danielle’s positioning as 一番年 上 ‘I am the oldest’ and also as a teacher was accepted by younger students in level 4 but probably not so welcomed among the fifth-floor residents, who were mostly professional students in their late 20s and early 30s. As the weeks went by, Danielle started to feel isolated. In our interview in the sixth week, she stated: 最近、私は、さびしい感じがありますね。も う６週間たったけど、いい友達がいないと思 っています。どしてかわかりませんが。 Lately, I feel lonely. Six weeks have already passed, but I think I don’t have any good friends [here]. I don’t know why. (Interview, 07/25/2010) Danielle believed that the Japanese language was the reason she did not have friends at Greenville. Because of the language pledge, she had to communicate with other 289 students solely in Japanese. She felt that communicating in a foreign language was a barrier to building a friendship the way she did in English. However, for Danielle, speaking English was not an option. She came to Greenville to improve her Japanese language skills. Therefore, speaking only Japanese was more important than making friends. Excerpt 38 Interview. D: Danielle; R: Researcher D: やっぱり、心の中にあるのが、外国 語で、あんまり表現できないから、 さびしい。 D: I feel lonely because I cannot express my inner thoughts in a foreign language. R: じゃあ、もし、ここで、英語も話せ たら、いい友達ができていたと思い ますか？ R: Then, if you could speak English here, do you think you would have made good friends already? D: はい、そう思いますね。ちょっと飲 みに行って、いろいろ個人的なこと について話して、ちょっと友達、友 達になると思いますね。ここで (ポ ーズ) できないと思いますね、残念 ながら。 D: Yes, I think so. We go out for drinks, talk about personal things, and become friends. Here (pause) I think we cannot do [these things], unfortunately. R: それは日本語で話さなければならな いから？ R: Is that because you have to speak in Japanese? D: ううん、たぶんね。そう思います が。正しいかどうかわかりません。 D: Uhm, maybe. I think so. I don’t know if it’s right. じゃ、日本語じゃなくて、英語で話 そうってことはしないんですか？ Then, not in Japanese, do you try to speak in English? しません。 I don’t. それは pledge があるから？ Is that because of the pledge? うん。Pledge は私の目的ね。私の目 的は、日本語を上達することです ね。他の友達がいますね、家には。 だから、たぶん、友達を作るより、 目的は大切です (大きく息を吐く)。 Yes. The Pledge is my purpose. My purpose is to improve my Japanese language skills. I have other friends at home. So, probably, my purpose is more important than making new friends (deep exhalation). (07/25/2010) 日本語でがんばりたいんです ‘I want to speak Japanese as much as I can,’ she said. I noticed that her eyes were brimming with tears. 家に帰りたいんです。ですが、こ 290 の勉強もしたいです、終わりまで ‘I want to go home, but I want to finish the study here,’ she laughed while wiping her tears with her hand. In addition to the sense of isolation that emerged in Danielle’ mind, she started to feel less confident about her ability to improve her Japanese. In particular, she started to think that her age was an obstacle to learning Japanese. At the beginning of the seventh week, Danielle found out that a student in level 1 had withdrawn from the program. Danielle was not particularly close to the student; however, they had one thing in common. They were in the same age group. His withdrawal made Danielle officially the oldest student in the Japanese School. [その学生が日本語学校をやめた] 理由がわかりま せんが、一番年上の学生になってしまいました ‘I don’t know the reason [for his withdrawal], but I finally became the oldest student,’ she said. In everyone’s eyes, it was obvious why he withdrew from the school. He had been having difficult time keeping up. Around the same time when Danielle learned about the level 1 student’s withdrawal from the school, she met Ellen, a student in the three-week instructional technology (IT) course. The IT course started in the sixth week. Ellen joined the Japanese School after the midterm break. Ellen was in her mid 40s. She had lived in Japan for six years. As Danielle became close to Ellen, she learned many things about Ellen—her age, her Japanese language background, her job, her husband, and so forth. While she found many similarities between Ellen and herself, Danielle also noticed a difference. Ellen’s Japanese language proficiency was much higher than Danielle’s. 私と同じぐらい日本に行ったアンダーソンさ んも、同じ時に勉強はじめたしし、私より大 変上手で、ペラペラ話していて、先生方よ り、私はアンダーソンさんの日本語が時々わ からないんですね。それも、ちょっと恥ずか しいことですね。 Anderson [Ellen’s last name]-san went to Japan around the same time as I did. She also started to study Japanese around the same time as I did. But, she [her Japanese language skills] is much better than I [my Japanese language skills] and speaks Japanese very fluently. I understand teachers’ Japanese but sometimes don’t understand Anderson-san’s. It’s a little embarrassing. (Voice memo, 08/04/2010) 291 It was the eighth week. There was an incident that made Danielle completely lose her confidence in her ability to learn Japanese. Danielle had been preparing for her final presentation. She chose Japanese ceramics as the topic of her presentation. To prepare for the draft, she read books about Japanese ceramics, searched online resources, and visited one of the instructors who were familiar with Japanese ceramics to ask questions. Then she wrote the first two pages of the draft and visited Ishida-sensei’s office hour to get feedback (Ishida-sensei was overseeing Danielle’s final presentation). During the 20minute meeting, he pointed out a number of mistakes that Danielle had made, including grammatical mistakes, inappropriate word choices, and incorrect sentence structure. As the conversation went on, Danielle became quieter and responded to Ishida-sensei’s comments by only saying はい、はい ‘yes, yes.’ At the end of the meeting (excerpt 39), Ishida-sensei suggests that Danielle check the accuracy of her particle use according to the verb type (line 6). He also mentions that without such effort, her Japanese language skills will not improve. In response to his suggestion, Danielle explains that she made more mistakes in this essay than she usually does because it was a more challenging task (line 7). Ishida-sensei then emphasizes the importance of editing by checking accuracy after writing a draft (line 8, line 10). Danielle, in a frustrated tone, tells him about the time and effort that she has put into writing those two pages (line 11, line 13). At the end, Danielle thanks him and leaves the office. Excerpt 39 Conversation in the level 4 instructors’ office. D: Danielle; I: Ishida-sensei 1 D: 「かかられる」は受け身形で すか？ 1 D: Is kakarareru a passive form? 2 I: 私が書いてないのでわかりま せんが、自分でどういう意味 で使ったんですか？ 2 I: I don’t know because I didn’t write it. In what sense, did you use it? 3 D: じつは、ウィキペディアで読 みました (消え入りそうな 声)。 3 D: Actually, I read on Wikipedia (faintly, in a subtle tone). 4 I: 自分で理解して、 4 I: You should understand it first, 292 5 D: はい、わかりました。あの、 もちろんもっとあるかもしれ ませんが。 5 D: Yes, I understand. Uhm, of course, I probably have more [questions]. 6 I: まあ、基本的には、自分で動 詞をチェックして、助詞がこ れでいいのか悪いのか、いつ も（強調）やらないと、上手 になれない。助詞を間違える のが一番多いじゃないです か。それをなくしていくため には、毎回動詞を使う時に、 これは自動詞なのか他動詞な のかっていうのを自分で復習 もかねて、やっていくと、そ のうちだんだんできるように なってくると思います。 6 I: Basically, you always check verbs by yourself and think whether particles are correct or not. Unless you always (louder volume) do this, you cannot improve your Japanese. Particles are your most common mistakes, aren’t they? In order to get rid of particle mistakes, every time you use a verb, you need to check whether it is an intransitive or a transitive verb, also for your review. If you do this, I think you will gradually become able to do [use verbs with correct particles]. 7 D: 短い作文を書く時よくするん ですけど、この（強調]）作 文の方がもっと[強調] 難しい し、よく考えていますから、 もっと間違えています。 7 D: I do when writing short essays, but this essay (louder volume) is more difficult (louder volume), and I had to think a lot, so I made more mistakes. 8 I: わかります。書く時に一番大 切なのは、書き終わった時に 何回も自分でチェックする。 8 I: I understand. What is most important when you write essays is to check your writing many times by yourself after you finish. 9 D: (溜め息) 9 D: (Sigh) 10 I: Editing の所が一番大切なの で。 10 I: Editing is the most important. 11 D: わかりましたが、１ページ は、日曜日、何時間もかかり ましたね。それから、先生、 この段落、３時間かかりまし た。 11 D: I understand, but it took me many hours to write just one page on Sunday. Then, teacher, it took three hours to write this paragraph. 12 I: そうですか。 12 I: I see. 13 D: 前に読んだ物をもう一度読ん で、情報をとるのが大変でし た。それから、書いて「これ が必要」と思って、また戻っ て読んで、だから、本当に時 間がかかりました。思ったよ り時間がかかります。１日に ３ページできると思いました が。 13 D: I reread the materials that I had read previously. It was difficult to get information. Then, I started to write and thought, “I need this.” Then, I went back to the reading again. So, it really took time. It takes [took] more time than I had thought. I thought I could write three pages in one day, but 14 I: xxx 14 I: xxx 293 15 D: はい、わかりました。ありが とうございました。 15 D: Yes, I understand. Thank you very much. (08/03/2010) After the meeting, Danielle went back to her room and cried. She later stated: 週末からあの作文を書いていました。でも、 死にそうに難しかったから、とても自信がな くなって、泣きました。部屋で泣きました。 I had been working on that essay since last weekend. But, it was really hard. So, I lost my confidence and cried. I cried in my room. (Voice memo, 08/04/2010) On the following day, Danielle went to see Miyamoto-sensei and told him, 日本語 をあきらめたい ‘I want to give up Japanese.’ She told him that she was not confident in her ability to continue studying Japanese. In our conversation, she mentioned, 恥ずかしい ‘embarrassing’ because 他の若い人にくらべて、私の日本語は下手ですから ‘compared to other younger people, my Japanese is poor/bad.’「年は関係なし」と宮本先生はおっ しゃいましたが、私は、そういうこと、信じていないんです ‘Miyamoto-sensei told me that age was not relevant but I don’t believe that,’ she said. Becoming a teacher of Japanese After the first meeting with Ishida-sensei, Danielle went to see him twice more and asked him for feedback. Each time, she listened to his comments carefully and revised the draft accordingly. After she submitted the final draft, she said: 心配しないでください。私はあのひどい作文 が終わったから、発表の方が上手にできると 思いますから、自信を持つようになると思い ます。 Please do not worry. I finished that terrible essay, so, I should be able to do a better job at the presentation, so I think I will regain my confidence. (Voice memo, 08/06/2010) On Monday, I sat in the level 4 classroom and waited for the student presentations to begin. I recalled the first day of the class when Miyamoto-sensei had asked the students to introduce themselves. At that time, Danielle was the first person to speak. She had said, 私は一番年上ですから ‘Since I am the oldest’ and started to introduce herself. 294 In the final presentations, she was the second person to present. As Danielle told me not to worry, she did a great job with her final presentation. She memorized the draft, prepared the PowerPoint slides, brought real ceramics to show, made the audience laugh at her jokes, and ended the presentation successfully. とても緊張していました ‘I was really nervous,’ she said and laughed after the presentation when I complimented her. I realized that it had been a while since I had seen Danielle laugh. サンダースさんの学生はラッキーですね ‘Your students are lucky,’ I once told Danielle. She laughed and said, 宮本先生も同じことを言いました ‘Miyamoto-sensei told me the same thing,’ she said. I had never seen a high school Japanese language teacher who worked as hard as Danielle did to improve his/her Japanese language skills. 簡単な 日本語しか話さないから、日本語が下手になってしまいました ‘Because I speak only simple Japanese, my Japanese got poor/bad’,” she repeatedly told me in our conversations. 恥ずかしい ‘embarrassing,’ she also said. I tried to imagine what she was like in her Japanese language classroom. In one of the writing assignments, she wrote about her experience in her high school. In her high school, students select the “teacher of the year,” and whoever is selected will receive a trophy at the school ceremony in June. Danielle wrote, いつかそのトロフィーをもらいた いな ‘I wish I could receive the trophy some day,’ but she thought it would be impossible because it was a school-wide award, and the number of the students who study Japanese was small, compared to the total number of the students in her high school. In the year 2005, she broke her both ankles and had to teach class in a wheelchair for a month. Even after she was able to walk, she had to use crutches. でも、毎日学校に 通って、１日も休まなかった ‘But, I went to school everyday and did not miss a class, ‘ she wrote. At the end of school year, she was not able to attend the annual ceremony in which the “best teacher of the year” was announced and the trophy was awarded. Next day, when she went to school, she found out that she had been selected as the best teacher of the year and received her trophy from the school principal. She ended her essay: 今も 295 仕事を辞めようと思う時、そのトロフィーを見て、もう一度これをもらえるようにがん ばろうと思う。しかし、今度は骨をおらない方がいい ‘When I want to quit my job, I look at the trophy and think that I should work hard to receive this again. But, next time, I had better not break my bone. 私は教師の仕事が好きです ‘I like teaching/I like the job of teachers,’ Danielle repeatedly told me. The very first time she discovered the joy of teaching was when she taught English in Japan. In a sense, it was an accident for her to become a Japanese language teacher. However, it was Danielle’s experience in Japan that had opened a new world for her and eventually led her to come to Greenville in the summer of 2010. After she officially established herself as a Japanese language teacher in 1997, she had sought for opportunities to continue to work on her Japanese language skills. She had always been aware that, as a non-native speaker of Japanese, she needed to make efforts to maintain and improve her Japanese language proficiency. However, in reality, she had been busy with her daily routines as a teacher and a wife and had not had the chance to put serious effort into the maintenance of her Japanese language skills. In 2009, a year before she came to Greenville, she received a wake-up call reminding her of the need to seriously work on improving her Japanese. グリーンビルへ行く前の年、日本から高校に 日本人の留学生が来ました。１６歳の高校生 でした。その高校生の前に、私の下手な日本 語、私は日本語が下手だったから、とても恥 ずかしかった。だから、私は、やっぱり「日 本語を勉強しなければいけない」と思って、 高くてもグリーンビルに行くのがいいと思い ました。 A year before I went to Greenville, Japanese exchange students came to my high school. They were sixteen-year-old high school students. In front of those students, my poor/bad Japanese, my Japanese was poor/bad, so I was very embarrassed. So, I thought “I have to study Japanese” and I decided to go to Greenville even though it was going to be expensive. (Skype interview, 12/19/2013) The Japanese high school students sat in Danielle’s third- and fourth-year Japanese language classes. During the class, as they watched Danielle teach, they pointed out her language mistakes in front of her students. 296 日本人はとても丁寧ですけど、それから、年 上の人、間違いを直すことはあんまりしたく ないんですけど、やっぱり時々、がまんでき なくて、私を直しました。授業中でした。 Japanese people are very polite and so don’t want to correct older people’s mistakes. But sometimes, they could not stand it and corrected my mistakes. It was during my class. (Skype interview, 12/19/2013) It was probably an embarrassing experience for Danielle to be corrected in front of her students by 16-year-old Japanese high school students. Even though she was a non-native speaker of Japanese, she was a Japanese language teacher, the authority of the Japanese language for her students. Danielle also stated: 私は自分で、生徒の読み物のために、作文を 書くのは、とても恥ずかしかった。私が間違 ったら、生徒は悪い日本語を、下手な日本語 を習うことは恥ずかしかった。だから（ポー ズ）自信がなくなりました。それから、もし 私は日本語の教師の仕事がしたければ、それ は、がまんできなかったんです。がまんでき ないと思うようになりました。 I also felt embarrassed to write compositions for my students to practice reading. If I make mistakes, my students would learn bad Japanese. That was embarrassing. So (pause), I lost my confidence [with my Japanese language ability]. If I want to continue to be a Japanese language teacher, I thought I would not be able to stand it. (Skype interview, 12/19/2013) 恥ずかしい ‘embarrassing’ was the expression that Danielle often used when describing her Japanese language skills. To Danielle, the fact that 日本語が下手になって しまいました ‘my Japanese got poor/bad’ was embarrassing in two senses. It was embarrassing in the eyes of her students. She had lost her authority with her students. It was also embarrassing to herself as a Japanese language teacher. If she continued to be a Japanese language teacher with her limited proficiency, she felt that she would not be able to tolerate herself. Therefore, she had decided to spend a summer at Greenville to improve her Japanese language skills, to regain her confidence, and to become the Japanese language teacher she wished to be. Two days after Danielle gave her final presentation, she received the evaluation on her draft and presentation. She received almost perfect scores on both. The last day, I asked Danielle if she had regained her confidence. She said, 私の日本語はまだまだ下手 ですけど、でも、上手になったと思います ‘I still have a long way to go, but I think my 297 Japanese has improved.’ Then she continued, グリーンビルに来て、本当によかったです ‘I am really glad that I came to Greenville.’ Toward the end of the program, the level 4 students wrote a tanka (traditional Japanese short verse) and their tanka were entered into a contest. Danielle’s tanka won the first place. She wrote: 先生の トマトが赤くなって もうそろそろと 夏が終わる ‘My teacher’s tomatoes became red, the summer is slowly coming to end.” Danielle’s summer at Greenville was also coming to end. Discussion In this chapter, I have described Danielle’s L2 socialization process, highlighting how her identities intermingled with her L2 socialization process. The important role of identity in L2 learning has been recognized in the L2 socialization literature. Previous studies have argued that L2 learners’ identities such as gender (Kinginger, 2004; Norton, 2000; Polanyi, 1995; Siegal, 1995, 1996; Talburt & Stewart, 1999; Teutsch-Dwyer, 2001), race and ethnicity (Iino, 1996, 2006; Norton, 2000; Siegal, 1995, 1996), and class (Kinginger, 2004) are inseparable from their L2 learning. By living in the social world, we belong to multiple communities of practice. Since our identities are not something we can turn on or off as we cross the boundaries of communities, our identities need work. In the process of reconciling multiple identities across time and space, we negotiate and (re)construct the new meaning of selves (Wenger, 1998). In Danielle’s case, her sense of self as a high school teacher, combined with her emergent self-identification as the oldest student in the Japanese School, played a powerful role in determining the ways in which she participated in the practice of the Japanese School and related with other members in the community. Danielle’s work of reconciliation or negotiation of her identities was characterized by her ambivalent feelings and, to some extent, resistance. Surrounded by younger people who were mostly 298 in their 20s and 30s, Danielle accepted and rejected her new identity as a Japanese language student by sometimes relating to other members on equal terms and sometime overpowering them. Previous studies have found that the reconciliation of L2 learners’ identities is a site of struggle (Norton, 2000). Being caught by inequitable social relations, L2 learners struggled to establish their legitimate position in new communities of practice (e.g. Harklau, 2000; Morita, 2002, 2004; Norton, 2000; Talmy, 2008; Teutsch-Dwyer, 2001). In Danielle’s case, however, such social power relations did not come into play in the reconciliation of her identities. The different finding between previous L2 socialization studies and the case of Danielle can be attributed to the difference in the social environments in which the L2 learners were placed—more precisely, the different affordance structures that the social communities offered for L2 learners. The Japanese School, as discussed in Chapter 4, is a hybrid L2 learning community where legitimacy was granted to its members. Unlike the L2 learners in previous L2 socialization studies, Danielle did not need to negotiate her identities to gain access to the new community of practice and to claim her right to speak. With her disposition that she likes to talk, combined with the legitimacy and her positioning, Danielle created abundant opportunities to speak Japanese and exercised her agency freely to pursue her enterprise of learning Japanese. In the rich affordance structures of the Japanese School, Danielle made persistent effort to improve her Japanese language skills and eventually achieved a remarkable outcome of self-transformation. Her learning was, however, not a seamless linear process. It was characterized by her struggle, particularly the struggle with the limitations that she perceived were a consequence of her age. Yet, Danielle never stopped trying to achieve her goal of learning Japanese at Greenville. An important question to be considered is what made Danielle persistently engage in the practice of the Japanese School regardless of the obstacles she faced in the process 299 of learning Japanese. Could it be explained using the notion of investment proposed by Norton (2000)? Danielle’s primary drive for learning Japanese at Greenville was her desire to become the Japanese language teacher she wanted to be. Having faced (having been reminded of by some Japanese high school students) the fact that her Japanese language skills had deteriorated after years of using it only with her students, she was deeply embarrassed and felt that she could not bear to continue as a Japanese language teacher unless she could find a way to improve her Japanese. It was this aspiration of Danielle that brought her to Greenville, engaged her in the practice of the Japanese School, overcame the hardships, and eventually achieved a remarkable outcome of selftransformation. As discussed in the studies of Parker, Alison, and Naiya, the core principle of the notion of investment is the symbolic exchange that takes place as an outcome of L2 learning. In the case of Danielle, did she expect to gain another form of symbolic capital in exchange for her knowledge and skills in Japanese? Did Danielle’s interest in gaining social capital as an outcome of study serve as her primary drive for learning Japanese? I argue that Danielle’s primary drive for learning Japanese was her aspiration for personal change—her desire to overcome a feeling of embarrassment and become the Japanese language teacher of her imagination of whom she could be proud. Danielle’s aspiration did not include her desire to gain social reputation or to be identified as a better or more competent Japanese language teacher by her students or her colleagues. What Danielle negotiated in the process of her Japanese language learning was her sense of self of the past, present and future. In current L2 socialization theory and research, L2 learners’ identities are conceptualized as fundamentally social—social sense of self (Norton, 2000), social position (Davies & Harré, 1990), and membership (Wenger, 1998) in communities. Previous studies have found that L2 learners’ social identity negotiation was inseparable from their L2 learning process. L2 learners are inevitably embedded in the web of social 300 and power relations, and their identity (re)construction in new communities became a site of struggle and at the same time, a possible site for change. In Danielle’s case, her social identity (re)construction in the Japanese School did not become a site of struggle or an opportunity for change, although her positioning in the Japanese School influenced how she created learning opportunities and how she related to other members in the school. What made Danielle achieve her personal change was her aspiration for self-transformation from the past to the future. It was this aspiration that made her overcome the obstacles that she faced and eventually made her transformation happen. Thus, Danielle’s case study, together with the studies of Parker, Alison, and Naiya, suggest that L2 learners’ complex and sometimes conflicting social and personal desires for learning an L2 may not be able to be explained using the notion of investment alone. Hence, investment is better understood as a form of L2 learner agency, which is applicable for particular types of L2 learners who are situated in particular social contexts. 301 CHAPTER IX: CONCLUSION Introduction This study was conducted with the aim of gaining a deeper understanding of what it means to learn a second language (L2), situated in the theoretical framework of L2 socialization. Based on the premise that L2 learners are “intentional human agents who play a defining role in shaping the qualities of their learning” (Dewaele, 2009, p. 638), this study has examined the processes of L2 learning by four advanced learners of Japanese, focusing on the role of their agency, in the community of a summer intensive full-immersion program in the United States. Chapter 4 has presented the description and analysis of the community in which the study took place. Chapter 5 through Chapter 8 have presented case studies of the four learners and have described the ways in which they engaged in the community of practice, negotiated the meaning of their participation, defined and renegotiated a sense of self, and achieved the goal of their L2 learning. This last chapter discusses the significance of the findings of the study. I first discuss the role of social contexts in L2 learning. Then I locate agency in second language acquisition (SLA) research. In the following section, I present implications for pedagogy. In the last two sections, I discuss the limitations of the study and directions for future research. What can we learn from the studies of the four learners? Role of social contexts in L2 learning With recent recognition of the importance of social contexts in L2 learning, SLA research has investigated L2 learning in the relation to the social contexts in which the learning takes place. In the framework of L2 socialization research, previous studies have examined the affordance structures of social communities and have found that L2 302 learners are often caught in inequitable social and power relations and are placed in illegitimate positions of the target language communities. In contrast to the findings of previous studies, the present study has found a facilitative role for the social environment. What made the Japanese School different from other social communities was its hybridity. The Japanese School is a constructed social community created for the purpose of learning Japanese. On the one hand, it provides peripherality in the Japanese sociocultural practice for its students; on the other hand, it operates under the policies and codes of an academic institution in the United States. This dual structure of the community, combined with the operational policies and practices of the Japanese School, created the basis for legitimate peripheral participation by removing the various social constraints reported in previous L2 socialization studies, such as power, gender, and, race, from the learning environment, and by providing abundant resources and opportunities for L2 learning. What became evident in this hybrid social community was that the social environment alone was not sufficient to make L2 learning happen. The case studies of the four learners have shown that L2 learning is a process of a dynamic interplay between the affordance structure of a social community and individual L2 learners’ agency. There is no doubt that the primary role of the social environment in L2 learning is to offer rich and effective affordance structures that facilitate L2 learning. Then what characterizes the richness and effectiveness of a social environment? The Greenville Summer Language Schools, without a doubt, offered a very rich academic environment for the students. The college’s beautiful college campus, top-rated facilities, various resources, history, and reputation offered an ideal setting for language learning environment. Moreover, the Japanese School’s sophisticated curriculum— professionally trained instructors, well designed courses, and various extra-curricular activities and special events—and the total immersion environment combined with the 303 policy of the Language Pledge created infinite opportunities for students to use their target language in genuine communication. However, the findings of the case studies of the four learners have suggested that richness and effectiveness of a social environment do not lie only in such physical and academic affordances. Rather they are constructed in a dynamic relationship between the affordance structure of a social community and L2 learners’ agency in the pursuit of the joint enterprise of making L2 learning happen for themselves. In this regard, richness and effectiveness of learning environments are not pre-existing characteristics of communities but rather a dynamic construct arising from the interaction between individual L2 learners’ agency and the affordances of social community. The nine weeks of observation in the Japanese School provided a powerful reminder of the three characteristics of a social group as a community outlined in Wenger (1998): (a) mutual engagement; (b) a joint enterprise; and (c) a shared repertoire. What I saw in the Japanese School in the summer of 2010 was all members’ consistent and persistent engagement to make L2 learning happen. In the words of the director, “there are only two types of people here in the Japanese School: those who want to teach Japanese, those who want to learn Japanese (original in Japanese and translated by the researcher).” This joint enterprise created a repertoire of practices and constructed the Japanese School as an L2 learning community. In a way, the positive outcome of the four learners can be attributed to the single-minded pursuit of teaching and learning Japanese that underlay all of the activities in the community; indeed, it was almost the ideal affordance structure of the Japanese School as a L2 learning social environment. In sum, what the case studies of the four learners can teach us is that neither social environment nor L2 learner alone is sufficient to make L2 learning possible. L2 learning is a joint process between L2 learners and social communities and more important, it requires individual L2 learner agency to make use of the affordances of the social community in the pursuit of their enterprise of learning an L2. As constructions, the 304 richness and effectiveness of learning environment are experienced in unique ways by individual learners, even those in the same school who are at the same level, taking the same classes, and participating in the same school activities. Locating agency in SLA research Agency is the fundamental force for human action. Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000) argue that in L2 learning, agency is the very force for L2 learners to initiate a “long, painful, inexhaustive, and for some, never-ending process of self-translation” (p. 170). L2 learners, as agents, have the power to make choices, initiate certain actions, actively resist certain practices, construct identity, negotiate the meaning of their actions, and take control over their learning in pursuit of their goals in learning an L2. Regardless of the recent recognition of the importance of agency, the role of agency has not been discussed extensively in the SLA literature. In this section, drawing from the findings of this study, I reflect upon the role of agency in L2 learning and locate it in SLA research. Agency and investment revisited Learning an L2 requires an extended amount of time, effort, and commitment. Nonetheless, people seek various opportunities to learn an L2 for a wide range of reasons. The students whom I met in the Japanese School at Greenville in the summer of 2010 were no exception. Among those students, I have presented the stories of four students— Parker, Alison, Naiya, and Danielle—by describing their experiences of learning Japanese in the community of the Japanese School. These studies have provided a number of important insights into the understanding of L2 learning from the learners’ emic perspectives. Among those, one of the most important findings of the study is the power of the four learners to move from their aspirations to personal transformation in the process of L2 learning. What the four learners primarily negotiated, as they participated in the community of practice of the Japanese School, was their sense of self of the past, the present, and the future. Parker’s 305 desire to become a speaker of Japanese in search of his lost connection in the past, Alison’s desire to overcome her problem of speaking Japanese, Naiya’s desire to challenge herself to move to the next stage of her life, and Danielle’s desire to become the Japanese language teacher she wanted to be had brought them to the enterprise of learning Japanese at Greenville, made them engage in the everyday activities of the school, negotiate the meaning of their actions and selves, overcome the challenges they faced, and eventually accomplish their goals of learning Japanese. As discussed in previous chapters, L2 learners’ force for learning an L2 is theorized as investment in current socially oriented SLA research. Since the publication of the seminal work by Norton (2000), the notion of investment has become a common conception to describe L2 learners’ drive for learning an L2. One question I have posed in this study is the applicability of the notion of investment to the learning environment of the Greenville Japanese School. Norton conceptualizes investment in association with the economic metaphors proposed by Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) in the field of sociology. She associates L2 learning with the exchange of symbolic capital. L2 learners learn an L2 (acquire cultural capital) with the expectation that their L2 skills and knowledge will later be exchanged for another form of symbolic capital (economic and/or social capital). The case studies of the four L2 Japanese learners in this study, however, have shown that the notion of investment cannot adequately explain their drive for learning Japanese in their search for the possibilities for self-transformation from the past to the future, without involving the expectation for or interest in exchanging their symbolic capital. The findings of the study suggest that L2 learners initiate and engage in the enterprise of L2 learning with diverse and sometimes ambivalent social and personal wants and needs. The notion of investment is best understood as a form of L2 learner agency, which is applicable to particular types of L2 learners who are situated in particular social contexts and construct particular social identities. 306 Norton (2000) and this study took similar theoretical and methodological approaches to examine the socialization processes by L2 learners. Whereas Norton’s study has revealed the importance of L2 learners’ identity and investment in shaping the process of L2 learning, this study has highlighted the role of L2 learners’ aspirations for personal change. The two studies differ in (a) the types of learners studied and (b) the affordance structures of the social communities. Whereas Norton studied circumstantial learners (i.e., learners whose circumstances require them to study and speak a target language) in a target language community where L2 learners were placed in the web of social and power relations of the target language community, this study focused on foreign language learners who made a choice and had the privilege of spending a summer studying Japanese in the community of Greenville. These differences have foregrounded different aspects of L2 learner agency: One is investment, and the other is L2 learners’ aspiration for personal transformation and negotiation of meaning of selves of the past, the present, and the future. In sum, the studies of the four learners have foregrounded the contextually bounded and socially situated nature of L2 learning and L2 learner agency. Thus, their diverse social and personal desires and their needs for learning an L2 must be understood in conjunction with the types of learners whom we study and the different affordance structures in which the learners are embedded. Individual differences revisited Another aspect that the studies of the four L2 Japanese learners have foregrounded is the great degree of individual difference in the process of L2 learning. Even though the four learners were placed in the same affordance structures of the same community, they viewed and understood the affordances of the community differently and participated in the community of practice in different ways. 307 The different ways in which L2 learners engage in the activity of L2 learning have traditionally been theorized and examined in the framework of motivation in the SLA literature. Starting from the socio-psychological model of motivation proposed by Gardner and Lambert (1972), followed by the “cognitive-situated” (Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2012, p. 397) approach (e.g. Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Noels, Pelletier, Clément, & Vallerand, 2000), and the recent “socio-dynamic” (Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2012, p. 398) approach proposed by Dörnyei (2009a) and Dörnyei and Ushioda (2009), L2 learners’ motivation to learn an L2 has been extensively studied from various theoretical perspectives for the past four decades. Researchers in various fields (e.g., social psychology, educational psychology, and SLA) tried to conceptualize the constructs of L2 learners’ drive to engage in the activity of L2 learning. Previous studies have identified such constructs as integrative and instrumental motivations (Gardner, 1985; Gardner & Lambert, 1972) and intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Noels, Pelletier, Clément, & Vallerand, 2000). Thanks to the findings of the previous studies, we now know more about L2 learners’ drive to learn an L2, compared to what we knew 40 years ago. Yet, what we still do not fully understand is the contextually sensitive, individualistic, and dynamic nature of L2 learners’ desires and drives to engage in the activity of L2 learning. The previous studies, which adopted large-scale quantitative methodological approaches, are able to establish causal links between the operationalized constructs and L2 learning outcomes from an etic perspective; however, they are not able to capture complex and dynamic constructs of L2 learners’ desires and drives to learn an L2 from their emic perspectives. L2 learners are socially situated individuals who relate to the social world in idiosyncratic ways and construct the meaning of their actions and self in unique ways. Their desires and drives to engage in the activity of L2 learning are inevitably mingled with their identities, personal histories, and relationships to the social world. 308 In the framework of the social theory of learning, Norton (1995, 2000) has proposed the notion of investment to capture such dynamic relationship between individual learners’ desire to learn an L2 and the social world in which they live. More recently, researchers such as Dörnyei (2009a, 2009b), Dörnyei and Ushioda (2009), Ellis and Larsen-Freeman (2006), Ushioda (2009), and Ushioda and Dörnyei (2012) have called for the new epistemological approach to the investigation of individual differences in SLA research, which conceptualizes L2 learners as people who are situated in unique social, cultural, and historical contexts. Dörnyei (2009b), for example, argues the importance of an “agent-based framework” (p. 230) for the study of individual differences in SLA research. He emphasizes that researching individual difference variables discretely is no longer fruitful and that future research needs to extend theoretical boundaries and integrate individual learners and social contexts in the examination of individual differences. The present study has adopted a socially situated approach and has examined the role of L2 learner agency in the process of learning Japanese by the four learners. I argue that the different ways in which the four learners engaged in their enterprise of learning Japanese can be also explained by the different ways in which they exercised their agency to pursue their goals of learning Japanese. Lantolf and Pavlenko (2001) have conceptualized agency as the “mediated relationship” (p. 148) between individual learners and the social world. Even though L2 learners engage in the same activity in the same place, the meaning or the “significance” (p. 148) of their engagement is not the same for all learners because their relationships to the social world differ. What L2 learners find meaningful or significant in the process of their engagement is mediated by their personal histories, learning goals, beliefs, and relationship to the social world. The four learners in this study had different personal histories and backgrounds, reasons to study Japanese, senses of self, and relationships to the social world. Such 309 differences resulted in different ways in which they understood their tasks of learning Japanese at Greenville, they negotiated and constructed the meaning of their engagement, and they renegotiated and reconstructed their sense of self. The present study also suggests that various constructs that previous studies have foregrounded, such as integrative and instrumental motivations (Gardner, 1985; Gardner & Lambert, 1972), intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Noels, Pelletier, Clément, & Vallerand, 2000), and investment (Norton, 1995, 2000), can be due to the different social context from which each theory was initially developed; in other words, the different social contexts in which its study participants were embedded. For example, theory of integrative and instrumental motivations is originated in the unique social context of the coexistence of Anglophone and Francophone communities in Canada in 1970s. Theory of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations is developed in the needs for the investigation of classroom learners who are required to study and speak multiple languages in multilingual communities in Canada in 1980s. The notion of investment is put forward in the investigation of the circumstantial learners in a target language community where L2 learners were placed in the web of social and power relations of the target language community. The present study has foregrounded the notion of L2 learner agency. I studied foreign language learners who made a choice and had the privilege of spending a summer studying Japanese in the community of Greenville. Hence, the discussion of the applicability of the theories of L2 learners’ drive and desires to engage in the activity of L2 learning must consider the social contexts in which L2 learners are embedded. In sum, the case studies of the four L2 Japanese learners presented in this study have contributed to one way to gain a deeper understanding of L2 learners’ socially situated, dynamic, and diverse desires for engaging in the activity of learning an L2. The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (2012) has, for the first time in the history of SLA, placed identity and agency in the chapter on individual differences, along 310 with aptitude, motivation, working memory, age, and other individual variables. The agent-based approach to the study on individual differences in SLA research has just begun. Implications for pedagogy It is the hope of L2 teachers and educators that all L2 learners have successful experiences of learning an L2. Previous L2 socialization studies have investigated various social factors involved in the process of L2 learning. Such studies have uncovered issues of power, race, class, and gender that complicate L2 learners’ learning experiences, and some have pointed out the educational injustice in L2 teaching and learning. Whereas previous studies have focused on socio-contextual factors that influenced L2 learning, this study has highlighted the dynamic interaction between L2 learner agency and the social environment. On the basis of the findings of this study, I suggest two important tasks in L2 teaching. The first task is to create social communities that provide rich and effective affordance structures for L2 learning. As discussed previously, the richness and effectiveness of communities do not necessarily refer to the physical and academic affordances of the community (e.g., facilities, school reputation, history). Rather, they refer to the affordance structures that would provide a social place where L2 learners could freely exercise their agency to pursue their enterprise of learning an L2. For L2 learners to exercise their agency, legitimate peripheral participation is a necessary constituent of the rich and effective affordance of social communities. This principle raises an important question about the affordance structures of study abroad programs. Study abroad programs in Japan, in particular, as Cook (2006) and Iino (1996, 2006) have shown, do not necessarily provide rich and effective affordance structures for L2 learners. Because of the prevailing folk beliefs about gaijin ‘foreigners’ held by Japanese people, L2 learners may face social obstacles, and in 311 extreme cases, their agency to pursue their enterprise of learning Japanese may be undermined. It is not my intention here to compare the richness and effectiveness of the affordance structures of study abroad programs in Japan to that of the Japanese School at Greenville. However, this study, along with Cook (2006) and Iino (1996, 2006), suggest that a belief held among some L2 learners and teachers that the best way to learn a language is to go to the country where the language is spoken may not be true. Mere exposure to the target language and culture is not sufficient to make L2 learning happen. The second task of L2 teaching is to direct L2 learners’ agency to find L2 learning meaningful. As the studies of the four learners have shown, L2 learning experiences are inevitably colored and complicated by learners’ personal histories, beliefs, identities, emotions, and other personal and affective factors. Such factors interact with the affordance structure of social communities and shape the learners’ agency to act on the social reality either in a positive or negative way for L2 learning. As Alison’s and Naiya’s case studies suggest, affective factors, such as a feeling of embarrassment, lack of confidence in L2 language skills, and fear of receiving negative evaluation from others, can become an inhibiting force for learning an L2. In L2 Japanese learning, Aida (1994) has argued that L2 Japanese learners tend to develop a high level of anxiety related to the fear of receiving negative evaluation. Kitano (2001) has also found that L2 Japanese learners tend to develop stronger anxiety when they have a stronger fear of negative evaluation. This tendency was particularly true for intermediate-level L2 Japanese learners because intermediate-level learners, unlike beginning-level learners, have more opportunities to notice their own mistakes. Kitano (2001) has further found that L2 Japanese learners tend to have stronger anxiety when they perceive themselves a less competent compared to their peers and to native speakers. While L2 learning anxiety can be an inhibiting force for learning an L2, Alison’s case study has suggested that an L2 anxiety can be reduced and turned into a positive force for learning an L2. When Alison gained confidence and assurance, for the first time 312 in her life she discovered the meaningfulness of learning Japanese, and after that, her agency became a facilitative force for speaking Japanese. Learning an L2 is simultaneously a process of negotiation of meaning. L2 learners constantly negotiate the meaning of their actions and a sense of self while they are engaging in the activity of L2 learning. In the process of negotiation, they shape their agency to act for what they find meaningful and resist what they do not find meaningful. Meaningfulness, as Wenger (1998) argues, does not lie in L2 learners themselves but is constructed in the dynamic relation between each L2 learner and his/her social world. In the daily negotiation of meaning, whether it is in L2 classrooms that are thousands miles away from the target language community or in study abroad contexts, L2 teaching practice can provide various opportunities for L2 learners to make L2 learning experiences meaningful. This study suggests that helping L2 learners remove their emotional and affective barriers and gain confidence in learning their target language could be one way to help them discover how to make their L2 learning experience more meaningful. Limitations of the present study This study has adopted a research design of ethnographic case studies, and thus, it inherits the limitations of interpretative research and of case studies. As is the case for all case studies, this study lacks generalizability. As Patton (1990) puts it, the aim of case studies is to provide “context-bound explanations rather than generalization” (p. 491). This study has provided indepth descriptions of L2 learning experiences by four advanced L2 Japanese learners in a summer full-immersion program in the United States. The findings of the study are transferable to other L2 learning contexts only when readers make “naturalistic generalization” (Stake, 1978, p. 6); that is through the knowledge of particulars, readers see similarities “in new and foreign contexts” (p. 6). 313 Furthermore, as in the case for all interpretive research, the social reality presented in this study is a researcher’s version of reality, which is colored with my positioning stated in Chapter 3. By employing triangulation and providing indepth descriptions, I hope that readers would have seen what I saw in the Japanese School in the summer of 2010. Nonetheless, my ethnographic lens was colored by my subjectivity as a Japanese language teacher. Parker, Alison, Naiya, and Danielle constantly reminded me of that. Another limitation is that this study is not able to link L2 learners’ exercise of agency to their language development in general or to gains in particular structures or usage. Outcomes of their L2 socialization in this study are conceptualized as the L2 learners’ achievement from their emic perspectives. An examination of the students’ experiences that provided the outcomes of their L2 socialization from both emic and etic perspectives was beyond the scope of this dissertation study. Directions for future research Since the social turn in SLA research (Block 2003), the social dimensions of L2 learning have received increasing research attention. In the framework of L2 socialization, a number of studies have investigated the process of L2 learning in relation to the social contexts in which L2 learning takes place. Such studies have uncovered the important role of that social contexts play in L2 learning. To date, compared to how much is known with respect to how social communities afford or constrain L2 learners’ opportunities for learning, little is known with respect to how L2 learners respond to communities’ socializing practices and take active roles in constructing their socialization processes. How L2 learners view, understand, and act on the social practice and affordance of their communities remain under-researched. This study has presented the cases of the four advanced L2 Japanese learners in a summer full-immersion program in the United States. 314 More studies need to examine socialization processes by L2 learners who are situated in various social contexts. One such context is study abroad. Globalization has expanded opportunities to go abroad and learn a target language in an authentic social environment. Without a doubt, study abroad can provide abundant opportunities for learning an L2. However, despite such potential, studies on L2 learning in study abroad contexts have shown that L2 learners achieve different outcomes as the result of their study abroad experiences (e.g., Allen, 2010; Iino, 1996, 2006; Kinginger, 2008; Magnan & Lafford, 2012; Rivers, 1998; Wilkinson, 2002). In the framework of L2 socialization, different outcomes of study abroad experiences have been attributed to the social factors that constrain L2 learners’ opportunities for learning. Previous studies have shed light on various social obstacles that L2 learners encountered in the process of L2 learning. Yet, what is still unknown is the experience of how L2 learners overcome such social obstacles and achieve desirable outcomes. In the context of study abroad in Japan, in particular, L2 learners are likely to face the ideology of the Japanese society and folk beliefs about foreigners. In order for them to gain legitimate peripheral participation in local communities of practice, they would need to negotiate their learning opportunities. Future research could provide new insights into how L2 learners would break through that wall, gain access to the communities of practice, and open the way to the new worlds and new selves. Another social context that has emerged in recent years and that is becoming increasingly important is online social communities. Online social communities here do not merely refer to online social groups, but also to academic online environments. Online courses have various potential benefits for learners. As technology became capable of supporting advanced online learning environments, more universities have started to offer online courses, and among them, some have offered online foreign language courses. Then the important question that then arises is whether such online 315 communities are capable of offering effective affordance environments for L2 learning. As discussed earlier, the richness and effectiveness of affordance are not limited to physical affordances; instead, these affordances also include those of the social communities, in which L2 learners can freely exercise their agency to pursue their learning goals. In this regard, online social communities have the potential to provide an effective L2 learning environment. Future research focusing on examining the affordance structures of online social communities, including what they can provide and what they cannot, would provide a new perspective into L2 teaching and learning with diverse needs of L2 learners and institutions. Two and a half years after the summer of 2010 This study was inspired by my personal interest and desire to know L2 learners and their experiences of learning an L2. What I saw in the summer of 2010 in the Japanese School was not a miracle. It was L2 learners’ multifaceted activity in the pursuit of their enterprise of learning Japanese. Their efforts, struggles, ambivalence, and resistance were all part of their L2 socialization processes. Through their engagement in the community of the Japanese School, they negotiated and renegotiated the meaningfulness of their actions and their sense of self. This study suggests that language is commingled with the most intimate sense of self and becomes the very force for selftransformation. Two and a half years later, I had an opportunity to reconnect with the four participants in my study through Skype or e-mail. Parker graduated from his university and is working for the Fujitsu Company Limited in Tokyo. Alison is now an assistant professor in the field of Japanology at a university in Germany. “I felt great after Greenville when I went to Japan. But currently, I don’t speak Japanese, so I cannot tell. Greenville taught me that I could express myself [in Japanese],” Alison wrote in response to my question about her Japanese language skills two and a half years after she had 316 studied in the Japanese School. “Fair and honest”—I recalled my first impression of her. Naiya is now living in Tokyo and is working as a translator for a company. After she graduated from her university, she studied Japanese for one more year at the InterUniversity Center for Japanese Language Studies in Yokohama, Japan sponsored by Stanford University. She told me that she was planning to go to graduate school. Danielle is still teaching Japanese in the same high school on the East Coast. She is getting her second master’s degree in teaching a foreign language with a focus on Japanese. She told me that she was working on her thesis about how to incorporate manga into Japanese language teaching. 私の日本語は少し下手になってしまいましたけど、でも、まだ自信 はあります ‘My Japanese has gotten a little bad/poor, but I still have the confidence,’ Danielle said of herself as a Japanese language teacher. Two and a half years later, they all have moved to different stages of their lives; yet, their experiences of learning Japanese at Greenville are still alive in their lives and in their sense of self. 317 APPENDIX: TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS 1. Hepburn style romanization is used 2. The symbols used to describe paralinguistic information are as follows: ? rising intonation , continuing intonation followed by a short pause … omission (?) unclear utterance * ungrammatical sentence [ beginning of overlap xxx inaudible 3. Other non-verbal information is described in parenthesis: ( ) E.g., (Multiple people are laughing) 4. Comments and information added by the researcher is placed in squared brackets: [ ] E.g., I forgot [to what I was going to say]. [Fujimoto] saw from the window 318 REFERENCES Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 100– 137. Aida, Y (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s construct of foreign language anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. Modern Language Journal, 78, 155–168. Akiyama, Y. (2003). An ethnographic study of students learning culture in a summer intensive Japanese course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City. Allen, H. W. (2010). Interactive contact as linguistic affordance during short-term study abroad: Myth or reality? Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 19, 1–26. Atkinson, D. (2003). Language socialization and dys-socialization in a South Indian College. In R. Bayley & S. Schecter (Eds.), Language socialization in bilingual and multilingual societies (pp. 147–162). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Befu, H. (1993). Nationalim and nihonjinron. In H. Befu (Ed.), Cultural nationalism in East Asia: Representation and identity (pp. 107–135). Berkeley: University of California, Institute of East Asian Studies. Block, D. (2003). Social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Boas, F. (1911). The mind of primitive man. New York: The Macmillan Company. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Clifford, J. (1986). Introduction: Partial truths. In J. Clifford & G. E. Marcus (Eds.), Writing cultures: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 1–26). Berkeley: University of California Press. Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1986). Writing cultures: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cohen, A. D. (1997). Developing pragmatic ability: Insight from the accelerated study of Japanese. In H. M. Cook, K. Hijirida, & M. Tahara (Eds.), New trends and issues in teaching Japanese language and culture (pp. 133–159). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. 319 Cook, H. M. (2006). Joint construction of folk beliefs by JFL learners and Japanese host families. In M. A. DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 120–150). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cook, H. M. (2011). Language socialization and stance-taking practices. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 296– 321). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Crookes, G., & Schumdt, R. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning, 41, 469–512. Dale, P. N. (1986). The myth of Japanese uniqueness. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20, 43–63. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Dewaele, J. (2009). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 623–646). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. Dörnyei, Z. (2009a). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z. (2009b). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning environment. Language Learning, 59, 230–248. Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (Eds.) (2009). Motivation, language identity and the L2 self. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Duff, P. A. (1995). An ethnography of communication in immersion classrooms in Hungary. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 505–537. Duff, P. A. (1996). Different languages, different practices: Socialization of discourse competence in dual-language school classrooms in Hungary. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom: Qualitative research in second language acquisition (pp. 407–433). New York: Cambridge University Press. Duff, P. A. (2002). The discursive construction of knowledge, identiy, and difference: An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23, 289–232. Duff, P. A. (2004). Intertextuality and hybrid discourses: The infusion of pop culture in educational discourse. Linguistics and Education, 14, 231–276. Duff, P. A. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and issues. Language Teaching, 40, 309–319. 320 Duff, P. A. (2012). Identity, agency, and second language acquisition. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 410– 426). New York: Routledge. Duff, P. A., & Talmy, S. (2011). Language socialization approaches to second language acquisition: Social, cultural, and linguistic development in additional languages. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 95–116). NewYork: Routledge. DuFon, M. A. (2006). The socialization of taste during study abroad in Indonesia. In M. A. DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 91–119). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ellis. N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics—Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics, 27, 558– 589. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Fader, A. (2011). Literacy, bilingualism, and gender in a Hasidic community. Language and Society, 35, 205–229. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental cencepts in SLA research. Mordern Language Journal, 81, 285–300. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaboration on a “reconceptualized” SLA. Mordern Language Journal, 91, 800–819. Friedman, D. A. (2009). Speaking correctly: Error correction as a language socialization practice in a Ukrainian classroom. Applied Linguistics, 31, 346–367. Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Garrett, P. B. (2004). Review of Bayley & Schecter, 2003. Language in Society, 33, 776– 779. Garrett, P. B., & Baquedano-López, P. (2002). Language socialization: Reproduction and continuity, transformation and change. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 339–361. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (Eds.) (2012). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Routledge. Geertz, G. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Geertz. G. (1988). Works and lives: The anthropologists as author. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Gumperz, J. J., & Hymes. D. (1964). The ethnography of communication. American Anthropologist, 66, 137–153. 321 Gumperz, J. J., & Hymes. D. (1972). Directions in socio linguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Haneda, M. (2006). Classrooms as communities of practice: A reevaluation. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 807–817. Harklau, L. (2000). From the “good kids” to the “worst”: Representations of English language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 35–67. He, A. W. (2003). Novices and their speech roles in Chinese heritage language classes. In R. Bayley & S. Schecter (Eds.), Language socialization in bilingual and multilingual societies (pp. 128–146). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. He, A. W. (2004). CA for SLA: Arguments from the Chinese language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 88, 568–582. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Iino, M. (1996). “Excellent Foreigner!”: Gaijinization of Japanese language and culture in contact situations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Iino, M. (2006). Norms of interaction in a Japanese homestay setting: Toward a two-way flow of linguistic and cultural resources. In M. A. DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 151–173). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kanagy, R. (1999). The socialization of Japanese immersion kindergartners through interactional routines. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1467–1492. Keene, D. (2003). Five modern Japanese novelists. New York: Columbia University Press. Kinginger, C. (2004). Alice doesn’t live here anymore: Foreign language learning and identity construction. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities in mulilingual contexts (pp. 219–242). Clevedon, UK: Mutilingual Matters. Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case histories of Americans in France. Modern Language Journal, 92, 1–124. Kitano, K. (2001). Anxiety in the college Japanese language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 85, 549–566. Kulick, D., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2004). Language socialization. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 349–368). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 141–158). London: Longman. Lincoln, V. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 322 Magnan, S. S., & Lafford, B. A. (2012). Learning through immersion during study abroad. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 525–540). New York: Routledge. Maynard, S. K. (1993). Kaiwa Bunseki [Conversation analysis]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Miller, E. R., & Zuengler, J. (2011). Negotiating access to learning through resistance to classroom practice. Modern Language Journal, 95, 130–147. Miller, R. A. (1982). Japan’s modern myth: The language and beyond. New York: John Weatherhill. Mizutani, O., & Mizutani, S. (1987). How to be polite in Japanese. Tokyo: The Japan Times. Morita, N. (2002). Negotiating participation in second language academic communities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia. Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 573–603. Moore, L. C. (2006). Learning by heart in Qur’anic and public schools in Northern Cameroon. Social Analysis, 50, 109–126. Noel, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you learning a second language?: Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50, 57–85. Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning. London: Longman. Norton, B. P. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 9–31. Norton, B., & McKenny, C. (2011). An identity approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 73– 94). NewYork: Routledge. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Li, D. (2000). The pragmatics of making requests in the L2 workplace: A case study of language socialization. Canadian Mordern Language Review, 57, 58–87. Malinowski, B. (1994). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In J. Maybin (Ed.), Language and literacy in social practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Nathan, R. (2005). My freshman year: What a professor learned by becoming a student. New York: Cornell University Press. 323 Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development: Language acquisition and language socialization in a Samoan village. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1984). Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental stories. In R. Schweder & R. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essay on mind, self and emotion (pp. 276–320). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2011). The theory of language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 1– 21). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Ochs, E., Smith, R., & Taylor, C. (1989). Detective stories at dinnertime: Problem solving through co-narration. Cultural Dynamics, 2, 238–257. Ohta, A. S. (1999). Interactional routines and the socialization of interactional style in adult learners of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 14938–1512. Patton, M. Q. (1985). Culture and evaluation: New directions for program evaluzation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and (re)construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1558–178). New York: Oxford University Press. Peacock, J. L. (2002). The anthropological lens: Harsh light, soft focus (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Polanyi, L. (1995). Language learning and living abroad: Stories from the field. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 271–291). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Poole, D. (1992). Language socialization in the second language classroom. Language Learning, 42, 593–616. Rivers, W. P. (1998). Is being there enough? The effects of homestay placements on language gain during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 31, 492–500. Rosaldo, R. (1989). Culture and truth: The remaking of social science. Boston: Beacon Press. Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence: A case study of an adult. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 137–174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Schumann, J. H. (1978). The acculturation model for second-language acquisition. In R. C. Gingras (Ed.), Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 27–50). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Siegal, M. (1996). The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics, 17, 356–382. 324 Seigal, M. (1995). Individual differences and study abroad. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 225–244). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused Instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181–207. Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions Between Type of Instruction and Type of Language Feature: A Meta-Analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308. Schieffelin, B. B. (1990). The give and take of everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press. Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization across cultures. New York: Cambridge University Press. Skehan, P. (2012). Language aptitude. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 381–395). New York: Routledge. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Sunstein, B. S., & Chiseri-Strater, E. (2007). Fieldworking: Reading and writing research (3rd ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning. New York: Continuum. Talburt, S., & Stewart, M. (1999). What’s the subject of study abroad?: Race, gender, and “living culture.” Modern Language Journal, 83, 163–175. Talmy, S. (2008). The cultural productions of the ESL student at Tradewinds High: Contingency, multidirectionality, and identity in L2. Applied Linguistics, 29, 619–644. Teutsch-Dwyer, M. (2001). (Re)constructing masculinity in a new linguistic reality. In A. Pavlenko, A. Blackledge, I. Piller, & M.Teutsch-Dwyer (Eds.), Mutilingualism, second language acquisition, and gender (pp. 175–198). New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Thorn, S. L., & Black, R. W. (2007). Language and literacy development in computermediated contexts and communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 133– 160. Tobin, J., Hsueh, Y., & Karasawa, M. (2009). Preschool in three cultures revisited: China, Japan, and the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and identity. In Z. Dörnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 215–228). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ushioda, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2012). Motivation. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 396–409). New York: Routledge. 325 Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2004). Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a language socialization paradigm for SLA. Modern Language Journal, 88, 331–350. Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Wenger, E. (1998). Community of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wilkinson, S. (2002). The omnipresent classroom during the study abroad: American students in conversation with their French hosts. Modern Language Journal, 86, 157– 173. Willett, J. (1995). Becoming first grader in an L2: An ethnographic study of L2 socialization. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 473–503. Wolcott, H. F. (2008). Ethnography: A way of seeing (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: AltaMira Press. Yoshimi, D. R. (1999). L1 language socialization as a variable in the use of ne by L2 learners of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1513–1525. Yoshino, K. (1992). Cultural nationalism in contemporary Japan. New York: Routledge. Zuengler, J., & Cole, K. M. (2005). Language socialization and L2 learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook for research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 301– 316). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz
