Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hlie20 Download by: [Ataturk University] Date: 13 November 2015, At: 03:21 Journal of Language, Identity & Education ISSN: 1534-8458 (Print) 1532-7701 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hlie20 Language Learner Investment and Identity Negotiation in the Korean EFL Context Gene Vasilopoulos To cite this article: Gene Vasilopoulos (2015) Language Learner Investment and Identity Negotiation in the Korean EFL Context, Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 14:2, 61-79, DOI: 10.1080/15348458.2015.1019783 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2015.1019783 Published online: 13 May 2015. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 254 View related articles View Crossmark data
Transcript
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hlie20
Download by: [Ataturk University] Date: 13 November 2015, At: 03:21
Language Learner Investment and IdentityNegotiation in the Korean EFL Context
Gene Vasilopoulos
To cite this article: Gene Vasilopoulos (2015) Language Learner Investment and IdentityNegotiation in the Korean EFL Context, Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 14:2, 61-79,DOI: 10.1080/15348458.2015.1019783
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2015.1019783
Language Learner Investment and Identity Negotiationin the Korean EFL Context
Gene VasilopoulosUniversity of Ottawa
Most research on language and identity has been conducted in contexts in which English is an officiallanguage. As a result, the Western-derived framework guiding identity research may not be represen-tative for L2 learners/speakers in localized settings. To address this potential disparity, this qualitativestudy examines L2 identity construction and negotiation in the local context of Korea and investigateshow English shapes self and social identity through actual use of English in day-to-day interaction.Using purposive homogenous sampling techniques, open-ended questionnaires and in-depth inter-views were conducted with 10 adult bilingual Korean-English speakers who have lived abroad forover 4 years, a criterion which assumes the formation of self and social identity aside from theirnative L1. Analysis of the interview and questionnaire data reveals the challenges and opportunitiesto reconstruct and renegotiate L1/L2 identities locally. Findings show (1) challenges in using Englishin the local context, (2) strategic use or non-use of language to blend in or distinguish themselves fromthe local population, and (3) “natural” L2 expression and identity occurring mainly in private or pro-fessional circumstances. Findings suggest that L2 identity negotiation in local contexts is a complexprocess raising the question of L2 identity options and (dis)empowerment. Pedagogical implicationsrelating to L2 language instruction follow.
Key words: identity, English, foreign language learning, Korea
To date, most of the recent research on language and identity has been conducted in contextsin which English is an official language. Here research participants are learners of the dominantL2 (second language), and acquiring and mastering the L2 directly relates to participation inmainstream society. As a result, the current frameworks guiding identity research reflect experi-ences within the Western Anglo–speaking community and may not be representative of identityand L2 learning/usage in local sites, where English is not the primary means of communication
Correspondence should be sent to Gene Vasilopoulos, University of Ottawa, 145 Jean Jacques Lussier, Room 349,Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
(Norton & Toohey, 2011). To fill this void in L2 identity scholarship, this study focuses on onelocalized EFL (English as a foreign language) context, Korea, and examines the negotiation ofL1 (native language)/L2 English language identity amongst Korean English language users.
Characteristic of EFL contexts, in Korea, English is rarely spoken outside of the foreign lan-guage classroom. However, with the growing acceptance of English as the lingua franca Englishproficiency is still widely sought. Similar to many expanding nations with emerging internationalmarkets, English has unequivocally become accepted as necessary linguistic capital for personalsuccess and, collectively, as a key for national growth. Accordingly, bilingual individuals with theability to comfortably traverse between their L1 and English as an L2 enjoy an enviable positionwith the expectation of academic, professional, and social advantage.
However, for English language users in EFL contexts, where and how to demonstrate theirlinguistic capital becomes a complex matter. Language choice can become an issue in day-to-dayinteractions; speakers exercise agency in choosing which language, accent, genre, register, andcode depending on context, interlocutor, purpose, and desired outcome. Bilinguals and multilin-guals possess a range of diverse identities that can be switched on and off in strategic ways so thatthey may fit in and be socially accepted and, conversely, to set themselves apart from the group.In other words, speakers have the option to convey a linguistic identity while masking anotherdepending on their desired self-representation. Findings from this study highlight the prevalenceof identity masking amongst Korean bilinguals as they attempt to favorably position themselvesin relation to their peers as genuine native Korean speakers and downplaying their near-nativeEnglish proficiency.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Language and Identity
The theoretical framework guiding this research draws from a constructive approach that viewslanguage and identity as nonstatic dynamic constructs whereby unique combinations of lifeexperience, connections, and interrelations overlap, giving way to multiple identities. Norton(2000), influenced by feminist poststructuralist theory (Weedon, 1997) and critical sociology(e.g., Bourdieu, 1977, 1991), conceives identity as follows:
how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructedacross time and space, and how the person understands possibilities for the future . . . understoodwith reference to larger, and more frequent inequitable, social structures which are reproduced inday-to-day interactions. (p. 5)
Emphasis is placed on the multiple social groups and roles that individuals such as languagelearners may identify with at any given time and how language and discourse works to constructthose identities. Simultaneously, there are numerous identity options to which an individual canascribe to based on roles, responsibilities, participation, background, and aspirations, wherebyidentity is a “shifting nexus of multiple subject positions, or identity options, such as mother,accountant, heterosexual, or Latina” (Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004, p. 35).
People have a variety of social roles, identities, and characteristics, which may not be immedi-ately obvious. Language and identity intersects through language choice and language use (e.g.,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ata
turk
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
3:21
13
Nov
embe
r 20
15
INVESTMENT AND IDENTITY NEGOTIATION IN THE KOREAN EFL CONTEXT 63
code choice, register, genre, accent), making it a means to convey “social information such asgroup identity: geographic region, language variety, and thus in some contexts, socio-economicstatus or educational background” (Duff, n.d., p. 3). By mirroring the language of the interlocutor,the speaker may be marked as an “insider” (ingroup) while variation can signify an “outsider”(out-group). Because of the association between language and group membership, identities canbe assumed and imposed as a result of speech; accordingly, speakers seeking a more positivesocial identity can modify their language use to join a dominant group (Gee, 2004). Hence, lan-guage acts as a significant social identity marker (Giles & Johnson, 1981) and plays an importantrole in distinguishing ourselves from others.
Agency
Individuals have multiple possibilities and multiple selves which they can identify with at anygiven time. Agency is used to navigate their options and choose to take control and invest in thelanguage and negotiate their linguistic identity. Defined by Ahearn (2001) as the “sociocultur-ally mediated capacity to act” (p. 112), agency enables learners to imagine, adopt, or reject newroles or identities through decisive actions including participation, nonparticipation, resistance,or selective language use (Duff, n.d.). Though acts of agency are most apparent in contexts inwhich there is greater opportunity for comparison between linguistic behaviors—namely, ESLcontexts—agency is equally important in EFL contexts.
Circumstantial Communities of Participation
Another Western-derived construct that can be applied to EFL contexts is Lave and Wenger’s(1991) communities of practice. With the increasing prevalence of English language learningand expanding English language networks in expanding circle nations, communities of practicebecomes relevant to this study. According to Day (2002), “Moving toward full participation inpractice involves becoming a full member of the community and developing a sense of identityas a master practitioner” (p. 16). In order to become a full member of the community, newcom-ers are required to gain “access to a wide range of ongoing activities . . . and to information,resources, and opportunities for participation” (Day, 2002, p. 15). Adapted to EFL contexts, Jou(2012) refers to the transferable nature of community of practice as circumstantiality, wherebythe sense of community for bilinguals may extend well beyond the confines of their immediatecommunities. Jou described this process as a “two way street.” Bilinguals actively construct theirsociocultural identity in their immediate communities, yet concurrently their identity is beingshaped through two forces: most directly and apparently, in collaboration with potential par-ticipants in their immediate community circles through day-to-day interaction, and indirectlyand elusively through “casual and fluid movements across national and linguistic boundaries”(p. 55). Immediate community circles are also usually composed of speakers of different vari-eties contributing to the circumstantial and temporal nature of L2 learners’ identity negotiationand reconstruction. In increasingly globalized contexts, both imagined and circumstantial com-munities of practice have implications for language teaching and learning of bilinguals (Jou,2012).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ata
turk
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
3:21
13
Nov
embe
r 20
15
64 VASILOPOULOS
LITERATURE REVIEW
Korean EFL Context
Since the early 1990s, the Korean government has been gradually increasing the emphasison English proficiency as a means of achieving national global success. The close connec-tion between English ideology and globalization has been widely acknowledged (Nam, 2005).Articulated in the Korean government’s segyehwa (globalization in Korean) campaign of 1995,English was identified as a cornerstone of Korea’s global competitiveness and economic devel-opment, leading to a flurry of reforms to language education policy. The demand for Englishproficiency has triggered a burgeoning private language industry whereby those with the financialmeans have access to the most and the best. The trend of private spending on English educationhas led to a concern over an “English divide,” based on the close correlation of family income,spending on English education, and English proficiency levels (Kim, 2012).
Domestic expenditure on private language education is one method of achieving higher levelsof English language proficiency. Another increasingly popular option among South Koreans isstudy-abroad excursions primarily for language acquisition. In the past 2 decades, the numberof Korean students studying abroad has risen from 24,000 in 1985 to 192,000 in 2005, withthe majority seeking higher learning from countries where English is a primary language (Kim,2008). Study abroad has also been extended to younger students, with the number of elementary-age students going abroad for educational opportunities rising by a factor greater than 10 from2, 259 in 1995 to 29,511 in 2006, with a slight dip in 2008 (27, 349) and 2009 (18,118) due tothe global recession (KEDI, 2010). Study abroad trends show the heavy emphasis on languagelearning (primarily English) as an important goal, which implies a valorization of a multilingual,cosmopolitan identity less bound to the monolingual culture of Korea (Song, 2012).
Identity Research in EFL Contexts
To date, empirical research into identity shifts and identity construction in EFL contexts is sparse.The limited research on identity shifts among foreign language learners stems in part fromongoing controversies about the legitimacy and significance of foreign language learner–identityconstruction (Qu, 2005). Nevertheless, there is a growing body of empirical research demon-strating a noteworthy relationship between learner identity formation and local foreign languagecontexts.
To begin, earlier quantitative inquiries into EFL learner identity formation (Gao, Zhao, Cheng,& Zhou, 2005, 2007) report numerous constructs of self-identity changes among Chinese univer-sity students after learning English. In these large-scale quantitative studies, respondents notedchanges in self-confidence with surprisingly high indications of productive and additive bilin-gualism. More importantly, heightened L2 language and L2 cultural awareness did not correlatewith diminished L1/C1. Similar results were reported among tertiary English language learnersin Thailand (Boonchum, 2009) and Korea (Vasilopoulos, 2010). In contrast, Bian’s (2009) longi-tudinal study (2 years) of L2 self-identity changes among Chinese non-English majors producedconflicting results: Respondents noted decreased self-confidence from their entry into college totheir second year as college students and subtractive loss of their cultural self as Chinese.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ata
turk
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
3:21
13
Nov
embe
r 20
15
INVESTMENT AND IDENTITY NEGOTIATION IN THE KOREAN EFL CONTEXT 65
Another stream of research has adopted qualitative methods and focuses on identity as a pro-cess as well as a product of interaction between external social structure and language use withhuman agency. Central to this line of inquiry is the concept of imagined identities and imaginedcommunities (Norton, 2000; Norton & Toohey, 2002, 2011). Research on imagined identitiesreveals how identities can be shaped in EFL contexts (Kanno, 2003), and how these imaginedidentities vary for the extremely privileged and the underprivileged. Similarly, in Korea, socialclass also plays a critical role in constructing imagined identity, whereby trajectories of “interna-tional status” facilitated through English proficiency varied between families based primarily onstatus and the ability to afford the extreme expense of international education and domestic privatetutoring (Park & Abelmann, 2004) with the more affluent envisioning global status that extendsbeyond Korean society; they “imagine, experience, and develop transnational identity and mobil-ity as a result of their English language proficiency and cross-cultural experience” (Paik, 2005,p. 215). Upon returning to the L1 context from extended study abroad, these individuals expe-rience the reconstruction of bilingual identities by recognizing the advantages of bilingualism,accepting both cultures, and developing an ownership of English (Choe, 2010).
While the studies above suggest empowerment as a result of real and imagined L2 identities,Zacharias (2012) questions the extent to which L2 language learners and speakers are free toassume an identity for themselves and, even if they do, what identity options are available forthem. Several studies (Block, 2007b; Kramsch, 2009; Zacharias, 2012) have shown that in EFLcontexts, L2 learners and speakers have “fewer or no empowering options,” forcing many to “sub-mit passively rather than to problematize the disempowering identity options” (Zarcharias, 2012,pp. 235–236). Empirical research in the Korean context is consistent with these studies: Withinthe local L1 context, L2 identity renegotiation and reconstruction of students majoring in EnglishInterpretation and Translation at a prominent Korean university experienced imposed identities,whereby family members and friends formed new expectations of them based on their academicassociation (Vasilopoulos, 2010). More interestingly, the students themselves did not necessar-ily subscribe to the imposed identities, creating a sense of false pride, overexpectation, and, forsome, a frustrating burden. Ambivalence towards English personally and within the broader socialcontext also directly and indirectly shapes the negotiation of L2 identity. Li’s (2009) study ofunsuccessful EFL learners in China brings to light the significance of communities in transition:
Because of the ever changing multi-communities of practice, in which new values, rules, and stan-dards are yet to be negotiated, non-participation needs to be viewed as a multifaceted effort to expressagency and attempt to negotiate and restructure the communities’ practices itself. (p. 253)
Learners’ identities are reflexively organized as the community transitions. Moreover, demar-cations between real communities and communities of participation and imagined communitiesbecome blurred as English prominence in expanding and outer-circle nations continues to grow.
This study adds to the research on L2 learner/speaker identity research in local expanding-circle contexts in which English is acquired in an institutional setting and in which it is not aprimary language for daily communication. The shortage of empirical scholarship in this fieldcreates a concern about overgeneralization. As Block points out, EFL contexts are extremelyvaried with regard to intensity of English learning, the relative importance of English, and thepurpose of learning English (2007); thus, to prevent “harmful generalizations” (Kumaravadivelu,2005, p. 710) and the view of identity negotiation and construction as uniform, furthersocioculturally-based investigations are required.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ata
turk
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
3:21
13
Nov
embe
r 20
15
66 VASILOPOULOS
METHODOLOGY
This research attempts to fill gaps and provide a detailed examination of identity negotiationamong bilingual Korean English speakers in their local L1 context. Accordingly, the follow-ing research questions guide this study: How do Korean English bilinguals negotiate identitiesthrough language use in their local context? What meaning does the negotiation of linguistic,self, and social identity have for the participants?
Participants
The participants of this study are 10 young adults of Korean ethnicity residing in Korea. For thepurpose of this study, bilingualism was a critical concept defined by the ability to converse nat-urally and fluently with native to near-native ability in both English and Korean. To ensure thisrequirement, participants were selected based on the period of time spent living abroad in eithernative-English-speaking contexts, or contexts in which education was provided solely in English.Given that all participants had spent over 4 years abroad (the majority in English-speaking coun-tries or studying in English medium school), all participants were fully able to communicate inEnglish with little to no L1 accent and preferred speaking in English to the researcher (a lecturerat the university).
Table 1 provides background demographic data of the participants. As protocol in qualitativeresearch, throughout this paper, pseudonyms are used to protect participant confidentiality.
The participants were recruited on a voluntary basis. The researcher explained the aims of theresearch project, the voluntary nature of their participation, and the methodology to the prospec-tive participants. For the respondents, familiarity with the researcher allowed for greater sharingof personal experiences and a heightened sense of comfort and understanding. Likewise, famil-iarity with the respondents allowed the researcher to better understand the contextual and culturalnuances of which the respondents spoke. As a precaution, respondents were offered the option ofconducting the interview in Korean with the assistance of an interpreter; however, all participantsexpressed a preference to proceed in English.
Data Collection
Collective case study methodology was used to examine the relationship between English lan-guage learning/use and identity within a limited temporal period. Data collection involved twoinstruments: (1) a preliminary open-ended questionnaire and (2) a series of in-depth interviews(2–3 sessions). Sequentially, participants were first provided with the questionnaire and allowedsufficient time to familiarize themselves with the topic at hand and reflect on their personal experi-ences, beliefs, behaviors, and roles. Upon submission of the completed questionnaire, interviewswere scheduled ranging from 1 to 2 hours, on average.
During the interview process, respondents were allowed to refer to their questionnaire whilethe researcher drew from semistructured interview techniques to allow respondents to elaborateand clarify. Using voice-recording software, interviews were recorded for respondent validationand transcription purposes.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ata
turk
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
3:21
13
Nov
embe
r 20
15
INVESTMENT AND IDENTITY NEGOTIATION IN THE KOREAN EFL CONTEXT 67
TABLE 1Participant Demographics
Name Gender Age MajorTime
AbroadAge
abroad CountryLanguages
Spoken
1) Esther Female 26 English InterpretationJapanese Interpretation
10 years 12–22 Guam,USA
Korean,English,Japanese
2) Ben Male 27 International BusinessEnglish Interpretation
5 years 5–10 NorthCarolina,
U.S.A.
Korean,English
3) Jenny Female 22 English Interpretation 5 years 12–17 Shanghai KoreanEnglishChinese
4) Julie Female 22 English Interpretation 6 years 13–19 Singapore KoreanEnglish
5) Allan Male 20 EIT 8 years 10–18 Toronto,Canada
KoreanEnglish
6) Keith Male 30 EIT 12 years 7–19 Atlanta,USA
KoreanEnglish
7) Lenny Male 30 Law 10 years(on and off)
3–18 JapanFrance
JapaneseKoreanEnglish
8) Tom Male 30? Business Economics 7 years 22–29 LosAngeles,
USA
KoreanEnglish
9) Dan Male 28 Chinese Literature 4 years 22–28 Shanghai KoreanChineseEnglish
10) Lindsey Female 30 Mass communication 6 years,5 months
22–28 Philippines KoreanEnglish
Data Analysis Procedures
Data was analyzed through a combination of inductive and interpretive analysis (Hatch, 2002).Inductive analysis proceeds from the specific to the general, making connections between spe-cific pieces of evidence. Additionally, interpretative analysis involves giving meaning to data and“making sense of social situations by generating explanations for what’s going on within them.It involves making inferences, developing insights, attaching significance, refining understand-ings, and drawing conclusions” (Hatch, 2002, p. 180). More specifically, the data analysis processfollowed these sequential steps: (1) organize and prepare the data for analysis, which includedtranscribing interviews, writing vignettes and field notes, and the preliminary sorting and arrang-ing of data; (2) read through all the data to obtain a general sense of the information and reflect onits meaning as a whole; (3) create frames of analysis to describe the themes, setting, participants,and potential domains; (4) reread data sets in reference to each frame of analysis and identifydomains based on semantic relationships (actual language used by the participants), discard-ing less salient relationships, and drawing on direct quotations to support predominant domains;(5) complete a case data analysis showing the relationship between domains presented in rich
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ata
turk
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
3:21
13
Nov
embe
r 20
15
68 VASILOPOULOS
description through quotations and specific evidence; and (6) interpretation of the data basedon the guiding theoretical framework, existing empirical literature, and researcher’s personalinterpretation.
FINDINGS
This qualitative study examines the day-to-day English interactions of bilingual Koreans in theirlocal context of Korea, where English is regarded as the global language and where Englishproficiency is highly valued. As Kramsch (2009) notes, for language learners in EFL contexts,“passing for a native can be coupled with . . . pride and pleasure” (p. 92). Hence, the ability ofKorean-English bilinguals to interact naturally and comfortably in English is sign of status andis a highly desired skill. However, Korea is still a monolingual nation with one official language.More importantly, the belief of one nation, one language, one people creates a complex site forforeign language use (Park & Lo, 2012).
The findings show that despite the prevalence of English in the local context, there is still lim-ited opportunity for Koreans to use English, as the local L1 is preferred in daily communicationswith other Koreans. Moreover, native-like English speech amongst ethnic Koreans is discouraged,putting pressure on bilinguals to conceal their L2 ability/identity. Strategically, participants usedthe L1/L2 language to blend in or conversely to distinguish themselves. Finally, L2 use similarto that acquired and spoken while abroad in the target community (TC) was reserved to inter-actions with non-Koreans or select individuals with comparable experience as bilinguals or inprofessional contexts that required demonstrations of their English fluency.
Challenges in Using English
All participants expressed the minimal opportunity to use English outside of the language class-room. In response to the question, “When do you use English?” most respondents commented thattheir English use was typically confined to academic and language-institution settings. Ironically,all participants conveyed the desire for more opportunities to speak English; however, theyexplained that there are numerous challenges to creating opportunities to use English within thelocal context.
Awkwardness of using English with local Koreans. As students majoring in EnglishInterpretation and Translation, Jenny, Julie, and Keith assumed that most of their classmateswould want to speak English together. Given the belief that practicing the language is funda-mental to achieving fluency, they expected that speaking opportunities outside of the classroomwould be desired by all students in the program. As Jenny describes,
At the beginning of the semester, my friends all want to speak English with me. For example myroommate suggested that we only speak in English together so that she can improve. Of course, thatdidn’t last long. It just felt awkward for me and her. It was strange. It took too long for her to saysomething, and I would just be patiently waiting and listening. Of course, she got frustrated.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ata
turk
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
3:21
13
Nov
embe
r 20
15
INVESTMENT AND IDENTITY NEGOTIATION IN THE KOREAN EFL CONTEXT 69
Keith recounts a similar experience:
Sometimes people want to speak English with me. Charles wants me to speak to him the way thatI would normally speak. Then, I can tell that he doesn’t understand and there are miscommunications.To help clarify, I explain and then he seems annoyed. So, then I use simpler words, speak slower, blendin some Konglish, and the conversation goes smoothly. But can you believe, he then tells me that myEnglish is not that good!
Julie noted,
It just feels weird speaking English to other Koreans. They would prefer to speak in Korean, andI know that, so even if they say that we should try to talk in English, it doesn’t mean that they wantto practice speaking right now. Also, I guess because everyone understands Korean, it is more naturalto use it.
From these excerpts, the participants convey a discrepancy between what is literally asked ofthem and what is expected and preferred. The request made by peers to speak English togetheris unambiguous; however, bilinguals may quickly realize that the variety of English they used inthe TC (L2 contexts), is not as effective when communicating socially with L1 peers, especiallyif the interlocutors are of lower proficiency.
Flaunting. Allan explained his belief for the obstacles faced when using English with friendsand family: “Friends hate it when I use English. They think I am lucky to have grown up inCanada and speak the way I do.” Tom agreed that speaking English to Koreans, especially whenyour language proficiency is more advanced is considered to be showing off and is frowned upon.Lindsey was also concerned about the attention that her English proficiency called to herself:
In the beginning I was embarrassed to use English in front of Koreans. All eyes would be on me. 4 or5 years ago, it was less common to see Korean people speaking English in public. Now it is morecommon so I am not embarrassed anymore. In the past, when I spoke English in front of Koreans, Iused to feel superior, but not anymore.
Despite what Lindsey considers as changing trends and a greater tolerance for English use inpublic, she goes on to explain that she still doesn’t use English when speaking to Koreans. HerEnglish use in Korea is limited to institutional settings such as the language classroom, or toprofessional purposes—namely, her volunteer work with immigrants to Korea where English isused as a common medium.
Tension around advanced English proficiency relates to employment opportunities and status.Because English fluency is a necessary requirement for entry to the most sought after positionswith large Korean companies, those with the advantage of having lived abroad and achievingnative- to near native–like fluency are regarded with envy by local Koreans who continue tostruggle to master English (Lo & Kim, 2012). For many young Koreans struggling to find a jobin a fiercely competitive job market, witnessing the advantage that English proficiency brings tooverseas returnees creates a conflicting sense of love-hate or admiration-envy.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ata
turk
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
3:21
13
Nov
embe
r 20
15
70 VASILOPOULOS
Strategic Language Choice and Language Use
Language use or non-use to create solidarity. Due to their noticeable proficiency, fluentEnglish speakers felt they were identified as “different” by other students. The desire to blend inwith their peers made participants reluctant to speak out in class and exhibit their L2 fluency. Notwanting to be considered as “different” from the group, respondents opted for silence rather than“flaunt” their language skill. This includes being aware of how they use their English in class.
Allan explains that he has had difficulty making friends in his first semester at university:“Everyone was suspect because of the way I spoke. It was noticeable that I had lived overseasfor a long time and just returned to Korea.” Though Allan claims his English to be better than hisKorean, and that local Koreans can recognize that he “doesn’t speak Korean that same way theydo,” he is mindful of how often he speaks aloud in English class so as not to distinguish himselffrom his peers. Likewise, Esther, Julie, and Jenny also made a sincere effort not to speak out inclass so as not to draw unnecessary attention, especially when the attention would be viewed byothers as a way of showing off.
Concern about how others may view study participants’ English proficiency extends beyondthe classroom setting into the public realm and the reactions of complete strangers. Modifyingspeech so as not to attract unwanted attention was a common strategy used by respondents. Keithdescribes an example in which he was self-conscious about his English in public:
People judge, so I put on a Korean accent and Koreanize my pronunciation. One day, my cousin fromthe States was on the bus with me, and he was screaming on the phone in English. The whole buswas staring at us. So, when I’m on the subway or something, and I get a phone call from the States,I mumble softly in Konglish until I can get off the train and then I speak the way I would normallyspeak. Of course the other person on the phone understands what I am doing, that I’m just trying tobe polite to the people on the subway and not call attention to myself.
To a certain degree, respondents expressed the need to conceal their natural English usage andthe complications in expressing their L2 identities within the local context. However, there arealso situations in which L2 identity work is strategically used to distinguish themselves from theL1 community.
Distinguishing oneself through language use. While suppressing English proficiencythrough non-use or modified use helped the participants to “blend in,” expressing the L2 profi-ciency and L2 identity allowed them to distinguish themselves. As a part-time English teacher,Esther uses English to assert her authority with her adult students. Age becomes an issue rele-vant in her speech patterns in both Korean and English as the Korean language uses honorificforms and a formal register to address elders. Esther feels that her Korean is more polite andwell-mannered than her English. When speaking English, she can be more liberal and outspo-ken. Students tell her that they had a different impression of her when she switched from Koreanto English on their second day of class. Consequently, when speaking English to an older per-son, she feels that she can be more casual and hence feels more mature and grown up, but whenspeaking Korean to the same person, she feels that she needs to be extra polite again. Likewise, toassert her authority, Esther prefers to use English, as she can speak more directly without feelingas though she has stepped outside of her Korean tradition.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ata
turk
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
3:21
13
Nov
embe
r 20
15
INVESTMENT AND IDENTITY NEGOTIATION IN THE KOREAN EFL CONTEXT 71
Similar to Esther, Lenny uses English to assert his authority in Korea and Japan. He gives theexample of using English in Japan when checking into a hotel:
Because my passport is Korean, and even though I speak Japanese fluently, I’ve noticed that I get themost preferential treatment when I speak to the clerk in English. Suddenly, they treat me with thisgreat respect, unlike the treatment I would get if I spoke in Korean or Japanese. Without the English,they would just consider me an average Korean tourist.
The discourse of the “average Korean” in contrast to the “English speaking Korean” was alsomentioned by Dan. Dan recalls meeting some Western friends at local bar in Seoul. He greeted hisfemale acquaintance with a hug, and this caught the attention of other bar patrons. Dan explains,
When people in the bar saw me greet her like that, they were all looking. Afterwards, a guy who Ididn’t know came up to me and asked how long I lived overseas. He commented on how cool andconfident I was to embrace a Western girl. I guess I am not shy like the average Korean guy.
In these instances, Dan and Lenny’s decision to use Western customary greetings in the localcontext drew attention, and this strategic choice was to demonstrate their multicultural identityand set them apart from the stereotypical image of the “average local Korean.”
Natural Expression of L2 Identity
Though most participants claimed that their English use was primarily limited to the languageclassroom, some respondents described outside relationships where natural English use, typicalof their English use in the TL, was the norm. In these cases, the interlocutor shared similarexperiences of bilingualism and biculturalism and equivalent or higher levels of proficiency.
Keith commented that he only spoke English naturally with one friend:
I only speak English naturally with Sam because he also lived in the States for as many years as Idid. He’s the one friend that I can talk to the same way that I did with my friends back in Atlanta. Heunderstands my language and my ideas. I would speak naturally if the other person could understandme, but most of the time I find that they don’t.
Likewise, Allan shared this linguistic and cultural bond with his sister:
I only speak English in my house with my sister. She lived in Canada for 6 years and I treat her like aCanadian, not Korean. For example, my younger Korean cousins, her age, I consider them as childishand kind of shelter them playing some big brother role. But my sister, I’ll tell her what I think evenif she doesn’t like it, and I’ll also accept more from her. Like, she’s my younger sister but I wouldn’tcare if she had a boyfriend. I’m not as protective of her as my friends are towards their younger sistersor even the way that I am towards my younger cousins. So, we don’t have that older brother–youngersister relationship that you see in Korea.
Aside from social bonds with fellow returnees, Esther and Lindsey used English on a regular basisfor professional purposes, where their employment required them to demonstrate their L2 fluencyaccompanying L2 identity. In the role of an instructor or interpreter-intermediary, the respondentswere expected to speak and act as a bicultural bilingual and not as a local English languagelearner.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ata
turk
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
3:21
13
Nov
embe
r 20
15
72 VASILOPOULOS
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the present study was to explore the participants’ understanding of theirbilingual/multilingual English identities. Although the study was carried out on a small scaleand does not reflect the identities of all Korean English speakers in the local context, the findingscan offer insight into identity negotiation and reconstruction in EFL contexts. The findings of thisstudy show the negotiation of participants’ multiple identities on the basis of the L1 culture andcontext. Accordingly, respondents expressed their genuine L2 identities (similar to the L2 iden-tity and language use they used in the TC) only for specific situations in the L1 context: speakingto non-Koreans, speaking to others with shared experiences as fluent L2 speakers and with bicul-tural identities, or for professional purposes for which an L2 identity is expected. Depending oncontext, subjects reverted to strategic ways to fit in and be socially accepted, or conversely, tostand apart. As Duff (n.d.) notes, identity work depends largely on the interpersonal contexts inwhich individuals find themselves, the purposes for their being there, and whether they desireacceptance and accommodation by the group with which they are interacting.
Earlier research (Duff & Uchida, 1997) has shown that individuals in any setting negotiatea wide array of social and cultural roles and identities: as gendered and cultural individuals; asexpatriates or nationals; as native speakers or non-native speakers; as individuals with politicalconnections; and as members of families, organizations, and society at large (Duff & Uchida,1997). In Korea, ambivalence towards English is reflected through enthusiasm versus mainte-nance of Korean national identity. This plays a significant role in how participants perceivedresistance against the use of a foreign language that carries such threatening cultural capital (Park& Lo, 2012).
Similar findings have been reported in Malaysia (Lee, 2003), China (Li, 2009), and Indonesia(Zacharias, 2012). Zacharias’s research in Indonesia explains that even though participants wereactive users of English, they were fully aware of the effect of English on their identities asIndonesian nationals. For some participants, English use in a public space created the feelingof “self-enhancement” (Kramsch, 2009, p. 63), repositioning them as educated and “part of theelite” (Kramsch, 2009, p. 4). For many others, however, English—both the language and theculture—was perceived as an imposition on their core cultural identities. These participants high-lighted the need to localize and contain the use of English in certain places so that they could beaccepted in Indonesian society.
Participants have to know when and how to switch identities, minimize, withdraw, or evenabandon for the time being their use of English to conform to the dominant group’s unspokenexpectations. The Korean participants of the study who were all proficient users of the Englishlanguage described their need to make strategic identity switches to not distance, offend, annoy, orembarrass members of the local group or to avoid showing off or “boasting” in a foreign language.Using English could be interpreted as being “elitist” or renouncing their Korean cultural identity.Making identity switches here meant an actual language switch itself, to the exclusion of theEnglish language.
The negotiation of identities in the local EFL context shows the significance of the L1 andnot the TL in guiding L2 identity development. Previously, Block (2007a) suggested that “inFL (foreign language) setting, there is usually far too much first language-mediated baggageand interference for profound change to occur in the individual’s conceptual system and his/hersense of self in the TL (target language)” (p. 144). Block reasoned that identity renegotiation is
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ata
turk
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
3:21
13
Nov
embe
r 20
15
INVESTMENT AND IDENTITY NEGOTIATION IN THE KOREAN EFL CONTEXT 73
often mediated by participation in communities of practice (CoP) and in the foreign languagecontext, learner’s engagement in these CoPs is effected through their local languages and notthe target language (2000). Accordingly, EFL contexts provide a “relatively unfertile ground forTL mediated work” compared to ESL contexts where there is the “potential for partial or fullimmersion” in the target languages’ CoP (p. 144).
The findings of this study are to the contrary; while it is true that in the L1 context, there isusually more first language–mediated baggage and interference than in the TC, for ethnic Koreansreturning to their local culture, numerous challenges arise in conceptualizing themselves as theyonce did in the TL and TC. Here the difference is in the direction and outcome of identity negotia-tion; while Block focuses on the formation of TL identity in the L1 context, this study highlightsthe limitations in conveying an already established TL identity in the L1 context. Hence, themost significant aspect of this current study is the lack of opportunities to negotiate and expressthe L2 identity established in the TC in the L1 context. Thus while L2 speakers/learners areencouraged to continue learning, practicing, and using the L2, returning bilinguals have to nego-tiate a new L2 identity specific for their interaction with local L1 speakers in the community.As such, bilinguals have limited opportunities to express the L2 identities they’ve established inthe TC.
As Mathews (2000) asks, to what extent are L2 language learners and speakers free to assumean identity for themselves, and even if they do, what identity options are available for them?Several studies of L2 learners and speakers suggest that they have limited empowering options,with many forced to submit passively rather than to problematize the disempowering identityoptions (Zacharias, 2012, pp. 235–236). As reported by the respondents in this study, to a greatextent, conforming to local conventions meant modifying their speech and linguistic identities tomirror that of the local population. Strategic L2 identity negotiation was used to set them apartas nontypical of the local community. Conversely, natural expression of their L2 identities waslimited to private interpersonal communications or professional duties that required advancedL2 proficiency. These patterns suggest the social pressure to conform to predetermined linguisticand cultural identities as ethnic Koreans in the L1 context.
The findings of this study also raise the importance of sociocultural context in understandinglanguage use and linguistic identities. Increasingly, scholars are recognizing the unique attributesof contemporary South Korean society, which makes it a distinctive and dynamic site to observethe sociolinguistics of globalization (Park & Lo, 2012). On the one hand, Koreans have a deeplyheld belief in the centrality of the language-ethnicity-territory nexus, with one language, onecountry, one people. However, the trends of short-term and return migration have begun to changethe traditional image of Korea as a monolingual, ethnically and culturally homogenous nation(Park, 2009). An emerging “Transnational” Korea (Park & Lo, 2012) highlights the complexity ofidentity, as hybrid identities intersect between new ideologies of language and personhood asso-ciated with globalization, neoliberalism, and multiculturalism and older ones founded on ideasof nationalism, monolingualism, and monoculturalism. What we see the respondents experienc-ing and exhibiting can be described as “hybridity practices,” where multilingual speakers engagethe symbolic differences of the global and the local to transcend the global/local boundary itself(Park & Lo, 2012).
How can the findings of this study relate to the vast English language–teaching industry inKorea? In Korea, English is still prized for the linguistic and cultural capital associated with
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ata
turk
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
3:21
13
Nov
embe
r 20
15
74 VASILOPOULOS
immediate rewards and benefits in the local community. While as a general proposition Englishis valued, this study raises the issue of what types of English proficiency Koreans prefer, whattypes are most common, and which are most functional? The fact that all respondents experiencedawkwardness and discomfort when using English in the same manner as they would in the TCsuggests that the preferred English use between Koreans is not the same English that they wereexposed to, acquired, and spoke abroad in the TC. From this study, we can see that Koreanbilinguals felt uncomfortable and were treated as outsiders when speaking English in a mannersimilar to that of a native English speaker or in the same manner as they would have overseas.Accordingly, bilinguals were careful to adapt their English language to blend in with their peersrather than distinguish themselves. Therefore, it seems that the English variety that local Koreansprefer, or are accustomed to, and that is representative of their unique sociocultural context is notthat of the typical native-speaker standard.
From a pedagogical perspective, if local Koreans prefer a certain style of L2, which is not thesame type used in traditionally English-speaking countries, then why does NEST (Native EnglishSpeaking Teacher) ideology persist in Korean ELT? More precisely, why is there a continuedbelief that L2 learners want to mimic native-speaker speech and why is “native proficiency” theultimate goal for Korean L2 learners? Findings from this study indicate that when English is usedbetween ethnic Koreans in the local context, a local variety is preferred, resurrecting the discus-sion on the codification of Konglish (Shim, 1999) and the actual use of Korean English (Hadikin,2013). These concerns suggest a reconsideration of existing language-instruction practices andideals that reproduce NEST ideology and a closer alignment between the variety of English taughtand the language variety most reflective and practical in the local context
CONCLUSION
The interrelation between social identity and language identity (Giles & Johnson, 1981) has longbeen accepted. Language acts as an indicator of social identity and plays an important role indistinguishing ourselves from others. Equally, identities can be imposed by the language spoken,and in seeking a more positive social identity, language users can modify their language use to joina dominant group (Gee, 2004). This qualitative study examined how day-to-day English-languageinteraction is used to shape self and social identity in the local Korean EFL context. Data collectedfrom 10 Korean adult bilinguals (who have lived overseas in primarily English speaking nationsor have experienced ongoing English medium education) suggest that L2 identities and fluencyused in daily social interactions in the L2 community did not bring the same rewards as whenused in the TC. Instead, respondents in this study noted the many challenges in using Englishwith local Koreans and the strategic use or non-use of language to blend in or set themselvesapart.
In recent years, the study of language and identity construction and negotiation in the ESLcontext has enjoyed significant attention and has been the subject of substantial inquiry. Similarefforts in the EFL context have been sparse. This empirical study presents a thought-provokingperspective to EFL language identity research; whereas, most of the existing research on EFLuser L2 identity has focused on the “L1 baggage” that L2 learners bring to the TC or languageclassroom, this paper suggests the reverse, by examining the “L2 baggage” that speakers bring
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ata
turk
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
3:21
13
Nov
embe
r 20
15
INVESTMENT AND IDENTITY NEGOTIATION IN THE KOREAN EFL CONTEXT 75
to the L1 context. Kramsch (2009) contends that language researchers and educators need tobetter prepare and equip L2 users to deal with negotiating their identities in their local L1. Thisis certainly apparent in the narratives shared by the respondents.
REFERENCES
Ahearn, L. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 20, 109–137.Bian, Y. (2009). The more I learned, the less I found myself. In J. Lo Bianco, J. Orton, & G. Yihong (eds.) China and
English: Globalisation and the dilemmas of identity (pp. 155–168). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Block, D. (2000). Learners and their meta-pedagogical awareness. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1),
97–123.Block, D. (2007a). The rise of identity in SLA research, post Firth and Wagner (1997). The Modern Language Journal,
91(5), 863–876.Block, D. (2007b). Second language identities. London, UK: Continuum.Boonchum, P. (2009). A study of self-identity changes and correlation of influential factors of Thai students studying
English. Educational Research and Review, 4(11), 535–548.Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16(6), 645–668.Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. J.B. Thompson, ed.; G. Raymond & M. Adamson, trans. Cambridge,
UK: Polity Press (original work published in 1982).Choe, H. (2010). Growing up in two languages: Korean returnee children’s identity development. English Language and
Linguistics, 16(2),73–108.Day, E. M. (2002). Identity and the young English language learner. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Duff, P. (n.d.). Identity, agency, and second language acquisition. Retrieved from http://educ.ubc.ca/faculty/pduff/
personal_website/Publications/Duff_identity_agency_SLA.pdfDuff, P., & Uchida, Y. (1997). The negotiation of teachers’ sociocultural identities and practices in postsecondary EFL
classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 451–486.Gao, Y., Zhao, Y., Cheng, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2005). Self-identity changes and English learning among Chinese
undergraduates. World Englishes, 24(1), 39–51.Gao, Y., Zhao, Y., Cheng, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2007). Relationship between English learning motivation types and self-identity
changes among Chinese students. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 133–155.Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning. A critique of traditional schooling. New York, NY: Routledge.Giles, H., & Johnson, P. (1981). The role of language in ethnic group relations. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.),
Intergroup behaviour (pp. 199–243). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Hadikin, G. S. (2013). You know Korean English? Lexical priming in short strings of Korean spoken English.
International Journal of Language Studies, 7(1), 59–78.Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Albany: State University of New York Press.Jou, Y.-S. (2012). Sociolinguistic approaches to identity negotiation and language learning: A circumstantiality per-
spective on communities of practice. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 2(1),49–60.
Kanno, Y. (2003). Negotiating bilingual and bicultural identities: Japanese returnees betwixt two worlds. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
KEDI (Korean Educational Development Institute). (2010). Analysis of statistics on education. Seoul, South Korea:Korean Educational Development Institute. Retrieved from http://www.kedi.re.kr
Kim, H. (2012). Equity and efficiency of Koreans’ English education investment. KDI Policy Forum. no. 245. Seoul,South Korea: Korean Development Institute.
Kim, Y.-C. (2008). Korean student mobility in global context. Korean Education Policy Research Institute. Retrieved fromhttp://www.apec.org.au/docs/08_ASCconf/015_Young-Chul_ppt.pdf
Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Kumaravadivelu, B. (2005). Problematizing cultural stereotypes in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 37 (4), 709–718.Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Lee, S. K. (2003). Multiple identities in a multicultural world: A Malaysian perspective. Journal of Language, Identity,and Education, 2(3), 137–158.
Li, Y. (2009). Negotiated (non-) participation of “unsuccessful” learners. In Y. Gao, J. Orton, & J. Lo Bianco (Eds.),China and English: Globalization and the dilemmas of identity, (pp. 241–254). Bristol, UK.: Multilingual Matters.
Lo, A., & Kim, J. (2012). Linguistic competency and citizenship: Contrasting portraits of multilingualism in the SouthKorean popular media. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16(2), 255–276.
Mathews, G. (2000). Global culture, individual identity: Searching for a home in the cultural supermarket. London, UK:Routledge.
Nam, J. M. (2005). The changing role of English in Korea: From English as a tool for advancement to English for survival.Journal of Pan Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 9, 227–240.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Harlow, UK: PearsonEducation.
Norton, B. & Toohey, K. (2011). Identity, language learning, and social change. Language Teaching, 44(4), 412–446.Paik, J. (2005). Managing change: The sociocultural implications of the early English language (EEL) policy in South
Korea (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Park, S.-J., & Abelmann, N. (2004). Class and cosmopolitan striving: Mother’s management of English education in
South Korea. Anthropological Quarterly, 77, 645–672.Park, J. S.-Y. (2009). The Local Construction of a Global Language: Ideologies of English in South Korea. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: Mouton de Gruyter.Park, J. S.-Y., & Lo, A. (2012). Transnational South Korea as a site for a sociolinguistics of globalization: Markets,
timescales, neoliberalism. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16, 147–164.Pavlenko, A. & Blackledge, A. (eds.). (2004). Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.Qu, W. G. (2005). On issues concerning English and identity research in China. Journal of Chinese Sociolinguistics, 5,
93–116.Shim, R. (1999). Codified Korean English. World Englishes, 18(2), 247–259.Song, J. (2012). The struggle over class, identity, and language: A case study of South Korean transnational families.
Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16(2), 201–217.Vasilopoulos, G. (2010). English and self-identity construction among Korean learners: A qualitative study. Studies in
Foreign Language Education, 24(2), 101–126.Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory. London, UK: Blackwell.Zacharias, N. T. (2012). EFL students’ understanding of their multilingual English identities. Electronic Journal of
1) How long have you been studying English?2) Why are you studying English? What are your goals and how do you think English will
help you achieve these goals?3) In your personal opinion, is learning English and the being able to speak English impor-
tant to you? Does it play an important role in your social life, academic life, or futureprofessional life?
4) Please describe your English language learning experience? How much time, effort,and/or financial resources have you invested in learning English?
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ata
turk
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
3:21
13
Nov
embe
r 20
15
INVESTMENT AND IDENTITY NEGOTIATION IN THE KOREAN EFL CONTEXT 77
5) Do you use English outside of the class environment? With whom and how often?6) Are you satisfied with your English language proficiency? What degree of English lan-
guage learning fluency do you hope to achieve? What can or will you do to attain thisgoal?
Please read and respond to the following statements. How accurate/inaccurate are thesestatements to your language learning experience? Please explain.
7) Self confidence changes
1. I feel terrific when I find my command of English is better than that of others.2. English learning has a great impact on my self-confidence.3. When I have difficulties in English learning, I begin to doubt my own ability.4. Whenever I have overcome a difficulty in English learning, I can feel my own growth.
8) Additive change
1. I can easily switch between Korean and English according to situational needs.2. I am relatively confident when speaking in English, and relatively modest when speaking
in Korean.3. I prefer to listen to the original English dialogue when watching English movies, just as I
prefer to listen to the original Korean dialogue when watching Korean movies.4. I have an English name in addition to my Korean name. They are used in different
situations.
9) Subtractive change
1. With the improvement of my English proficiency, I feel my Korean is becoming lessidiomatic.
2. After learning English, I feel my behaviors have become somewhat Westernized.3. After learning English, I feel repugnant about some Korean conventions.4. After learning English, I begin to reject some traditional Korean ideas.
10) Productive change
1. With the improvement of my English proficiency, I can better appreciate the subtleties inKorean.
2. After learning English, I find myself more sensitive to changes in the outside world.3. After learning English, I find myself more understanding and better able to communicate
with others.4. As my ability of appreciating English literature and art increases, I have become more
interested in Korean literature and art.
11) Split
1. I feel weird when my speech in Korean is subconsciously mixed with English words.2. I feel a painful split when I switch between English and Korean behavioral patterns.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ata
turk
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
3:21
13
Nov
embe
r 20
15
78 VASILOPOULOS
3. When parting with my foreign friends, I’m frequently confused as to whether I shouldshake hands or hug and kiss.
4. After learning English, I’m often caught between contradicting values and beliefs.
12) Zero Change
1. No matter which language I used for expressions, I remain to be myself2. I’ve not felt any change in myself after learning English.3. It’s impossible for me to change into another person after learning a language.4. For me, it’s meaningless to talk about personal changes after learning English.
13) Since learning English, do you think that you’ve changed as a person?14) Since learning English, do you think that others (friends, family, classmates) view you
differently?15) Can you imagine what your life would be like if you didn’t study or speak English? Would
your life be the same or would it be different? How?
Thank you for your help!
APPENDIX B
Interview Questions
Day to day interactions:
1) When do you use English?2) How often? With whom? Why?3) Describe one incident where you used English in Korea (outside of the classroom and the
university environment).4) Would you like to speak English more? To whom? Why?5) How do you decide which language to use when speaking to someone? When do you use
Korean? When do you use English? When do you switch? Why?
Future Trajectories
6) How do you think English will affect your future-professionally, socially, etc.7) Have you ever thought about the role of English in your life? Have you ever thought about
how your life would be different if you didn’t speak English? Explain.8) Have you seen changes in yourself as a result of your language ability?9) Do you think your English proficiency affects how you perceive yourself and how others
perceive you?
Experiences in Korean and experiences abroad
10) In Korean, as a Korean, how would you describe yourself? What are your roles/relationshipswith other people?
11) Abroad, how would you describe yourself? What are/were your roles/relationships withother people? Is it different from how you perceive yourself in Korea?
12) Do you think you act/think/speak differently in the L1/L2? Explain.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ata
turk
Uni
vers
ity]
at 0
3:21
13
Nov
embe
r 20
15
INVESTMENT AND IDENTITY NEGOTIATION IN THE KOREAN EFL CONTEXT 79
13) Do you think you can switch between your L1 self and L2 self? Explain.14) Can you describe how you switch from your L1/L2 self?15) Describe your experience abroad. Describe your return to Korea. Where did/do you feel
