Essentialization, Idealization, and Apprehensions of Local Language Practice in the Classroom

Nathanael Rudolph

This chapter details a poststructural ethnographic account (Britzman, 1995) of sixteen Japanese university students and their teacher conceptualizing the boundaries of local language practice in one English department. Together, they apprehend local (Japanese) language practice as negotiated at the interstices of discourses of “Japaneseness-Otherness” and “native English speakerness-Otherness.” Authority to employ Japanese in the classroom was afforded to “Japanese” teachers who might then assert authority to engage in local language practice or teach content in and through the Japanese language. Additionally, “Japanese” teachers were provided space to assert identity as linguistic and cultural border crossers, whereas “native speaker teachers” were to downplay or disassociate from their lived experiences negotiating membership in Japanese society, including from their use of Japanese, in the classroom. Space for teachers, positioned as neither an “idealized NS of English” nor “idealized NS of Japanese,” was non-existent. The study troubles dominant, critically-oriented approaches to local language practice in the discursive field of English language teaching (ELT) (Pennycook, 2007) and its corresponding disciplines, that do not account for individuals' negotiation of positioning and being positioned, identity-wise, and the creation, limitation, and/or elimination of space for being and becoming that may result.

Essentialization, Idealization, and Apprehensions of Local Language Practice in the Classroom Nathanael Rudolph Abstract This chapter details a poststructural ethnographic account (Britzman DP, Int J Qual Stud Educ 8(3):229–238, 1995) of 16 Japanese university students and their teacher conceptualizing boundaries of local language practice in one English department. Together, they apprehend local (Japanese) language practice as negotiated at the interstices of discourses of “Japaneseness-Otherness” and “native English speakerness-Otherness.” Authority to employ Japanese in the classroom was afforded to “Japanese” teachers who might then assert authority to engage in local language practice or teach content in and through the Japanese language. Additionally, “Japanese” teachers were provided space to assert identity as linguistic and cultural border crossers, whereas “native speaker teachers” were to downplay or disassociate from their lived experiences negotiating membership in Japanese society, including from their use of Japanese, in the classroom. Space for teachers, positioned as neither an “idealized NS of English” nor “idealized NS of Japanese,” was non-existent. The study troubles dominant, critically-oriented approaches to local language practice in the ield of English language teaching (ELT) and its corresponding disciplines, that do not account for individuals’ negotiation of positioning and being positioned, identity-wise, and the creation, limitation, and/or elimination of space for being and becoming that may result. 1 Introduction Who can and/or should employ “local language” in the classroom? This chapter explores the lived experiences of 16 students and their teacher (the author), conceptualizing and deconstructing the bounds of local language practice (Pennycook 2010) in the classroom, in one university-level English department in Japan. Together, the students and I1 co-apprehend the bounds of Japanese practice as 1 Throughout the chapter, I use irst-person “I” and “my,” as well as the “active voice,” to reveal my subjectivities as a co-participant in the luid co-construction of the study in question. N. Rudolph ( ) Department of English, Mukogawa Women’s University, Nishinomiya-shi, Hyogo-ken, Japan © Springer International Publishing AG 2018 B. Yazan, N. Rudolph (eds.), Criticality, Teacher Identity, and (In)equity in English Language Teaching, Educational Linguistics 35, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72920-6_15 275 276 N. Rudolph luidly intertwined with “teacher roles,” and, in turn, with borders of “native Japanese speakerness/Otherness” and “native English speakerness/Otherness.” The study contends that authority to engage in local language practice appears to be afforded to “Japanese” teachers,2 who possess the authority to engage in local language practice and teach linguistic, cultural, academic, and professional content in and though Japanese. Additionally, “Japanese” teachers were provided space to assert identity as border crossers, whereas “non-Japanese,”3 “native English speaker teachers” (“NESTs”), whose identities correspond with contextualized constructions of the Chomskyan (Chomsky 1965) idealized native speaker (NS)-hearer, were to embody an essentialized and idealized native speakerness that, in turn, excluded their lived experiences negotiating identity in Japan. Teachers positioned as neither an “idealized NS of English” nor “idealized NS of Japanese,” were both excluded from the workplace, and conceptually marginalized. This study, I assert, contributes to the “troubling” (Vaughan 2004) of dominant, critically-oriented, binary approaches to identity and local language practice, in the ield of English language teaching (ELT), that may not account for individuals’ negotiation of positioning and being positioned, and the creation, limitation, and/or elimination of space for personal and professional being and becoming. 2 2.1 Conceptual Framework Theoretical Lens: Poststructuralism and Identity In this chapter, I draw on poststructural theory4 to conceptualize identity as dynamically, discursively, and contextually negotiated at the interstices of linguistic, cultural, ethnic, national, economic, religious, educational, professional and gender-related discourses5 of being and doing (Bhabha 1994, 1996; Davies and Harré 1990; Rutherford 1990). This negotiation of identity can be richly multimodal, occurring via spoken and written discourse, and through contact with images, man made artefacts, and the environment (natural, manipulated and/or arti2 During the course of the study, students deined “Japanese (teachers)” in terms of both “citizenship,” and being a “native speaker of Japanese.” As apprehended by students, this idealized individual was an essentialized, linguistic, cultural, ethnic and national, discursive construction (see Doerr 2009; Sugimoto 1999, 2014) Such an apprehension of the “native speaker of Japanese” was conirmed as guiding thought in the Department, during the study, by departmental leadership. 3 Teachers originally from other countries, may be found to possess Japanese citizenship, though none of the teachers in question in the study do. The students were aware of this. 4 Poststructural scholarship can be underpinned by a variety of ontological and epistemological commitments related to the discursive negotiation of “self” (Procter 2004). In the following chapter, I draw on poststructural scholarship that does not eliminate “self” completely. 5 Discourses, according to Gannon and Davies (2007), are “complex interconnected webs of modes of being, thinking, and acting. They are in constant lux and often contradictory. They are always located on temporal and spatial axes, thus they are historically and culturally speciic” (p. 82). Essentialization, Idealization, and Apprehensions of Local Language Practice… 277 icial), endowed with, and interpreted as having, “meaning” (e.g., Pennycook & Otsuji 2015). I apprehend dominant discourses – constructed, perpetuated, maintained, and patrolled by individuals and groups for the sake of power – as subjectively essentializing borders of being and doing, resulting in binaries including those of Self/Other, Us/Them, pure/impure, correct/incorrect, and valuable/notvaluable (e.g., Burgess 2012; Pavlenko 2002; Rutherford 1990). Additionally, I contend, critically-oriented discourses, while seeking to problematize dominant discourses, may also be complicit in co-opting, afirming and reifying essentialized borders of identity (Rivers 2018; Rudolph et al. 2015). In approaching this study, I apprehend individuals’ negotiation of subjectivity (Weedon 1997), or sense of “self,” as occurring in and through their lived experiences apprehending, complying with, endorsing, perpetuating, patrolling, problematizing, confronting, and crossing borders. Though this “self” may appear to be stable and static to an individual or to others, it is instead a product of motion and interaction- of individuals discursively and dynamically positioning themselves and being positioned, in ways that often appear contradictory (Davies and Harré 1990; Davies 1991). In positioning themselves, individuals may assert agency, with degrees of inluence and authority. Agency, according to Davies (1991), is one’s “capacity” to trouble discourses, and in doing so, “to resist, subvert and change the discourses themselves through which one is being constituted. It is the freedom to recognise multiple readings such that no discursive practice, or positioning within it by powerful others, can capture and control one’s identity” (p. 51). Likewise, agency may involve an individual not troubling, discourses. Thus, I contend, agency transcends “criticality.” In and through their lived experiences positioning themselves and being positioned, individuals may construct hybridized, borderland identities (Anzaldua 1987), leading to their experiencing luid privilege-marginalization, and empowerment-disempowerment, in diverse ways and to varied degrees (Rudolph et al. 2015). 3 3.1 Literature Review Identity and Local Language Practice Within the dynamically, sociohistorically, glocally, and contextually constructed ield of ELT (Pennycook 2007), tensions, inscribed in the ongoing construction, perpetuation, maintenance, negotiation, problematization, challenging, acceptance, and reiication of borders of identity, manifest in discourse relating to conceptualizations of and approaches to local language practice in the English language learning classroom. This chronotopic (Blommaert 2015)6 literature review begins with a brief account of the discursive construction of “English only,” and of “multilingualism through parallel monolingualisms” (Lin 2015, p. 76): the use of English only and local language use only, by separate categories of teachers. I will then discuss 6 A chronotope (Blommaert 2015) is a non-linear, incomplete, intertextual (Allen 2011) construction of time-space. 278 N. Rudolph how critical scholarship has sought to problematize the monolingual principle (MP) (Howatt 1984), leading to attention to learner, user, and teacher identity, and simultaneously to reconceptualizations of the nature and value of local language practice in the classroom. This critical attention, I contend, is far from homogenous, ontologically and epistemologically speaking, resulting in very different conceptualizations of the bounds of who “can” and/or “should” engage in local language practice. In synthesizing such scholarship, I assert that little attention has been paid to individuals’ discursive, contextualized, sociohistorical construction and negotiation of borders of local language practice in the classroom, a gap this study seeks to contribute to addressing. Within the ield of ELT, local language practice in the classroom has traditionally been Othered by the MP (Howatt 1984). The MP is predicated upon the notion that learners must be or become “native like” -to sound, speak, behave, and think like an idealized native speaker (NS)/hearer (Chomsky 1965)- in order to successfully interact, and to serve as instructors (Creese and Blackledge 2010; Hall and Cook 2012).7 “All teachers” are therefore charged with creating an “English only” classroom, in the interest of providing students with maximum exposure to the target language and its corresponding “culture.” The roots of the MP, as actualized in ELT, can be traced to the colonial period initiated by British and subsequent American imperialism. The modern ield of ELT, emergent at that time, served the colonial agenda to cultivate “subjects,” and to perpetuate discourses of linguistic, cultural, economic, political, educational, and ethnic superiority that privileged colonizers (Kumaravadivelu 2003; Pennycook 2010). As language education transferred into the hands of “local” teachers, the MP was additionally linked to opposition to translation approaches to language education, wherein local students and teachers deconstructed the “language” and “culture” of the Other through the local language/s (e.g., Hall and Cook 2012). Through the years, the MP has underpinned dominant methodological approaches to ELT, ranging from Audiolingualism to Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) (Cummins 2009; Imran and Wyatt 2015; Lin 2013). Employing students’ “native/irst/own/local”8 language/s in the classroom was viewed, both theoretically and practically, as interfering with learner growth (Lin 2015), and as a sign of deiciency on the part of “non-native English speaker (NNS)” learners and teachers (“NNESTs”) (Hall and Cook 2012). “Native” teachers were, by default, not to use these languages, as their role was to shape students in their “image.” The MP additionally underpinned immersionist approaches to teaching non-linguistic content, through which students both learn English and learn through English, resulting in attempts to marginalize or eliminate local language/s in the classroom (Dalton7 The monolingual principle certainly predates the Chomskyan (Chomsky 1965) native speaker/ hearer (Nayar 1997; Pennycook 2010), though Chomsky’s work has served as a conceptual foundation for worldviews of and approaches to theory, inquiry, teacher training, pedagogy, materials creation, assessment, and hiring practices in the ield of English language teaching (Leung 2005). 8 Through the years, these terms, grounded in Modernistic, purist notions of languages as closed systems, have been used interchangeably in the literature (Hall and Cook 2012). Essentialization, Idealization, and Apprehensions of Local Language Practice… 279 Puffer et al. 2014; Hall and Cook 2012). Scholars have referred to such education as separate bilingualism (Creese and Blackledge 2011), bilingualism through monolingualism (Swain 1983), and multilingualism through parallel monolingualisms (Lin 2015). Such education, Creese and Blackledge (2010) argue, aims to cultivate, in learners, knowledge and skills compartmentalized within separate, compartmentalized, language using “selves.” Immediately following the emergence and ascension of Chomsky’s “idealized NS-ing/hearing homogeneous linguistic community member” construct, the anthropologist Dell Hymes (1972) problematized the abstraction, contending that it could not capture the vast array of contexts in which individuals negotiate identity and meaning in interaction. This was accompanied by Hymes’ conceptualization of contextualized communicative competence, which attended to the sociohistorially situated and negotiated nature of identity and interaction. At the same, however, Selinker (1972) proposed the concepts of interlanguage, or the error-laden speech of NNSs, on their arduous journey towards “native-like” competence, and fossilization- the long-term and eventually permanent production of linguistic errors, which drew upon and bolstered Chomsky’s work. Ironically, scholars in the ield of ELT married the Chomskyan NS/hearer, Selinker’s notions of interlanguage and fossilization, and Hymes’ notion of communicative competence, together (Jenkins 2006; Leung 2005). This combination served as the conceptual foundation for seminal frameworks for communicative competence in ELT, predicated upon the essentialized linguistic and cultural knowledge, skills, behavior, and experiences of an idealized NS (e.g., Canale and Swain 1980; Canale 1983). This idealized NS, conceptualized in the literature (critically and otherwise) as monolingual, Caucasian, Western, middle to upper class, urban, and most often male (Amin 1997; Braine 1999, 2010; Cook 1999; Kubota 1998; Motha 2006), was the “standard” by which learner “success” in interaction might be assessed (Jenkins 2006; Leung 2005), leading to the perpetuation of the NS fallacy (Phillipson 1992) that NSs of a certain ilk were, de facto, better teachers. “Non-native” learners, users, and instructors of English were to become less “themselves” and more “native-like,” which rendered their “non-native” and “local” identities deicient. Local language practice, was a vestige of a “self” necessarily checked at the classroom door. 3.2 Critical Challenges The movement and hybridity characterizing the colonial period and continuing in the postcolonial, has resulted, however, in the emergence of new ways of being and becoming. Ever-increasing lows of people, goods, information, technology, and inances (Appadurai 2000), coupled with a dominant, continued American presence on the world stage (Phillipson 2008), and contextualized constructions of “participation in the global community” (Kubota 2013), have led to the rapid spread of 280 N. Rudolph English education into further contexts, and to propagation of the myth of its ubiquity and utility (Pennycook 2007). The contextualized interaction between luidly local-global discourses of identity, has simultaneously resulted in (a) new users, uses, varieties, and functions of “English,” whether speaking of the postcolonial hybridity of world Englishes or the postmodern function of “English as a multilingua franca” (Jenkins 2015) in interaction between individuals from diverse backgrounds, and (b) the continuing perpetuation and maintenance of Modernistic ELT predicated upon essentialization and idealization. A wave of critical challenges to the MP has thus swelled from: (a) attention to the incredibly destructive effect its underpinning discourses of essentialization, idealization, and Othering have had upon language learners, users, and instructors whose identities do not correspond with that of “the idealized NS,” and (b) exploration of individuals’ sociohistorical, contextualized negotiations of new ways of being and becoming, including as owners, learners, users, and instructors of English (Cummins 2009; Lin 2013, 2015; Pennycook 2007, 2010; Shin and Kubota 2008). These challenges, grounded in divergent ontological and epistemological commitments, have resulted in very different approaches to conceptualizing and approaching identity and local language use. One vein of scholarship, exempliied in work by Medgyes (1992, 1994, 2001), largely ignores the diversity of users, uses, contexts, and functions of English, and attempts to problematize “deiciency” while retaining the dominant, mainstream, NS-centric dichotomies of NS/NNS and NEST/NNEST (Mahboob 2010, p. 2). Medgyes’ work expands the construct of “native speakerness” to include the “NNSs’”/“NNESTs’” “own” language. In doing so, Medgyes (1992, 1994, 2001) juxtaposes an idealized “NNEST” against an idealized “NEST,” arguing that “NNESTs” (likely) share a irst language in common with their students, and have experienced learning the additional language (English) irsthand, thus affording them superiority over “NESTs” in terms of apprehending language acquisition, and addressing student problems and anticipating their needs. “Natives” and “nonnatives,” never transcend the bounds of their identities, and therefore work in symbiotic pedagogical fashion. A second area of scholarship expresses a desire to “move beyond” the idealized NS construct, critically and practically speaking. This work problematizes the binary-oriented rendering of “NNESTs” deicient as contrasted against the “idealized NS” (e.g., Braine 2010; Kamhi-Stein 2016; Mahboob 2010) and the select group of individuals who are afforded “ownership” of English, as a result (Widdowson 1994, 1998). In doing so, such work (e.g., Braine 2010; Mahboob 2005, 2010; Mahboob and Lin 2016, 2018) acknowledges and draws upon social constructivist, postcolonial, postmodern and poststructural scholarship, in varying degrees and combinations, that is: • Engaged with postcolonial and postmodern movement and hybridity, in order to highlight the translinguistic and transcultural complexity of identity, resulting in a diversity of contexts, uses, and functions of English (in concert with other languages) (e.g., Canagarajah 2007; Kramsch 2008); Essentialization, Idealization, and Apprehensions of Local Language Practice… 281 • Reconceptualizing “communicative competence,” in a manner that accounts for trans-/ multi-/pluri-lingual identity and interaction (Canagarajah 2006, 2011, 2013; Cenoz and Gorter 2011; Cook 2003, 2007; Creese and Blackledge 2010; Kramsch 2008, 2012; Lin 2015; Pennycook 2007, 2010); • Problematizing the monolingual instruction of English, predicated upon the linguistic and cultural “knowledge,” “skills,” and “behavior” of an idealized NS, which is unsuited to the ever-globalizing, postmodern world in which individuals construct identity and interact (e.g., Lin 2013, 2015; May 2014); • Cultivating a trans-/multi-/pluri-lingual classroom relective of the everglobalizing, postmodern world in which it is situated, which includes student and teacher use of local language/s (Canagarajah 2011, 2013; Kramsch 2014; Lin 2015; May 2014); • Detaching approaches to luidly teaching content and language from monolingualism, in the interest of attending to the above four points (Cenoz and Gorter 2011; Cenoz and Gorter 2013; Cenoz 2015; Dalton-Puffer and Smit 2013; Lin 2013, 2015). In doing so, however, this work yet employs juxtaposed categories embedded within binaries (NS/NNS; NEST/NNEST), to apprehend identity and experience (see Moussu and Llurda 2008; Rudolph et al. 2015). Native speakerism (Holliday 2005, 2006), through this lens, is purported to low unidirectionally from the West into contexts around the world, privileging “NSs,” while marginalizing the translinguistic and transcultural identities and competencies of “non-native” learners, users, and instructors of English. Privilege and marginalization are therefore apprehended as largely uniformly experienced constructs corresponding with categories (NEST: privileged; NNEST: marginalized) (Menard-Warwick 2008; Rudolph et al. 2015). Concomitantly, critical scholarship employing binary lenses, conceptualizes “NNESTs” as “multilingual, multinational, and multicultural” (Mahboob 2010, p. 15) individuals engaged linguistic, cultural, ethnic, national, academic, political, economic, religious, gender-related and professional border crossing. These “NNESTs” are alternately juxtaposed against: (a) an idealized, essentialized, monolingual, Caucasian, Western NEST, (b) against “NESTs” in the ield whose identities seemingly correspond with the idealized NS construct, or (c) against a “NS” left undertheorized as an essentialized abstraction, leaving “NNESTs” to stand alone as “border crossers” (see Aneja 2016; Houghton and Rivers 2013; Llurda 2016; Rivers 2014, 2016; Rivers 2018; Rivers and Houghton 2013; Rudolph et al. 2015). When referring to “local language use” in the classroom, a further binary in this criticallyoriented scholarship emerges, as “NNESTs” are differentiated from each other by the use of the “local” qualiier. These “local NNESTs” (or Local English Teachers) are subsequently afforded, implicitly and/or explicitly, ownership of the “local” language (e.g., Mahboob and Lin 2016, 2018; Mahboob 2005, 2010; Tatar and YÕldÕz 2010). Not all conceptual and inquiry-based work that might be associated with critically-oriented binaries essentializes the bounds of local language ownership and use directly, though the dichotomic vestiges of its undergirding commitments can be apprehended in and through the literature upon which it is framed, and the 282 N. Rudolph delimiting research questions it explores, that exclude individuals whose identities do not correspond with constructions of “local NNEST” (e.g., Lin 2013, 2015). Scholarship largely underpinned by social constructivist (Faez 2011a, b), and in particular, postcolonial, postmodern and poststructural theory and inquiry (e.g., Aneja 2016; Houghton and Rivers 2013; Menard-Warwick 2008; Motha et al. 2012; Park 2012; Rivers 2014, 2016; Rivers and Houghton 2013; Rudolph et al. 2015), has problematized binaries as essentialistic, failing to account for, or even purposefully discounting, individuals’ negotiations of being and becoming within and across borders discursively constructed in the luid interaction of local-global discourses of borders of identity. Scholarship in this vein has contended: • Individuals dynamically, contextually, discursively, luidly and concomitantly negotiate borders of who they can or should be or become as learners, users, and instructors of English, and as community members within and across contexts; personal and professional identity/ies cannot be parsed (e.g., Rivers 2016; Rivers and Houghton 2013; Rudolph 2012); • “Native speakerism,” is the contextualized, luid, local-global discursive construction, limitation, and elimination of essentialized and idealized space for individuals’ negotiations of being and becoming (Doerr 2009; Houghton and Rivers 2013; Rivers 2014, 2016, 2018; Rudolph et al. 2015); • In their negotiation of identity, individuals may experience luid privilege and marginalization within and across “contexts” and “communities” (e.g., Aneja 2016; Houghton and Rivers 2013; Rudolph et al. 2015); • As there is diversity, in terms of being and becoming, both within and transcending essentialized categorical borders, experiences, qualities, competencies, and community membership should not be supposed to correlate with categories of being embedded within binaries of identity (e.g., Rivers 2016; Rudolph 2016a). Through such a lens, the complexity of contextually negotiated identity, experience, and indeed, interaction, cannot be apprehended via binary lenses. Thus, binary approaches to identity are inscribed with conceptual contradictions between: (1) drawing upon theory and inquiry exploring postcolonial and postmodern movement and hybridity that is contending for attention to and the drawing upon of teachers’ and learners’ trans-/ multi-/pluri-lingual identities in the classroom, in the interest of attending to the ever-globalizing, postmodern world in which it is situated and is intertwined, and (2) reifying juxtaposed and essentialized categories of being, thereby limiting or eliminating conceptual, descriptive and even practical space for personal and professional being and becoming. “NESTs,” for instance, can be multilingual (Llurda 2016), and both negotiate and draw upon their translinguistic and transcultural identities in and beyond the classroom, as they construct identity in and across borders of “context” and “community” (e.g., Houghton and Rivers 2013; Rudolph 2018). Yet, “NESTs” whose identities may seem to correlate with the idealized NS construct, may be conined within an essentialized category, inscribed with essentialized roles, resulting in marginalization of their border crossing (Rudolph et al. 2015). Other “NESTs” may face contextualized Othering, as they position themselves and/or are positioned as linguistically, culturally, ethnically, Essentialization, Idealization, and Apprehensions of Local Language Practice… 283 nationally, religiously, politically, socio-economically, or professionally divergent from the idealized NS “norm” (e.g., Rivers and Ross 2013; Shin and Kubota 2008). “Non-local NNESTs” may ind space for themselves limited or eliminated, as their identities do not correspond with idealized nativeness, whether relating to English or local language/s (Rudolph et al. 2015). “Native” or “native-like” competence in a local language can determine an individual’s value as a language teaching or researching professional, thus creating job categories and roles of “local teacher/s” and “Other” (however contextually constructed) (Rivers 2016; Rudolph 2018). The problematization of binaries of being, of the categories of identity embedded therein, and of corresponding experiences and competencies, has occurred in tandem with the reconceptualization of language use as dynamic, contextually, sociohistorically, and discursively situated and negotiated, luid, and hybridized (Blommaert 2012; Canagarajah 2007; Pennycook 2007, 2010). This conceptualization challenges, at once, clean divisions between people, “language,” “culture,” location, and space. In line with such commitments, Pennycook (2010) proposes a reconceptualization of “local language use” as local language practice: To talk of language as a local practice, then, is about much more than language use (practice) in context (locality). To take the notion of locality seriously, rather than merely juxtaposing it with the global, the universal or the abstract is to engage with ideas of place and space that in turn require us to examine time, space, and movement (p. 1–2). Language practice involves the discursive, contextualized, sociohistorical negotiation of identity and interaction within and across linguistic, cultural, geographic, national, ethnic, political, socioeconomic, religious, professional, and genderrelated borders (Blommaert 2012; Canagarajah 2007, 2011, 2013; May 2014; Pennycook 2010). In contrast to code switching (e.g., Heller 1988), which is grounded upon Modernistic notions of linguistic purism (Bailey 2007), scholars have sought to conceptualize and apprehend the luidity and hybridity of language practice as heteroglossia (Bakhtin 1981; Bailey 2007; Blackledge et al. 2014; Creese and Blackledge 2010) and translanguaging, or the use of languages integrated into one system (Creese and Blackledge 2010; García 2009), as codemeshing (Canagarajah 2011), which builds upon heteroglossia and translanguaging by including multimodal means of communicating and the use of symbols, and metrolingualism, or the contextualized negotiation of identity and interaction in urban spaces of complex diversity (Otsuji & Pennycook 2010; Pennycook and Otsuji 2015). However apprehended and articulated, language practice is bound up with all individuals’ negotiations of identity and interaction (Pennycook 2010). Scholars have contended for the affordance of space for such language practice in the classroom, in order to cultivate learner competencies related to negotiating the complexity of an increasingly postmodern, globalizing world, and to acknowledge, value, and draw upon the identities of learners and teachers therein (e.g., Celic and Seltzer 2011; Canagarajah 2011, 2013; Creese and Blackledge 2010; Lin 2015; May 2014; Pennycook 2010). 284 3.3 N. Rudolph Contributing to the Literature In the academic literature exploring “native/irst/own/local” language “use,” scholars have examined teacher and student identities, and their beliefs regarding and purposes for using or avoiding use (see Hall and Cook 2012). Scholars have also explored language use in educational settings and classrooms therein, which alternately seek to maintain the MP, or cultivate plurilingualism (see Lin 2013). Inquiry related to student use (Saito 2014a) and student beliefs (Carson and Kashihara 2012; Norman 2008), and Japanese teacher (Saito 2014b) and international teacher (McMillan and Rivers 2011) beliefs about local language policy and use, has also occurred in the Japanese context. While many studies discuss beliefs about local language use, gaps remain in the literature relating to learners’ and teachers’ apprehensions of the luid, contextualized, sociohistorical discursive construction, perpetuation, acceptance, maintenance, problematization, challenging, crossing, and even reiication of borders of identity shaping ownership and manifestations of local language practice in the classroom. The following study aims to contribute to illing this discursive gap, by focusing on student conceptualizations of and approaches to the bounds of local language practice in the classroom. 4 4.1 The Study Context The following study is situated in a department of English, at a large women’s university in western Japan. Students complete courses together during their irst two years of study, including a semester abroad at the university’s institute of English located in the United States. In their third year, students enter one of four tracks of study: (1) linguistics, (2) language education, and (3) business English (classiied as “mainstream” paths), and (4) a track for advanced learners, referred to as “international liberal studies.” Though these tracks each contain select content-related goals and courses, they are underpinned by the common objective of producing students who are “people equipped for participation in the global community” (guroubarujinzai). Within the department at present, this is conceptualized as: (a) strengthening students’ English abilities, and (b) providing students with knowledge, skills, and experiences that will maximize their success as professionals in the local and global workforce (not speciic to any particular profession), which includes both a focus on Japanese society, and on interaction with “the international community” (oficially imagined as “NSs” from North America and the U.K., though individual teachers also attend to portions of Asia). Regardless of their speciic track of study, the majority of the courses that students take during the latter half of their tenure in the department are open to individuals from all four tracks. These include “skills-based” English courses taught by Essentialization, Idealization, and Apprehensions of Local Language Practice… 285 “NSs” (from North America, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand), as well as 2-year-long, content-based seminar courses that do not usually correspond with the track with which students are afiliated. The fact that seminar courses do not serve as track-speciic, capstone experiences, is further evidence of the preeminence of general, department-wide goals. It is within one of the author’s seminar courses, that the study takes place. 4.2 Participants In the Spring of 2015, 16 students, hailing from all four departmental tracks, signed up for my junior (third-year) seminar. As I was one of three internationals teaching seminar courses (out of 24 teachers), the students who enter my class were generally both comfortable with and prepared for interacting with me in an “English mainly” course (McMillan and Rivers 2011; Rivers 2011). In this seminar, students had the opportunity to explore worldviews of and approaches to identity, globalization, and the cultivation of guroubarujinzai. This included attention to what Kubota (2013) contends is the equation of NS-centric ELT with preparing learners for participation in the global community. The luidly local-global discursive construction of NS-centric ELT not only relates to deining the borders of who learners, users, and instructors can and/or should be or become as English users; it concomitantly serves to construct, perpetuate, and maintain essentialized bounds of “Japaneseness” and “Otherness” established in Japanese society and ELT therein, by dominant discourses of identity (Rudolph 2016b; Rudolph 2018). During the second semester of the irst year, the students and I were coconceptualizing and exploring what cultivating guroubarujinzai might look like beyond essentialization and idealization. This included: • Problematizing the dominant, essentialized notion of “Japan” as a place of static homogeneity (Befu 2009; Doerr 2009; Heinrich 2012; Lie 2001, 2004; MorrisSuzuki 1997; Sugimoto 1999, 2014), and moving towards its apprehension as a site of dynamic linguistic, cultural, ethnic, religious, socioeconomic, political, geographical, and historical movement and diversity (Chapman and Krogness 2014; Denoon et al. 2001); • Challenging essentialized constructions of “Other,” juxtaposed against an essentialized and idealized “Us” (Kubota 2002, 2011; Rudolph 2016b; Toh 2015; Willis and Murphy-Shigematsu 2008); • Paying contextualized attention to who Japanese people, in general, might interact with in and beyond Japan (in English, Japanese, and other languages), where, and for what purposes (Kubota 2013; Murata 2015; Sugimoto 2009); • Attending to the different users, uses, varieties, and functions of English (Japanese, and other languages); 286 N. Rudolph • Learning from a diverse array of teachers (not simply those whose identities correspond with the categories of idealized teachers (“Japanese” or “NESTs”), and if possible, with a variety of students; • Addressing the question, “What knowledge, skills, and experiences might learners therefore be equipped with, in the interest of better preparing them to negotiate interaction with a wide variety of individuals in and beyond Japan?” In doing so, the students and I intermittently discussed the use of Japanese in the classroom, with relation both to students and teachers. Our conversations led to my desire to pursue the topic as a line of inquiry, focused on student perceptions of teachers’ use of Japanese, guided by the overarching research question: How do students apprehend the borders of local language practice in the classroom? Before the start of our penultimate class in the second semester, I informed students that I was planning to focus on teacher use of local language (Japanese) in the classroom. I asked students for permission to use our thoughts and discussions for research purposes. I assured students that their words would remain anonymous, and that they were free to withdraw from the research, should they decide to do so. I additionally conirmed that students’ grades would be effected in no way by choosing to or withdrawing from participation. All students expressed their willingness to participate (and none withdrew at a later date).9 4.3 Approaching Inquiry I conceived this study as a poststructural ethnography (Britzman 1995). Poststructural ethnographic inquiry destabilizes a few of the key Modernistic underpinnings of mainstream ethnography, including: • The dichotomic division of context (e.g., “research site/beyond”; “the classroom/ beyond”), identity (e.g., teacher/student; researcher/participant), and experience (e.g., privileged/marginalized) (Murphy-Shigematsu 2008; Popoviciu et al. 2006); • The supposition that participants in a study “say what they mean and mean what they say” (Britzman 1995, p. 229); • The reliability of the researcher/scholar to observe and ascertain “reality” (past and present) and document stable “truths” about context and the people situated therein (Britzman 1995; Popoviciu et al. 2006; Vaughan 2004); • The goal of producing a product (study) that embodies the “realities” of places, people and experiences, through which readers will comprehend “the way things are,” and be able to problem solve as a result (Britzman 1995; Vaughan 2004). 9 Additionally, the university in question has no policy governing classroom inquiry. My interaction with participants, handling of data, and creation of the study, instead conformed to the Science Council of Japan’s (2013) Code of Conduct for Scientists, which provides a framework for ethical research intended to protect participants, researchers, and Japanese society. Essentialization, Idealization, and Apprehensions of Local Language Practice… 287 In contrast, ethnographic inquiry through a poststructural lens, is conceptualized as “a subjective, sociohistorically situated exploration and deconstruction (Derrida 1976) of the discourses implicated in the “invention,” perpetuation and maintenance of essentialized borders of place, identity and knowledge, as well as of individuals’ dynamic negotiation of identity and agency – of discursive positioning and being positioned (Britzman 1995; Davies 1991; Holstein and Gubrium 2004; Vaughan 2004)” (Rudolph 2018, p. 156). Such a study is chronotopic (Blommaert 2015), as it is a sociohistorically situated, incomplete, intertextual co-construction of timespace. Engaging in participation in, or interaction with, poststructural ethnographies can afford individuals an opportunity to “trouble” discourses of being and knowing, whether dominant or critically-oriented, they shape and are shaped by, in their ongoing negotiation of identity (Lather 1991; Vaughan 2004). 4.4 Attending to Researcher Positionality In a poststructural ethnography, the researcher -potentially an instructor, faculty member, mentor, stakeholder in education, and local community member- subjectively participates in the discursive co-construction of classroom experiences, their analysis, and their apprehension (Choi 2006). Researchers must necessarily attend to how their negotiation of identity, or subjectivity (Weedon 1997, p. 21), shapes how they position, and are positioned by, participants (Davies et al. 2004; Lather 1993). Choi (2006) asserts that such reflexivity, through a poststructural lens, is not meant to “increase the validity or to ind the researcher self, as if the researcher self is out there independent of relations; rather, conversely, the purpose of relexivity is to deconstruct the authority of the researcher” (p. 441). When irst introducing the course, and throughout its duration, I sought to share openly with my students regarding my ongoing negotiation of subjectivity as a teacher, critical applied linguist, and self-professed member of Japanese society, with a vested interest in seeking to create space for being and becoming in and beyond the classroom in the Japanese context. I attempted to avoid framing my approach to research, practice, and the negotiation of identity as static “truth.” Iendeavored not to “tell” my students what to think or say, but rather, to allow them to explore, conceptualize, and apprehend the discursive construction and maintenance of borders of being and becoming in Japanese society. Acknowledging this struggle as occurring in the process of teaching, inquiry, and scholarship, is a necessary part of employing a poststructural gaze (Britzman 1995; Vaughan 2004). 288 4.5 N. Rudolph Data Collection, Analysis, and Presentation Data collection irst involved students’ in-class, written responses to and discussion of prompts provided via handouts, at the end of the irst year. I recorded notes during the student-centered small group chats and class discussions that followed, and then collected the handouts. In the irst semester of their second year, I took notes as we reviewed our previous discussions. During this period, I occasionally prompted students to elaborate on their comments, which I then recorded in writing. I subsequently recorded notes related to the ideas students wrestled with, shared, and discussed. Though given the opportunity to use Japanese, students opted to use English almost exclusively. The data collected alternates luidly between our analysis, assertion of opinions, and speculations related to teachers’ use of Japanese in the classroom, all in the interest of conceptualizing and approaching the discursive construction of “local language practice” in the department. In order to preserve student anonymity and organize data, I assigned numbers to students (e.g., Student 5), which I used when using direct quotations and paraphrasing in the “results” section. In the “results” section that follows, I present data in the form of ive “episodes” (Youdell 2006, p. 87): (1) Approaching local language practice, (2) Borders of language practice and teacher roles in the classroom, (3) Valuing border crossing (?), (4) “My positionality”: Co-conceptualizations, and (5) What about everyone else? I constructed the episodes after reviewing the contents of the above-mentioned documents and notes, at length. I assert they provide “discursive evidence and background” (Vaughan 2001, p. 20) for attending to student apprehensions of the borders of local language practice in the classroom. I acknowledge my subjectivity, in terms of data analysis and episode construction, and note the episodes are sociohistorical, incomplete, and intertextual constructions of space-time. Finally, I have chosen not to use “sic” when presenting students’ words in the episodes (Rudolph 2016b), as such is in line with the ontological and epistemological commitments regarding language ownership and use underpinning this study. 5 5.1 “Results” Approaching Local Language Practice During the next to last class of our irst year together, the students and I focused attention on teachers’ “use” of Japanese in the classroom. I asked students to relect on their experiences in our department. To prompt their in-class relections, I provided them with guiding questions. These questions related to who used Japanese, in what types of classes, how often and how much, how their teachers explained such use (if such an explanation occurred), and for what purposes Japanese was used. After completing the questions, students participated in small group Essentialization, Idealization, and Apprehensions of Local Language Practice… 289 discussions. The students and I then discussed their answers and thoughts collectively. At that time, one particular observation made by Student 10, with which all students agreed, stood out: “Japanese is the language of teaching ‘content.’” I asked the class to unpack that idea with me in classes following their two month-long winter holiday. In our second year together, the students and I returned to the theme of local language practice. First, I presented students with a summary of their in-class responses to my questions, and our previous class discussion. Key information, included the following: Use? Students had collectively apprehended local language “use” as entailing any teacher production of Japanese. This, they believed, provided space to account for the many purposes underpinning appearances of Japanese in the classroom, and for its employment by both “Japanese” and “non-Japanese” teachers, regardless of quantity. Who, how much, and how frequently? “Japanese” teachers Students had noted that the majority of their classes had been taught by “Japanese” instructors. In the Department, 23 Japanese professors were full-time and tenured (out of 24), while 37 were part-time (out of 49). The 12 students in the mainstream tracks estimated that in their courses taught by Japanese teachers, Japanese was the language of instruction between 60% and 100% of the time. The four students in the advanced English track noted that in approximately 60% of their courses taught by Japanese teachers, Japanese was the guiding medium of instruction between 50% and 90% of the time. “NSs” As mentioned above, in the Department, “non-Japanese” faculty consisted of “native speakers” from the U.K., U.S., Australia, and New Zealand. Two of the teachers were on full-time, limited term contracts, visiting from the university’s American campus. Twelve of the teachers were part-time, and one (this author) was full-time and tenured.10 In the oral English and writing courses taught by these individuals, Japanese was used only sporadically. Why (or why not)? Students had apprehended Japanese teachers’ use of Japanese to be grounded (in varying degrees and combinations) in the following reasons: • Asserting their identity in the classroom as “Japanese” (whether speaking of a collective, homogenous identity, or, for example, of asserting one’s identity via use of a local dialect); 10 All students spend a semester abroad the university’s exclusive American institute for English study. Students reported no use of Japanese, with teachers, at that campus. 290 N. Rudolph • Making teaching “easier” in the classroom (due to “teachers’ English ability,” or the perceived competence of students); • Teaching content to students, necessary to facilitate their participation in the local and global community, undergirded by the assumption that “Japanese students” learn more deeply in “our” (the teachers’ and students’) language, rather than in English. Japanese teachers’ purposes for Japanese use, they noted, appeared to be conceptually intertwined with each other, and often luidly linked together in their discourse. All such comments, according to the students, were observations, as none of their Japanese teachers had ever discussed any reasons for employing Japanese in the classroom. Students had noted that non-Japanese, “NS” teachers’ use of Japanese appeared to relate to: • Connecting with students (greetings; joking); • Alluding to identity (for the explicit purpose of letting students know that the teacher speaks Japanese and has some connection to Japan, or so that students will either be careful speaking Japanese or will avoid its use altogether); • Trying to facilitate communication with students (informing students about their attendance status; clarifying homework). Students additionally noted that these teachers (other than this researcher, according to Students 14 and 16) followed what was at times an unwritten, and in others, an explicitly stated “English only” rule, in the classroom.11 5.2 Borders of Language Practice and Teacher Roles in the Classroom After we reviewed the summary, I asked students to explore the topic/issue of teaching and learning “content” with me, and with each other. First, I asked students to deine “content.” After working in groups, students shared their thoughts, resulting in a collectively apprehended view of “content” I summarized as: (a) The knowledge and skills necessary for their future careers (social etiquette in Japan; sociocultural, political, economic, and business-related knowledge related to the Japanese context; job hunting-related information); (b) The nature and function of English, including “its grammar” and “its pragmatics”; (c) Academic knowledge related to the history of English, and the values underpinning the world of “NSs.” 11 “Native speaker” teachers are informally, yet strongly encouraged to implement “English only” approaches to the classroom, according to the Department’s Academic Affairs Representative. Essentialization, Idealization, and Apprehensions of Local Language Practice… 291 This content was nearly exclusively taught in Japanese, and by Japanese teachers. I asked students what they believed their “other teachers” were teaching in the classroom. Students 1, 3, 4, 6, and 16 responded that the “content” that “native speaker” teachers were introducing, whether related to the Japanese context or not, consisting of generalized “materials and topics” intended to cultivate students’ ability to use English as a spoken or written medium of communication. “NSs” were attempting to teach them how to sound, speak (vocabulary; expressions), think, and behave in a practical, “native-like” way. I asked the students how they felt about: (1) their apprehension of a distinction between the types of “content” and the association of types of content with differing language practice, and (2) the assigning of language practice to speciic categories of teachers. Regarding #1, three students (1, 5, and 11) expressed displeasure with the use of Japanese to teach any “content.” Student 1 contended, “I think it is unnecessary to use of Japanese in the classroom. Because our major, we should use English.” Student 11, likewise, emphatically stated, “I think teacher should use English in most of the time because our major is English. It is too mush using Japanese in class. I don’t choose to be Japanese major.” Student 5 noted, “I think to learn something regarding English literature by English is the best way to learn not only the language, but also their spirit and historical background.” Student 3 argued in contrast, however, that all “real content” should be taught in Japanese, and that Japanese teachers using English was questionable: “If it’s Japanese, I want to know why are they use English.” Students 2, 13, 14, 15, and 16 believed that learning content could and should take place in Japanese and English, and that both languages were helpful to facilitate learning, in tandem. These students assigned Japanese and English to teachers, categorically, as with Student 3 (Japanese: Japanese language; “native speakers”: English). I then asked students to share their feelings regarding the seeming assignment of Japanese to Japanese teachers. This, the students suggested, was a complicated affair. Students 5, 9, and 12 noted that non-Japanese teachers “are not NSs of Japanese,” and might therefore struggle to use the language. They believed the question, “How good/natural is your Japanese?” would be a recurrent one in the department and in students’ minds. Students 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16 asserted that “NESTs” have a role to play, in symbiotic relation with the Japanese teachers. “NESTs” were in the department to provide students with maximum opportunities to use English, as they would have few chances to do so in their other classes and outside the classroom. Only Student 10 argued adamantly, that Japanese and English could and should be disassociated with “categories” of teacher. The conversation that particular day and in the next class, gravitated towards discussion of “roles” for teachers. Students reconirmed their belief that in the Department, non-Japanese teachers were meant to play the role of the “NS” and “teach students English” in English. These teachers were to minimize drawing upon, or avoid altogether, their lived experiences negotiating membership in Japanese society. Student 15 noted that, “I feel NS teachers are required to be ‘native-like,’ especially they are required to behave like ‘Americans’ because many Japanese people have a strong stereotype that many of the foreigners they meet are 292 N. Rudolph from America.” In addition, these teachers employed materials in the classroom (which, I informed students, were almost exclusively selected by the department) that minimized the differences between them, identity- and experience-wise. Thus, their unique “nativeness,” for the students, appeared to melt together to form a largely generic, essentialized “NS” category. These teachers’ task was to “be native” and “represent foreignness.” A number of students (2, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16), though accustomed to such an educational setting, were aware that there was linguistic, cultural, ethnic, and national diversity within the “NS category” in the Department, and they therefore problematized its essentializing nature. Discussion of professional categories, roles, and language practice, led the class and me to discuss the fact that the 12 part-time “NESTs” had been in Japan at least 5 years, with many of them residing in country for decades, often longer than in their “countries of origin.” Yet, they were expected to embody fresh foreignness in the classroom. During this conversation, a very sensitive subject was broached by one small group: Were these teachers actual members of Japanese society? The class concluded, as a whole, that “native speaker” teachers were positioned in our setting, and by dominant discourses within Japanese society at large, as permanently temporary transients. This conversation, in turn, led to students pointing out that Japanese teachers, as locals and “native speakers” of Japanese, were given administrative duties that transcended the classroom and connected directly to the “community” beyond the university, such as serving as homeroom teachers (individuals who interact with parents, provide students with academic and life-related counsel, academic information, and who at times travel with them on excursions).12 5.3 Valuing Border Crossing (?) In a subsequent class, I asked students how they viewed Japanese teachers who transcended the linguistic, cultural, and professional boundaries corresponding with the categories to which they were seemingly assigned. First, students collectively identiied two to three full-time Japanese teachers in the department who opted to assert their identities as linguistic and cultural border crossers via codemeshing in the classroom. These teachers were valued by all students, and were openly praised by select faculty members, in the students’ presence. According to Students 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16, these Japanese teachers asserting identity as border crossers, did not appear to be “less Japanese,” but were rather attempting to serve as models for who the students might be or become as language users. This was the case, they argued, even though two of those individuals openly challenged English education predicated on an idealized NS. In contrast, however, according to the students, if a “NS” speaks Japanese in any quantity and with regularity, they may appear to be becoming “more Japanese,” and 12 This “homeroom teacher” role, at the university in question, is a role usually found in primary and secondary schools in Japan, and not, in such a manifestation, as commonly at the tertiary level. Essentialization, Idealization, and Apprehensions of Local Language Practice… 293 therefore “less foreign.” This may be perceived as transgressing the bounds of their “role” in the classroom. One reason, the students and I apprehended together, was that the majority of the Japanese teachers (full and part-time) had been hired for “expertise” in a particular area, such as linguistics, literature, business, translation, and tourism. Their use of English was added value. NESTs, however, appeared to be hired for their “nativeness” and “foreignness,” as well as for their “ability” to teach English (whether presumed or presumed and supported by corresponding academic credentials and teaching experience). 5.4 “My Positionality”: Co-conceptualizations Throughout the seminar course, I had been sharing anecdotes with students, regarding my lived experiences as a member of Japanese society. Sometimes, these anecdotes related to events in my everyday life, such as helping my daughters with their public elementary school homework, participating in their school and extracurricular activities, attending a football match, or renewing my residency status in Japan. I shared that I used English and Japanese in my household and in public, as well as Spanish with my American wife and a few friends in Japan, and via social media. Occasionally, I selectively addressed more sensitive topics related to the contents of our course, such as a news event or hardship I, or someone I knew, was facing. The majority of these anecdotes related to the fact that I was negotiating identity within and across borders of being and becoming in and beyond Japan. Additionally, I carefully shared regarding my experiences negotiating identity as a member of the department and university. These anecdotes, I informed students, were not “truths” about the university and department, or Japan, but were instead sociohistorically-situated experiences that I continued to relect on and wrestle with, both alone and in interaction with others. I shared with students that unlike in many university settings in Japan, wherein positions “reserved” for “NSs” require proiciency in Japanese, while the majority of positions available -intended for “Japanese” teachers- are advertised in a manner that implicitly and explicitly narrow their target applicants through essentializing discursive parameters (Rivers 2016), positions for “NSs” at our institution have had no corresponding linguistic requirements. As with job descriptions elsewhere in Japan (Houghton and Rivers 2013; Rivers 2016), tenure-track or tenured positions at my school are almost exclusively reserved for Japanese professors. I therefore entered the university as an assistant professor on a limited-term contract, and was quickly and irmly informed that my “role” was to embody and model English-related nativeness at the university, both in the classroom and in promotional events and materials. I asserted agency troubling discourses of idealization and essentialization in the classroom, in my professional activities, and in discussions with colleagues in private, and occasionally in public spaces (e.g., committee meetings), though in doing so I practiced critical pragmatism (Pennycook 1997) in choosing how and when to reveal my subjectivities to faculty members and students. I told students that the linguistic and 294 N. Rudolph cultural border crossing in my life beyond the university became known in the department, and was treated as “normal” by some, and inauthentic or even unreal by others. In terms of my professional identity, however, I was prompted to remember, on countless occasions, that I was not “Japanese,” in terms of professional standing in the department, and role. This was particularly apparent during my irst contract renewal as a non-tenured faculty member, when I inquired regarding the possibility of being considered for a tenure-track position in the department in the future.13 In the 2-h long meeting, conducted exclusively in Japanese, I was informed that, “You are not ‘Japanese’ and you cannot ill the role of a Japanese teacher as a result.” I was ultimately offered tenure, however, to become the university’s only tenured international at the time, after a professor in another department attempted to recruit me to be “the in-class NEST/Japanese speaker-for-administrative-purposes” in his department. This professor’s efforts prompted upper administration to “force” my current department to change its policy. I deemed this not to be a permissible conversation in the classroom, though I did share with students that I had been given the unique opportunity to be tenured. My change in status brought with it participation in committees, duties, and roles on and even off campus, in which Japanese was the exclusive medium of communication, though the boundaries of my role and assigned value and authority as an educator and resource on campus, related to nativeness in English. Having shared with the students, Students 13, 14, 15, and 16 stated they “could see” that I asserted my identity as a border crosser in our course. Though I wasn’t teaching the course in Japanese, I was familiarizing students with concepts and terminology in Japanese, asking them to do research online in Japanese, and allowing them to ask me questions in Japanese if they so chose. And, I was not getting in trouble with any students, nor with the department. “Why was this so” wondered Student 10? Together, the students and I discussed the idea that perhaps, as a trusted full-time faculty member, whose practice was left entirely unsupervised, I might be able to “get away with” using, or having students use, Japanese. Students 13, 14, 15, and 16 thought that as I was teaching a “content-based” seminar course, perhaps the “rules of the game had become blurred, and perhaps I could perform “like a Japanese teacher.” What students did not know, was that the space for full-time “NSs” to teach seminar courses had opened around 7 years prior, when a few senior Japanese professors had argued that some students might potentially prefer completing seminar courses in English (as they were nearly exclusively taught in Japanese), from the three visiting, limited-term contract teachers in the department at that time. The focus on “content” in those seminar courses, according to one senior faculty member, had been trumped by providing a few students with the chance to study “something” (content-wise) in English with “NSs.” This conversation was left unresolved. 13 Limited-term track positions in Japan may be renewed in some cases, but almost never turn into tenure-track slots. The position in which I was located had no explicit framework regarding status or time limit in the future. Essentialization, Idealization, and Apprehensions of Local Language Practice… 5.5 295 What About Everyone Else? What about teachers whose identities did not correspond with the categories we discussed? In discussing the Department, we concluded that professional value was framed within essentialized and idealized categories of identity, resulting in the limitation or elimination of space for users and teachers of English, such as individuals from Singapore, Korea, or the Philippines, whose “identities” correspond neither with that of the “idealized NS of English” nor the “idealized NS of Japanese.”14 Many of the students (2, 4, 5, 10, 14, 16) argued for the pressing need to include more types of teachers, particularly from Asia, who would represent the individuals with whom they would likely interact in the future. The majority of students admitted, however, that they had never considered the notion of hiring teachers beyond the binary of idealized native speakerness in English/Japaneseness. Interestingly, only one of the students in class had studied with a teacher from a country other than the U.K., U.S., Australia, New Zealand, or Japan, at any time as a primary, secondary or tertiary student, in the Japanese context. 6 6.1 Relections: “Troubling” Discourses (Vaughan 2004) The Construction of Japanese Use In our classroom discussions, the students and I conceptualized local language practice, as luidly bound up with borders of “teacher roles,” which were in turn intertwined with borders of “Japaneseness/Otherness” and “nativeness in English/ Otherness” as constructed in our department (see also Rivers 2016; Rudolph 2016b). The linguistic, cultural, academic, and professional authority to employ Japanese in the classroom, was almost exclusively afforded to “Japanese” teachers, who thereby might assert the exclusive authority to codemesh or teach content (in this case linguistic, cultural, academic, and professional) in and though Japanese. 6.2 Identity and Border Crossing “Japanese teachers” were afforded space, by students and colleagues, to assert their identities in the classroom as linguistic, cultural, and professional border crossers, if they so identiied and chose. “NESTs,” in contrast, were to represent an idealized and essentialized “native speakerness,” which in all likelihood corresponded little within their lived experiences negotiating identity. They were to additionally 14 Interestingly, however, the department had begun a “cost effective” Skype lesson program, where students could chat in English online, and complete lessons, with Filipino ELT professionals. 296 N. Rudolph downplay or disassociate from their lived experiences negotiating membership in Japanese society, including their use of Japanese, in their approach to the classroom. Space for teachers of English in the department, who were positioned as neither an “idealized NS of English” nor “idealized NS of Japanese,” was non-existent. There were a few teachers within the part-time and full-time faculty, Japanese and nonJapanese alike, who were challenging these categories and corresponding roles, and contending for a move beyond essentialization and idealization in their classroom practice, while many others seemed to acquiesce to or afirm such categories and roles. 6.3 Critical, Binary-Oriented Conceptualizations of “Local Language Practice” The dialogue students and I co-constructed, serves to problematize critical, binaryoriented approaches to identity and local language practice, as neglecting the contextualized construction and maintenance of luid privilege-marginalization, and as failing to account for the negotiation, as well as limitation and elimination, of space for different ways of being and becoming. Such critical work, I contend, may thus lend discursive support to Othering, in terms of who language learners, users, teachers, and researchers “are,” and “can” and/or “should” become. In the department in this study, for instance, there is no means of accounting, through a binary lens, for the juxtaposition of “idealized NS of English” and “idealized NS of Japanese,” for the essentialization of the identities and lived experiences of those individuals situated within these categories, nor for the elimination of space for individuals whose identities neither correspond with the “idealized NS of English” nor “idealized NS of Japanese,” as contextually essentialized and idealized. The contents of this study challenge critical scholarship to attend to the discursive fabric of ELT as dynamically woven through the luid, contextualized, sociohistorical interaction of localglobal discourses of discrimination, domination, empowerment, homogenization, marginalization, suffering, privilege, emancipation, heterogeneity, nationalism, hybridity, linguistic and cultural annihilation, and resistance (e.g., Canagarajah 2005; Pennycook 2007, 2010; Shin and Kubota 2008). References Allen, G. (2011). Intertextuality. New York: Routledge. Amin, N. (1997). Race and the identity of the nonnative ESL teacher. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 580–583. Aneja, G. A. (2016). Rethinking nativeness: Toward a dynamic paradigm of (non)native speakering. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 13(4), 351–379. Anzaldua, G. (1987). Borderlands/la Frontera: The new Mestiza. San Francisco: Spinsters/Aunt Lute. Essentialization, Idealization, and Apprehensions of Local Language Practice… 297 Appadurai, A. (2000). Modernity at large. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Bailey, B. (2007). Heteroglossia and boundaries. In M. Heller (Ed.), Bilingualism: A social approach (pp. 257–274). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bakhtin, M. (1981). In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press. Befu, H. (2009). Concepts of Japan, Japanese culture and the Japanese. In Y. Sugimoto (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to modern Japanese culture (pp. 21–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge. Bhabha, H. K. (1996). Culture’s in-between. In S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp. 53–60). London: Sage Publications. Blackledge, A., Creese, A., & Takhi, J. K. (2014). Beyond multilingualism: Heteroglossia in practice. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 191–215). London: Routledge. Blommaert, J. (2012). Complexity, accent and conviviality: Concluding comments (Tillberg Papers in Culture Studies, Vol. 26). Tillburg: Tillburg University. Blommaert, J. (2015). Commentary: ‘Culture’ and superdiversity. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 10(1), 22–24. Braine, G. (Ed.). (1999). Nonnative educators in English language teaching. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Braine, G. (2010). Nonnative speaker English teachers: Research, pedagogy, and professional growth. New York: Routledge. Britzman, D. P. (1995). “The question of belief”: Writing poststructural ethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(3), 229–238. Burgess, C. (2012). Maintaining identities: Discourses of homogeneity in a rapidly globalizing Japan. Electronic Journal of Contemporary Japanese Studies. Retrieved from http://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/articles/Burgess.html Canagarajah, A. S. (Ed.). (2005). Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Negotiating the local in English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 197–218. Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 923–939. Canagarajah, S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–417. Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. New York: Routledge. Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 1–47). London: Longman. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. Carson, E., & Kashihara, H. (2012). Using the L1 in the L2 classroom: The students speak. The Language Teacher, 36(4), 41–48. Celic, C., & Seltzer, K. (2011). Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators. New York: The Graduate Center. Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (Eds.). (2011). A holistic approach in multilingual education: Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 339–343. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2013). Towards a plurilingual approach in English language teaching: Softening the boundaries between languages. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 591–599. 298 N. Rudolph Chapman, D., & Krogness, K. J. (2014). Japan’s household registration system and citizenship: Koseki, identiication and documentation. Abingdon: Routledge. Choi, J. A. (2006). Doing poststructural ethnography in the life history of dropouts in South Korea: Methodological ruminations on subjectivity, positionality and relexivity. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(4), 435–453. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 185–209. Cook, V. (2003). Effects of the second language on the irst. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cook, V. (2007). The goals of ELT. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 237–248). New York: Springer. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2011). Separate and lexible bilingualism in complementary schools: Multiple language practices in interrelationship. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1196–1208. Cummins, J. (2009). Multilingualism in the English-language classroom: Pedagogical considerations. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 317–321. Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46(4), 545–559. Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014). “You can stand under my umbrella”: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218. Davies, B. (1991). The concept of agency: A feminist poststructuralist analysis. Social Analysis, 30, 42–53. Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63. Davies, B., Browne, J., Gannon, S., Honan, E., Laws, C., Mueller-Rockstroh, B., & Petersen, E. B. (2004). The ambivalent practices of relexivity. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(3), 360–389. Denoon, D., Hudson, M., McCormack, G., & Morris-Suzuki, T. (2001). Multicultural Japan: Palaeolithic to postmodern. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Doerr, N. M. (Ed.). (2009). The native speaker concept: Ethnographic investigations of native speaker effects. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Faez, F. (2011a). Are you a native speaker of English? Moving beyond a simplistic dichotomy. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 8, 378–399. Faez, F. (2011b). Reconceptualizing the native/nonnative speaker dichotomy. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 10, 231–249. Gannon, S., & Davies, B. (2007). Postmodern, poststructural and critical theories. In S. N. HesseBiber (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (pp. 71–106). London: Sage. García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson, A. Mohanty, & M. Panda (Eds.), Social justice through multilingual education (pp. 140–158). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271–308. Heinrich, P. (2012). The making of monolingual Japan: Language ideology and Japanese modernity (Vol. 146). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Heller, M. (Ed.). (1988). Codeswitching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives (Vol. 48). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holliday, A. (2006). Native speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385–387. Essentialization, Idealization, and Apprehensions of Local Language Practice… 299 Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2004). The active interview. Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, 2, 140–161. Houghton, S. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2013). Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). London: Penguin. Imran, S., & Wyatt, M. (2015). Pakistani university English teachers’ cognitions and classroom practices regarding their use of the learners’ irst languages. Asian EFL Journal, 17(1), 138–179. Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157–181. Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice, 2(3), 49–85. Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2016). The non-native English speaker teachers in TESOL movement. ELT Journal, 70(2), 180–189. Kramsch, C. (2008). Ecological perspectives on foreign language education. Language Teaching, 41, 389–408. Kramsch, C. (2012). Theorizing translingual/transcultural competence. In G. S. Levine & A. Phipps (Eds.), Critical and intercultural theory and language pedagogy (pp. 15–32). Boston: Heinle. Kramsch, C. (2014). Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization: Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 296–311. Kubota, R. (1998). Ideologies of English in Japan. World Englishes, 17, 295–306. Kubota, R. (2002). The impact of globalization on language teaching in Japan. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 13–28). London: Routledge. Kubota, R. (2011). Questioning linguistic instrumentalism: English, neoliberalism, and language tests in Japan. Linguistics and Education, 22(3), 248–260. Kubota, R. (2013). Language is only a tool’: Japanese expatriates working in China and implications for language teaching. Multilingual Education, 3, 1–20. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). A postmethod perspective on English language teaching. World Englishes, 22(4), 539–550. Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge. Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(4), 673–693. Leung, C. (2005). Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 119–144. Lie, J. (2001). Multiethnic Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lie, J. (2004). The politics of recognition in contemporary Japan. In S. J. Henders (Ed.), Democratization and identity: Regimes and ethnicity in East and Southeast Asia (pp. 117– 131). Lanham: Lexington Books. Lin, A. M. Y. (2013). Towards paradigmatic change in TESOL methodologies: Building plurilingual pedagogies from the ground up. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 521–545. Lin, A. M. (2015). Conceptualising the potential role of L1 in CLIL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 74–89. Llurda, E. (2016). ‘Native speakers’, English and ELT. In G. Hall (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (pp. 51–63). New York: Routledge. Mahboob, A. (2005). Beyond the native speaker in TESOL. In S. Zafar (Ed.), Culture, context, and communication (pp. 60–93). Abu Dhabi: Center of Excellence for Applied Research and Training and the Military Language Institute. Mahboob, A. (Ed.). (2010). The NNEST lens: Nonnative English speakers in TESOL. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 300 N. Rudolph Mahboob, A., & Lin, A. (2016). Using local languages in English language classrooms. In H. Widodo & W. Renandya (Eds.), English language teaching today: Building a closer link between theory and practice (pp. 25–40). New York: Springer International. Mahboob, A., & Lin, A. (2018). Local languages as a resource in (Language) education. In A. F. Selvi & N. Rudolph (Eds.), Conceptual shifts and contextualized practices in education for glocal interaction: Issues and implications (pp. 197–218). Singapore: Springer. May, S. (2014). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education. London: Routledge. McMillan, B. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2011). The practice of policy: Teacher attitudes toward “English only”. System, 39(2), 251–263. Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: Who’s worth more? ELT Journal, 46(4), 340–349. Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan. Medgyes, P. (2001). When the teacher is a nonnative speaker. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 429–442). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Menard-Warwick, J. (2008). The cultural and intercultural identities of transnational English teachers: Two case studies from the Americas. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 617–640. Morris-Suzuki, T. (1997). Re-inventing Japan: Time, space, nation. Armonk: ME Sharpe. Motha, S. (2006). Decolonizing ESOL: Negotiating linguistic power in US public school classrooms. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 3(2–3), 75–100. Motha, S., Jain, R., & Tecle, T. (2012). Translinguistic identity-as-pedagogy: Implications for language teacher education. International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching, 1(1), 13–27. Moussu, L., & Llurda, E. (2008). Nonnative English-speaking English language teachers: History and research. Language Teaching, 41, 315–348. Murata, K. (Ed.). (2015). Exploring ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts: Conceptualisation, research and pedagogic implications. New York: Routledge. Murphy-Shigematsu, S. (2008). ‘The invisible man’ and other narratives of living in the borderlands of race and nation. In D. B. Willis & S. Murphy-Shigematsu (Eds.), Transcultural Japan: At the borderlands of race, gender and identity (pp. 282–302). New York: Routledge. Nayar, P. B. (1997). ESL/EFL dichotomy today: Language politics or pragmatics? TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 9–37. Norman, J. (2008). Beneits and drawbacks to L1 use in the L2 classroom. In K. Bradford Watts, T. Muller, & M. Swanson (Eds.), JALT 2007 conference proceedings. Challenging assumptions: Looking In, Looking Out (pp. 691–701). Tokyo: JALT. Park, G. (2012). “I am never afraid of being recognized as an NNES”: One teacher’s journey in claiming and embracing her nonnative speaker identity. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 127–151. Pavlenko, A. (2002). Poststructuralist approaches to the study of social factors in second language learning and use. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 277–302). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pennycook, A. (1997). Vulgar pragmatism, critical pragmatism, and EAP. English for speciic purposes, 16(4), 253–269. Pennycook, A. (2007). The myth of English as an international language. In S. Makoni & A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. 90–115). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. New York: Routledge. Pennycook, A., & Otsuji, E. (2015). Metrolingualism: Language in the city. London: Routledge. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. (2008). Lingua franca or lingua frankensteinia? English in European integration and globalisation. World Englishes, 27(2), 250–267. Popoviciu, L., Haywood, C., & Mac an Ghaill, M. (2006). The promise of post-structuralist methodology: Ethnographic representation of education and masculinity. Ethnography and Education, 1(3), 393–412. Procter, J. (2004). Stuart hall. London: Routledge. Essentialization, Idealization, and Apprehensions of Local Language Practice… 301 Rivers, D. J. (2011). Politics without pedagogy: Questioning linguistic exclusion. ELT Journal, 65(2), 103–113. Rivers, D. J. (2014). Resistance to the known: Counter-conduct in language education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Rivers, D. J. (2016). Employment advertisements and native-speakerism in Japanese higher education. In F. Copland, S. Garton, & S. Mann (Eds.), LETs and NESTs: Voices, views and vignettes (pp. 79–100). London: British Council. Rivers, D. J. (2018). Speakerhood as segregation: The construction and consequence of divisive discourse in TESOL. In B. Yazan & N. Rudolph (Eds.), Criticality, teacher identity, and (in) equity in English language teaching. Cham: Springer. Rivers, D. J., & Houghton, S. A. (Eds.). (2013). Social identities and multiple selves in foreign language education. New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Rivers, D. J., & Ross, A. S. (2013). Idealized English teachers: The implicit inluence of race in Japan. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 12, 321–339. Rudolph, N. (2012). Borderlands and border crossing: Japanese professors of English and the negotiation of translinguistic and transcultural identity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park. Rudolph, N. (2016a). Beyond essentialism: Apprehending “identity” and “motivation” through a poststructuralist lens. In M. Apple, D. Da Silva, & T. Fellner (Eds.), L2 selves and motivations in Asian contexts (pp. 217–227). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Rudolph, N. (2016b). Negotiating borders of being and becoming in and beyond the English language teaching classroom: two university student narratives from Japan. Asian Englishes, 18(1), 1–17. Rudolph, N. (2018). Education for glocal interaction beyond essentialization and idealization: Classroom explorations and negotiations. In A. F. Selvi & N. Rudolph (Eds.), Conceptual shifts and contextualized practices in education for glocal interaction: Issues and implications (pp. 147–174). Singapore: Springer. Rudolph, N., Selvi, A. F., & Yazan, B. (2015). Conceptualizing and confronting inequity: Approaches within and new directions for the “NNEST movement”. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 12(1), 27–50. Rutherford, J. (1990). The third space: Interview with Homi Bhabha. In J. Rutherford (Ed.), Identity, community, culture, difference (pp. 207–221). London: Lawrence and Wishart. Saito, Y. (2014a). Students’ L1 use: A stumbling block or a facilitator in L2 learning? Journal of Second Language Teaching & Research, 3(1), 6–23. Saito, Y. (2014b). Japanese university teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding an English-only policy. The Journal of Rikkyo University Language Center, 31, 29–42. Science Council of Japan. (2013). Code of conduct for scientists (revised). Retrieved from: http:// www.scj.go.jp/en/report/code.html Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(1–4), 209–232. Shin, H., & Kubota, R. (2008). Post-colonialism and globalization in language education. In B. Spolsky & F. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 206–219). Oxford: Wiley. Sugimoto, Y. (1999). Making sense of Nihonjinron. Thesis Eleven, 57, 81–96. Sugimoto, Y. (Ed.). (2009). The Cambridge companion to modern Japanese culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sugimoto, Y. (2014). An introduction to Japanese society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M. (1983). Bilingualism without tears. On TESOL, 82, 35–46. Tatar, S., & YÕldÕz, S. (2010). Empowering nonnative-English speaking teachers in the classroom. In A. Mahboob (Ed.), The NNEST lens: Nonnative English speakers in TESOL (pp. 114–128). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 302 N. Rudolph Toh, G. (2015). Exposing and dialogizing racism through counter-storytelling and critical pedagogy in a Japanese EAP situation. Power and Education, 7(2), 169–180. Vaughan, K. (2001). Out for the count: The last alternative state high school in New Zealand. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Auckland University, Auckland. Vaughan, K. (2004). Total Eclipse of the Heart? Theoretical and ethical implications of doing post-structural ethnographic research. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 25(3), 389–403. Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 377–389. Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Context, community, and authentic language. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 705–716. Willis, D. B., & Murphy-Shigematsu, S. (Eds.). (2008). Transcultural Japan: At the borderlands of race, gender and identity. New York: Routledge. Youdell, D. (2006). Subjectivation and performative politics – Butler thinking Althusser and Foucault: Intelligibility, agency and the raced–nationed–religioned subjects of education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(4), 511–528.

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Essentialization, Idealization, and Apprehensions of Local Language Practice in the Classroom

Essentialization, Idealization, and Apprehensions of Local Language Practice in the Classroom

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS