Applied Linguistics 29/4: 619644 Oxford University Press 2008

doi:10.1093/applin/amn011 Advance Access published on 29 April 2008

The Cultural Productions of the ESL
Student at Tradewinds High: Contingency,
Multidirectionality, and Identity in L2
Socialization
STEVEN TALMY
University of British Columbia
Although the originators of the language socialization (LS) paradigm were
careful to cast socialization as a contingent, contested, bidirectional process, the
focus in much rst language LS research on successful socialization among
children and caregivers may have obscured these themes. Despite this, I suggest
the call for a more dynamic model of LS (Bayley and Schecter 2003), while
compelling, is unnecessary: contingency and multidirectionality are inherent in
LS given its orientation to socialization as an interactionally-mediated process.
This paper foregrounds the dynamism of LS by examining processes comprising
unsuccessful or unexpected socialization. Specically, it analyses interactions
involving oldtimer Local ESL students and their rst-year teachers at a
multilingual public high school in Hawaii. Contingency and multidirectionality
are explicated through analysis of two competing cultural productions of the
ESL student. The rst, manifest in ESL program structures and instruction, was
school-sanctioned or ofcial. Socialization of Local ESL students into this
schooled identity was anything but predictable, however, as they consistently
subverted the actions, stances, and activities that constituted it. In doing so,
these students produced another, oppositional ESL student identity, which came
to affect ofcial classroom processes in signicant ways.
INTRODUCTION
The socialization of children or novices by adults or experts into particular
roles, identities, and world views has been the topic of scholarship for decades
across the social sciences. Concerning as it does the activity that confronts and
lends structure to the entry of nonmembers into an already existing world
(Wentworth 1980: 85), the nexus of socialization research engages such
longstanding problematics as agent vs. structure, voluntarism vs. determin-
ism, and macro vs. micro. Depending on disciplinary origin and theoretical
orientation, emphases have varied in the diverse socialization literature on the
inuence that, for example, society has on the individual, or genetics has over
the environment. Notwithstanding differences in emphasis, however, early
theories of socializationfrom the psychoanalytic tradition of Freud (1939),
to the sociological functionalisms of Durkheim (1997) and Parsons (1937),

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

to the cultural anthropology of Mead (1961)shared a general concern with
the outcomes of socialization, characteristic of what Wentworth (1980) calls
a socialization-as-internalization model. In contrast, theories within a
socialization-as-interaction model have focused on the processes of socializa-
tion, includingsymbolic interactionism(Blumer 1969), phenomenology(Schutz
1967), ethnomethodology (Garnkel 1967), and structuration theory (Giddens
1979). Despite substantive differences, these latter theories all consider
the medium through which the ability to produce society is transmitted [sic]
from member to novice (Wentworth 1980: 79), that is, the interaction that
constitutes socialization (1980: 83). In doing so, they work to transcend bina-
risms such as individual vs. society, the inevitability and unidirectionality of a
totalizing socialization, and a conception of the individual so malleab[le] and
passiv[e] . . . inthe face of all powerful social inuences (White 1977: 5) that s/he
could be considered oversocialized (Wrong 1961).
It is within this process orientation that language socialization (LS), the
theory of socialization most often adopted in applied linguistics, can be situated.
LS originated in the 1980s (e.g. Schieffelin and Ochs 1986a, 1986b) as a
response both to earlier anthropological studies of child socialization, which
proceeded as if language was irrelevant, and to the invisibility, in psycho-
linguistic studies of rst language (L1) acquisition, of culture as a principle
that organized speech practices and their acquisition (Kulick and Schieffelin
2004: 349; also see Ochs and Schieffelin 2008). Consistent with its orientation
toward socialization as a process that is accommodated, contested, and trans-
formed by agents in interaction (see, e.g. Schieffelin and Ochs 1986a, 1986b;
Garrett and Baquedano-Lo pez 2002), LS provides a rigorous analytic frame-
work for examining socializing processes in situ. This allows LS analyses
to be grounded in ways unavailable to other models of socialization. It also
offers the means to demonstrate the fundamental contingency and multi-
directionality of socialization as it isor is notcollaboratively achieved.
Despite these analytic means, there has been some recent debate, particularly
among second language (L2) LS scholars, concerning the extent to which
unpredictability and mutuality in socialization have been accounted for in
LS research. Bayley and Schecter (2003), for example, have strongly argued
for a more dynamic model of LS (2003: 6), one that emphasize[s LS] as an
interactive process, in which those being socialized also act as agents rather than
as mere passive initiates (2003: 3). Such a call is an important corrective,
they argue, to the view in traditional LS studies of socialization as relatively
static, bounded, and relatively unidirectional (Schecter and Bayley 2004: 605).
Yet such assessments are at odds with early claims made by Schieffelin and Ochs
(1986a: 165) that socialization is an interactive process and that the child or
novice . . . is not a passive recipient of sociocultural knowledge who automatic-
ally internalize[s] others views but is a selective and active participant . . . in
the process of constructing social worlds (cf. Duff and Hornberger 2008).
I argue that the call for a more dynamic model of LS, while compelling and
important, is in fact unwarranted given the basic premise in LS of socialization
620 THE CULTURAL PRODUCTIONS OF THE ESL STUDENT AT TRADEWINDS HIGH

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

as an interactionally-mediated process. That notwithstanding, however, it cer-
tainly is incumbent on LS researchers to highlight the dynamism of LS in their
analyses, lest the image emerge that socialization, and cultural and social
reproduction, are inevitable (Kulick and Schieffelin 2004; cf. Willis 1977).
In the study below, I join a growing number of LS researchers (e.g. Duff
1995, 2002; Siegal 1996; Cole and Zuengler 2003; He 2003; Schecter and
Bayley 2004) whose work foregrounds contingency and multidirectionality in
LS by examining processes comprising what might be considered unsuccessful
or unexpected LS. Specically, I undertake an analysis of socializing
interactions involving oldtimer (Lave and Wenger 1991) Local English-as-
a-second-language (ESL) students and their newcomer teachers at Trade-
winds High,
1
a multilingual public high school in Hawaii. My argument
concerning contingency and multidirectionality takes shape around two
competing cultural productions of the ESL student (cf. Levinson et al. 1996) at
Tradewinds. The rst, manifest in ESL program structures and instructional
practice, I gloss as school-sanctioned or ofcial. Socialization of oldtimer
Local ESL students into this particular schooled identity was anything but
certain, however, as they consistently withdrew participation in and otherwise
subverted the acts, stances, and activities that constituted it. In doing so, these
students produced another, oppositional ESL student identity which came to
affect ofcial classroom processes in signicant ways, contributing, perhaps
paradoxically, to the social reproduction (Willis 1977, 1981; Giddens 1979) of
the marginality and stigma of ESL (also see Talmy forthcoming-a,
forthcoming-b).
In the following section, I consider the debate concerning contingency and
multidirectionality in LS. Afterwards, I introduce the 2.5-year critical ethno-
graphy the data below is drawn from. I then analyse four classroom
interactions involving Local ESL students and their newcomer teachers using a
critical pragmatic (Talmy 2007) microanalytic framework that combines LS,
interactional sociolinguistics (Gumperz 1982), membership categorization
analysis, and applied (ten Have 2001) conversation analysis (Sacks 1992).
I use the rst two interactions to illustrate contingency in LS by focusing on the
competing cultural productions of the ESL student mentioned above. My
analysis of the latter two interactions focuses more directly on multi-
directionality in LS, specically in terms of how oldtimer students actions were
increasingly accommodated by newcomer teachers over the course of a school
year, suggesting their socialization into an ESL teacher identity that was at once
adversarial and infantilizing. I conclude by considering implications of the
analysis for LS, agency, and cultural reproduction.
CONTINGENCY AND MULTIDIRECTIONALITY IN LS
In earlier rst generation (Garrett and Baquedano-Lo pez 2002) LS studies,
the primary foci were on the ways that caregivers socialized children in and
through the L1 to become competent members of sociocultural groups.
2
STEVEN TALMY 621

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

The focus on successful cases of childrens L1 socialization, on recurrent
language practices, universals, and monolingual communities, has, according
to some, obscured the basic orientation in LS of socialization as contingent
and multidirectional. In terms that evoke criticisms made of earlier
functionalist theories of socialization, He (2003) maintains that LS research
tends to emphasize the efforts made by the experts . . . to socialize
the novices. . . . Less visible are the reactions and responses of the
novices. Consequently, the process of socialization is often
characterized as smooth and seamless, and novices are often
presumed to be passive, ready, and uniform recipients of
socialization. (128)
Garrett (2004), for one, disputes Hes assertion, arguing that this is simply
untrue: Even the earliest [LS] studies stressed the agency (and the capacity
for resistance and creativity) of the child or novice, and conceptualized
socialization as a two-way process (778). This is indeed the case (see above);
however, it should be noted that there is a difference between stressing
these themes, and demonstrating them empirically. In an apparent nod to
the contention that LS has downplayed the dynamism of LS by focusing on
communicative processes involved in socialization that is realized rather than
that which is not, Ochs (1999) herself has noted certain undesirable effects
deriving from the foci of earlier LS studies, including xity, essentialism, and
reductionism:
We say . . . that Samoan caregivers communicate one way, Euro-
American caregivers another way, Kaluli yet another, and so on.
Our accounts . . . seem like xed cameos, members and commu-
nities enslaved by convention and frozen in time rather than uid
and changing over the course of a generation, a life, and even a
single social encounter. (231)
Kulick and Schieffelin (2004) address the matter more directly:
That the majority of [LS] studies have focused on [cultural and
social] reproduction is a strengththey provide us with
methodological and analytical tools for investigating and inter-
preting . . . continuity across generations. But the focus on expected
and predictable outcomes is a weakness if there is not also an
examination of cases in which socialization doesnt occur, or
where it occurs in ways that are not expected or desired. To the
extent that [LS] studies only document the acquisition of norma-
tively sanctioned practices, they open themselves up to the charge
that they are merely behaviorism in new clothes. (355)
The issue thus appears to come down to at least some combination of
empirical focus in LS research (e.g. highlighting processes involved when L1
socialization is achieved) and historical moment (i.e. establishing and
622 THE CULTURAL PRODUCTIONS OF THE ESL STUDENT AT TRADEWINDS HIGH

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

elaborating the LS paradigm) (cf. Ochs and Schieffelin 2008), rather than
some problem endemic to LS itself. For this reason, the focus of this paper
can be considered part of an historically-situated effort to push [LSs]
boundaries . . . further, as Garrett puts it, by examining bilingual and
multilingual settings . . . later stages of the lifespan. . . [and] contexts associated
with those later stages, such as peer groups, schools, and workplaces (2004:
776; also see Duff and Hornberger 2008). Further discussion of this point is
available online as Supplementary Material 1 for Subscribers at http://
applij.oxfordjournals.org
THE STUDY
The data utilized here come from a larger study consisting of 625 hours of
observation in 15 classrooms, including eight dedicated-ESL classes, over 2.5
years. Observational data were generated in eld notes and supplemented by
audio-recordings of 158 hours of classroom interaction. A total of 58 formal
interviews were audio-recorded with 10 teachers and 37 students, and
materials, classwork, and other site artifacts were collected for analysis.
First-year teachers in first-year ESL-A classes
This paper concerns the three rst-year ESL-A classes that I observed, each
taught by an instructor in his/her rst year at the high school.
3
I observed Ms
Cheneys ESL-A (1X),
4
Ms Ariels ESL-A (2W), and Mr Days ESL-A (2X) for
48, 68, and 64 hours respectively, with 26 hours of audio-recording in the
ESL-A (2W) class, and 29 hours in ESL-A (2X).
5
The ESL-A classes were the largest, most heterogeneous, and instruction-
ally challenging classes in the Tradewinds ESL program. One reason for this
was a policy that determined ESL placements based not on L2 prociency but
length of enrollment at the school. Thus, the ESL-A classes were for students
in their rst year at Tradewinds, regardless of age, grade-level, or L2 pro-
ciency. The three classes I observed averaged over 30 students, aged 1418,
about one-third of whom were at early levels of L2 development and/or had
interrupted formal educations; another third of whom had lived in the US for
310 years, many of whom I identied as Local ESL (see Table 1); with the
remainder at levels of English expertise in between.
Local and Local ESL
Local is an identity category in wide circulation in Hawaii, signifying a
racialized sociopolitically constructed panethnic formation comprised of
Asian and/or Pacic Islanders who were born and raised in the islands
(Labrador 2004: 292).
6
It is a relational category, dened as it is through a
system of categorical opposition[s] between groups considered [L]ocal and
STEVEN TALMY 623

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

those considered non[L]ocal, including haole [i.e. white people], immi-
grants, the military, tourists, and foreign investors (Okamura 1994: 165).
The production of Local identity centrally involves participation in a range
of social practices, including the use of Pidgin (Hawaii Creole), the creole
language of Hawaii (see Sakoda and Siegel 2003).
Table 1: Local ESL students in ESL-A (2W) and ESL-A (2X) (age and length
of residence at mid-point of school year; self-report data)
Student
pseudonym
Sex Age L1 Country of
origin
US length
of residence
Ms. Ariels ESL-A (2W)
618 F 14 Cantonese China 4.5 years
Ash M 14 Cantonese Hong Kong 7.5 years
Barehand M 16 Korean Korea 3.5 years
China M 15 Cantonese Hong Kong 4.5 years
Camp Kill Yourself (CKY) M 14 Vietnamese Vietnam 9.5 years
Eddie

M 15 Ilokano Philippines 4 years

Maria F 14 Tagalog Philippines 4.5 years
Benz M 15 Korean Korea 2.5 years
Nat

M 14 Marshallese Marshall Islands 8 years

Raven M 15 Mandarin Taiwan 8.5 years
Mr. Days ESL-A (2X)
CJ M 17 Ilokano Philippines 7 years
Computer M 17 Korean Korea 5.5 years
Ioane F 16 Tongan, English US (Hawaii) n/a
Iwannafuckalot
(IwannaFAL)
M 14 Vietnamese Vietnam 9.5 years
Jennie F 14 Korean US (California) 2.5 years
(returnee)
Laidplayer M 15 Palauan Palau 5 months
(see below)
Mack Daddy M 15 Chuukese Chuuk, FSM 5.5 years
Nina

F 15 Chuukese Chuuk, FSM 4.5 years

Joyleen F 16 Chuukese Chuuk, FSM 6 months
(6 years in
Guam)
Shorty F 16 Samoan, Tongan,
English
US (Hawaii) n/a
Sky Blue M 15 Cantonese Macau 3 years
624 THE CULTURAL PRODUCTIONS OF THE ESL STUDENT AT TRADEWINDS HIGH

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Local ESL, an analysts category, is conceptualized as a situationally
contingent identity (Zimmerman 1998). It refers to students who were
institutionally-identied as ESL by Tradewinds, yet who displayed the
following: cultural knowledge of and afliation with Local culture, cultural
forms, and social practices; experience with US and Hawaii school expec-
tations and practices; difference from newcomer or lower-L2-procient class-
mates, who many Local ESL students characterized as the real ESL students;
awareness ofand participation inlinguicist (Phillipson 1988) discourses
about ESL in circulation in the wider social context; and, crucially, the L2
expertise and interactional competence to participate in these practices.
7
School-sanctioned productions of ESL
What I call the school-sanctioned productions of ESL can be explicated in
terms of instructional practice and the structural productions (Eisenhart
1996) of ESL. Drawing on Nespor (1990), Eisenhart (1996) uses the concept of
structural productions to analyse how the subject position student is
produced within and by particular institutional arrangements, that is to say,
how program organization, intra-institutional relationships, and curriculum
constitute certain preferred ways of being a student in those contexts. Such
an idea is especially salient for programs such as ESL, which tightly control
student enrollment and exit, promoting access to certain forms of learning and
school experience, and denying it to others. Such structures have signicant
implications for how students spen[d] their time (e.g. with whom, doing
what) and what they learn (Eisenhart 1996: 172), and can result in the
produc[tion] of cohorts . . . with shared outlooks, ambitions, denitions of
reality, and strategies for acquiring and using knowledge (Nespor 1990:
2312). Analysing structures of the Tradewinds ESL program can therefore
offer insight into how the category ESL student was institutionally conceived.
ESL at Tradewinds was structurally articulated as a hypernym, suggesting
that students classied as ESL were essentially the same, with negligible
differences in L1 or L2 abilities, educational backgrounds, or needs. This was
exemplied by the placement policy described above, whereby length of
enrollment rather than L2 expertise determined what ESL classes students
were to take. It was also signied by an undifferentiated curriculum:
although the ESL-A classes were large and diverse, students were, with few
exceptions, given the same assignments, activities, and tests, each with the
same demands and deadlines.
In addition to homogeneity, ESL at Tradewinds was structurally elaborated
as an afterthought to pre-existing institutional arrangements. This was
indicated by the status of ESL classes as required electives; by an absence
of communication between ESL and subject-area departments; and a lack
of administrative, curricular, and physical integration with the rest of the
school. These arrangements were amplied by the assignment of ESL courses
to new or junior faculty, most of whom had little background in ESL,
STEVEN TALMY 625

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

and who were provided minimal institutional support despite frequently
overwhelming instructional circumstances.
The ESL curriculum reected, and helped to re/produce, the programs
institutional standing. This was most evident in the choice of L1-English
juvenile ction to form the basis of the ESL curriculum. Books such as James
and the Giant Peach (Dahl 1961) and Dogsong (Paulsen 1985) were below
grade-level and often had tangential relevance to high school academics or
L2 learning. In addition to these books were assignments that evidently
presumed students knew about and automatically afliated (Talmy 2007)
with the cultures, customs, and languages of their countries (Duff 2002;
Talmy forthcoming-a).
8
Assignments introducing initiates to cultures and
customs of the US often appeared, as well, especially around holidays, as did
other ESL mainstays such family tree activities and map exercises, which
most Local ESL students maintained they had been assigned in earlier grades,
often repeatedly.
Thus, ESL student as it was institutionally articulated at Tradewinds
connoted a monolithic out-group of recently-arrived cultural and linguistic
Others, that is, an iconic, stereotypical ESL Student, or FOB (fresh off the
boat) (Talmy 2007, forthcoming-a, forthcoming-b).
Local ESL students responses to these school-sanctioned productions of
the ESL student, were, as might be expected, largely negative. Indeed, these
responses became so pervasive in the ESL-A classes I observed that they
ultimately affected what was taught, how it was taught, and who taught
it, with the knowledge, orientations, and practices of an institutionally
disapproved interstitial community of practice (CoP) (Lave 1991: 78) coming
to assume varying degrees of prominence in each of these classes.
9
The joint
enterprise of this CoP, produced as Local ESL students mutually engaged in
a shared repertoire of social practices (Wenger 1998), was the contestation,
if not destabilization, of the school-sanctioned productions of ESL. Implicated
in these efforts were Local ESL students prior experiences in ESL classes, as
well as their connections to communities beyond the ESL program, where
ESL was stigmatized, and English monolingualism, the mainstream, and
regular students were valorized as preferred ideals.
Competing productions of the ESL student
The interactions I discuss next occurred between the third and sixth months
of the school year. By this time, curriculum and classroom processes had
begun to appreciably change in all three ESL-A classes as teachers contended
with Local ESL students participation in practices, both subtle and overt, that
worked to undermine ofcial curriculum and instruction. These included
leaving assigned materials at home; not doing homework; completing
assignments that required minimal effort (e.g. worksheets) but not others
(e.g. writing activities); starting class late; and nishing early. The more overt
practices included bargaining for reduced requirements on classwork and
626 THE CULTURAL PRODUCTIONS OF THE ESL STUDENT AT TRADEWINDS HIGH

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

extended time to complete it; refusal to participate in instructional activities;
teasing students who did participate; and the often delicate negotiations with
teachers that resulted (Talmy forthcoming-b). These in part constituted the
shared repertoire of the Local ESL CoP described above, and the oppositional
productions of the ESL student.
The rst extract I analyse involves Laidplayer, a 9th-grader from Palau.
When I rst met Laidplayer, I was surprised to learn he had only been in
Hawaii for a few weeks, due to his advanced expertise in L2 English and
Pidgin, and his knowledge of Local culture. As it happened, Laidplayer had
extended family in Hawaii with whom he lived as he went to school, and
who provided him with the resources to act and soundto beLocal.
Though he claimed to have had no idea what ESL meant when he rst
came to Tradewinds, by the end of the year he was participating in a host of
practices that were indexical of an ESL oldtimer.
This interaction occurred ve months into the school year, near the
end of a study hall class session, in which students were, in Mr Days
words, to be working behind or ahead, that is, to be catching up on over-
due work. Laidplayer had to this point spent 45 minutes on a short
exercise from an audiolingual-era grammar book (Dixon 1956), then had
talked with two Local ESL classmates, before nally falling asleep. Mr Day
had woken him twice already to get him to nish an overdue summary
from Shiloh (Naylor 1991). As the interaction begins, Laidplayer is xing his
watch and talking to IwannaFAL seated beside him (see Appendix for
transcript conventions).
Extract 1. So izi [ELA41XmdS10: 11851208]

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Mr. Day: ((calls across room)) Laidplayer, you
finish your summary.
(0.4)
IwannaFAL?: (no.)
(0.5)
Mr. Day: finish your summary its due today! do
you need help?
(0.7)
Mr. Day: I kno:w, you want me to sit down and read
the book with you. alri::ght.
(0.7) ((Mr. Day approaches))
Mr. Day: >whats wrong?<
Laidplayer: I was: fixing my watch.
(0.9) ((Mr. Day sits down))
Mr. Day: whats wrong with your watch?
Laidplayer: its too big.
(2.9)
IwannaFAL: oh ma:n, the bells gonna ring!
(0.6)
?FS: wha::t?
(0.7)
Mr. Day: u:h no you got about ten minu[tes before]
were outta here.
STEVEN TALMY 627

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

24
25
26
27
28
29

30
31
32
33
34

35
36
37
38


39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Laidplayer: [(sh:it.) ]
(0.7) ((clicking sound of metal watch
band))
Mr. Day: why dont you try get it done that way you
wont have to do it [at home.
Laidplayer: [SO IZI ai jas
ITS SO EASY I just
(0.5)
Mr. Day: >so do it now!<
(0.5)
Mr. Day: >so do it now.<
Laidplayer: bat ai neva rid da (h)as(hh)ai(h)n[men.
but I didnt read the assignment.
Mr. Day: [you
gotta read this- the cha:pter.
Laidplayer: WEL AI DON RID DIS BUK wen ai get hom, >ai
dono wai<.
WELL I DONT READ THIS BOOK when I get
home, I dont know why.
(0.3)
Mr. Day: well why dont you do it in class while
Im here making you, that way you can get
it done.
(0.5)
Laidplayer: pa:ge 66 to 88. (.) WELL, I read some,
(0.4)
Mr. Day: [okay.
Laidplayer: [<when I> >go in the bathroom.< hhh
Mr. Day: huh? hey, I like to do that too. thats
the best time. just dont get it dirty.
Laidplayer: HHHHH (0.4) hhhHHHHH.
(1.0) ((Mr. Day gets up and leaves))
52
53
54
Laidplayer: ho wipe my ass with (.) the book. ((clears
throat))
IwannaFAL: oh yeah oh yeah.
In his rst four turns, Mr Day enumerates or implies a series of acts and
activities that constitute particular ESL student and teacher identities.
Associated with the teacher identity are the rights, obligations, and compe-
tencies that warrant assigning schoolwork to students, setting deadlines to
complete it, monitoring classroom performance, making assessments about it,
and if deemed problematic, pursuing some form of remedy, for example, in
the form of help. The student is someone who has already completed the
assigned reading of Shiloh so s/he can produce a summary of it, who is
endeavoring to meet the due date of today, and is complying with Mr Days
instructions in the larger activity of doing ESL coursework. This is, in other
words, a student who is accommodating the production of a school-
sanctioned ESL student identity.
It is clear that Laidplayer does not participate in the acts, stances, or activities
associated with the production of this student identity: this has, in fact,
occasioned Mr Days visit to him. Despite repeated reminders to complete his
overdue summary, during a study hall class specically intended for this
purpose, Laidplayer has spent the period doing a 22-item grammar worksheet,
talking with friends, sleeping, and is now xing his watch. This is accountable
628 THE CULTURAL PRODUCTIONS OF THE ESL STUDENT AT TRADEWINDS HIGH

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

behavior and in his rst turns, Mr Day displays an orientation to its problem-
aticity. In lines 12, he calls Laidplayer by name, asking if hes completed the
summary as instructed. Although this may be a real yes/no question, it is
likely given the context that its polarity is reversed (Koshik 2002). Reversed
polarity yes/no questions (RPQs), similar to rhetorical questions, are not
information-seeking, but convey a negative assertion (1852) about some form
of social action and can thus be heard as a complaint (1863). Whether this is
an RPQ or not, the imperative, higher pitch, emphatic stress, and exclamatory
intonation of Mr Days next utterance (lines 67) index a stance of
unambiguous disapproval. Despite this, Laidplayer does not provide the
sequentially-projected reply. In fact, it is not until more than 11 seconds after
Mr Day calls his name that Laidplayer nally speaks. Even then, the account he
provides, I was: xing my watch., is not what might be expected, since this
provides denotative proof that he has not been nishing the summary. Still,
he offers no elaboration when one might, once more, be anticipated. In short,
Laidplayer does the same resistance interactionally that his utterance
references denotationally; it is a mark of his L2 interactional competence
that this utterance accomplishes both simultaneously.
Interestingly, after a nearly 1-second delay, Mr Day accommodates rather
than problematizes Laidplayers topicalization of his watch (whats wrong
with your watch?). Although in line 16, Laidplayer (nally) provides an
account (its too big.), it is minimal. The silence that follows suggests that
Mr Day rejects the account as inadequate (cf. Davidson 1984), and is
awaiting further elaboration (cf. Pomerantz 1984). IwannaFALs sudden oh
man, the bells gonna ring! is thus particularly important, working as it does
to reorient Mr Day from the pursuit of an elaboration to the matter of when
class will end (lines 2223). Coming as it does with more than 10 minutes
left in the class (cf. the female students high-pitched wha::t?), this may be
an instance of a Local ESL oldtimer helping out a comparative apprentice
during an interactional difculty with his teacher.
In lines 2728, Mr Day returns to the matter of Laidplayers summary
but in distinctly different terms. With the mitigated directive in question
format (why dont you try get it done) and the added inducement
(that way you wont have to do it at home.), Mr Day frames this utterance
as a suggestion. When compared with Mr Days rst two turns, it appears
that he has oriented to Laidplayers disafliative actions and is accommodat-
ing them.
With his line 29 utterance, So IZI ai jas, Laidplayer at last provides the
sought-after account about whats wrong. However, the affective and epi-
stemic stances indexed by the overlap, the amplied volume, the sentence-
initial placement of the intensier so, the lack of hedging, and the sentence
incompletion transform this utterance from an explanation, to a rejection that
what is accountably wrong is attributable to Laidplayer. It instead shifts the
problem to the assigned material, that is, the award-winning childrens book
Shiloh.
STEVEN TALMY 629

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Signicantly, Mr Days repeated so do it now utterances in lines 31 and
33 do not challenge Laidplayers assessment, but implicitly concur with it.
These can be seen as additional aligning moves, consistent with Mr Days
earlier uptake regarding the watch, the mitigated directives in lines 2728
and 4042, and his nal remark in lines 4849. Indeed, the discourse marker
so that prefaces both line 31 and 33 turns marks a fact-based result
relation (Schiffrin 1987: 2014), meaning the assessment is not only
concurred with but used as an incentive for the student to do it now! This
transforms Laidplayers subsequent admissions in line 34 (bat ai neva rid da
(h)as(hh)ai(h)nmen.) and lines 3738 (WEL AI DON RID DIS BUK wen ai
get hom, 4ai dono wai5.) into unaccountable actions. More signicantly, it
indexes broader pedagogical accommodations that have been implemented in
this class to make it easier for students to nish: the class time that has
been allotted for students to complete overdue assignments, and the
deadlines that have been extended. In other words, there is evidence here of
this rst-year teachers uptake to his students socializing practices.
Laidplayers refusal to participate in the acts, stances, and activities that
comprise the school-sanctioned ESL student identity, or in the interactional
norms of a participation structure such as this (cf. Mehan 1979), are
constitutive of the production of an alternative ESL student identity. As
outlined in Table 2, this is a student whose disafliative actions index
resistance to, difference from, and lack of investment (Norton 2000) in the
ofcial productions of ESL.
10
These points are further illustrated in Extract 2 from Ms Ariels ESL-A
(2W). This interaction occurred early in the fourth quarter of the school year,
by which time the Local ESL CoP in the class was also rmly established. It
took place during a discussion activity for The Wanderer (Creech 2000),
another award-winning book that by the publishers estimation was intended
Table 2: Acts and activities constituting productions of the ESL student at
Tradewinds
School-sanctioned ESL student Local ESL student
Bringing required materials to class Not bringing required materials to class
Reading assigned juvenile ction Not reading assigned juvenile ction
Doing bookwork (summaries,
questions, vocab)
Doing some bookwork (worksheets; little
extended writing, e.g. summaries, ques-
tions)
Meeting due dates
Following instructions Not meeting due dates
Working for full class session Not following instructions
Not participating in proscribed
activities (sleeping, talking with
friends, playing cards, off-task
behavior)
Interactional resistance
Participating in proscribed activities
630 THE CULTURAL PRODUCTIONS OF THE ESL STUDENT AT TRADEWINDS HIGH

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

for audiences aged 812. The reading group for this book was comprised
almost entirely of Local ESL students: China, Ash, Raven, Barehand, Benz,
618, Sou Li

(a low L2-procient newcomer who had been paired with 618)

and CKY, who was shufing a deck of playing cards intermittently. For 7
minutes prior to the interaction, Ms Ariel had tried and failed to get a
discussion started among these students about the following questions, which
concerned Sophie, the 13-year-old protagonist of The Wanderer:
What is Sophies story?
Why is she so attracted to the open ocean?
Is it unusual for a 13-year-old to be the only female on the boat?
What does this mean? (ELA41Wdoc: L).
Extract 2. Cards [ELA42WmdS11: 565-593]

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Ms. Ariel: you have to think about Sophies
personality.
(2.6) ((Ss talking in other group))
((China opens recorder case, examines it))
(1.3) ((Ss talking in other group))
Ms. Ariel: you have to think about what youve read.
China: ((blowing into mic?)) SSSS[S
Ms. Ariel: [China.
(0.6)
Ms. Ariel: why is she so attracted to the ocean. that
is going to have a lot to do with your own
(.) thoughts.=
China: =I THINK ITS QUIET AND PEACEFUL,
(2.4) ((Ss talking in other group))
China: an:d dolphin is real[ly nice.
Ms. Ariel: [how many people have
started on the second set of questions.
(0.6)
Ms. Ariel: (as is us[ual.)
Benz?: [(nah.)
(1.8)
Ms. Ariel: okay. start on them today, (0.3) finish
the first three (0.7) before you start the
se[cond set.
China: [((heavy sigh))
(2.0) ((Ss talking in other group))
Ms. Ariel: okay, and theyre essay style questions.
(1.0)
Ms. Ariel: ((to CKY)) and dont bring your cards in
future please.
(0.7)
China: YAE CKY.
YEAH CKY.
Ms. Ariel: Ill throw them away.
China: are you looking at me, Miss?
Ms. Ariel: okay Im gonna go see what theyre doing,=
Benz: =kay.
China: kay.=
Benz: =bye.
Ms. Ariel: up to you,=
Benz: =bye.
China: hh
STEVEN TALMY 631

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
CKY: hhh[h
618: [(youre cold.)
China: babye.
Barehand: >have a good day.<=
China: =((smiley voice)) h-have a nice day. ((Ms.
Ariel leaves))
(0.6)((Ss talking in other group))
Raven: heha
China: hheha .h
Benz: okay.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
(0.8)
China: okay so=
Barehand: =get out=
China: =so, cards.
(1.3) ((CKY brings out playing cards?))
Benz: what- [okay.
China: [cards.
CKY: ((starts to deal the cards))
Similar to Mr Day in Extract 1, Ms Ariel here species and implies several
acts constituting a particular ESL student identity: someone who has done
the reading needed to participate in this activity, who has thought about
what theyve read and is prepared to discuss it, who has completed the rst
set of comprehension questions (in essay style) if not the second, and is
following instructions. This is also a student who does not engage in off-task
behavior such as Chinas in lines 4 and 7 (cf. Ms Ariels utterance in line 8),
nor who brings cards to class, much less has them out to play with.
11
It is obvious that the Local ESL students here, similar to Laidplayer above,
do not engage in these activities, participating instead in the production of a
different ESL student identity. None of the Local ESL students give any
indication that they have done the reading, nor that they have started the
rst or second set of questions, even though the reading and both sets of
questions were to have been reviewed prior to this class. Also similar to
Laidplayer in Extract 1, no explanations are forthcoming from the students
for this behavior. Although China provides ostensible answers in lines 13
and 15, the amplied volume, intonation, and nonsensical content indicate
he is non-serious. In fact, it appears with these utterances, as well as the one
in line 32, that China shifts footing here, mocking the school-sanctioned ESL
identity by animating a child-like, compliant caricature of it. There is also his
bald, on-the-record challenge in line 34, as well as the series of increasingly
audacious utterances in lines 3638 and 4046, whereby these students
essentially tell their teacher, in progressively more direct terms, to go away.
Finally, after Ms Ariel departs for the other reading group, these students
engage in the very activity that she explicitly proscribed a few turns earlier:
playing cards.
This interaction evinces many of the same characteristics of the two com-
peting productions of the ESL student discussed above. What is additionally
foregrounded here is the outline of what I have argued is an identiable CoP.
Returning to Chinas utterance in line 53: okay so signals a transition in
discourse from off-task or off-topic talk back to on-task or on-topic talk, that
632 THE CULTURAL PRODUCTIONS OF THE ESL STUDENT AT TRADEWINDS HIGH

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

is, to mutually understood and expected business at hand (Condon 2001:
509). Of note is that the off-task talk in this interaction concerns The
Wanderer, a manifestation of the ofcial ESL curriculum, while the
mutually understood and expected business at hand is the (forbidden)
practice of card playing, itself an index of these students orientations toward
if not histories of participation in (Local) communities beyond ESL (see note
11). The latched and overlapped utterances in lines 3638 and 4058 also
highlight the cooperative, joint production of discourse here, and a shared
orientation to the mutually understood task at hand. In Wengers (1998)
terms, these students have engaged in a shared repertoire of practices for the
larger enterprise of challenging the school-sanctioned productions of ESL. In
doing so, they have produced an alternative ESL student identity that again
indexes resistance to, difference from, and lack of investment in ESL.
In this interaction as in the rst, contingency in LS is evident in terms of
these students refusal to accommodate the school-sanctioned productions of
ESL. Despite power asymmetries that inhere in this institutional setting,
and despite the power of those in hierarchically superior positions to
prescribe to those in subordinate positions activities that constitute partic-
ular schooled identities, the Local ESL students actions above highlight
how LS never proceeds smooth[ly] and seamless[ly] (He 2003: 128) along
lines of, for example, age or hierarchical standing (also see Jacoby and
Gonzales 1991).
Teacher uptake to oppositional productions
of the ESL student
Although space constraints disallow consideration of the literature on teacher
socialization (see, e.g. Zeichner and Gore 1990; Bullough et al. 1992; Kuzmic
1994; Kelchtermans and Ballet 2002), Local ESL students productions of the
ESL student became increasingly accommodated by all three of the rst-year
teachers I observed, coming to affect classroom curriculum and instructional
processes in signicant ways. See Supplementary Material 2 online for
Subscribers at http://applij.oxfordjournals.org. Particularly striking was how
similar these accommodations were. As Local ESL students participation in
oppositional practices intensied over the course of the school year, and as
their academic performance simultaneously declined (see below), Ms
Cheney, Ms Ariel, and Mr Day each began to routinely add study hall
sessions; extend deadlines on classwork; reduce the amount of and
requirements for assignments, especially those involving writing; provide
alternative assignments; eliminate homework; and add expanded review
activities for quizzes and exams. Further discussion of this process is available
online as Supplementary Material 3 for Subscribers at http://applij.oxford-
journals.org. Such adjustments were emblematic of multidirectionality in LS,
in this case of the rst-year teachers uptake to Local ESL students
STEVEN TALMY 633

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

productions of the ESL student, and thus, of their socialization into a
particular ESL teacher identity. I consider this in more detail next.
The rst interaction I consider involves an instructional accommodation that
became more apparent over the course of the school year as increasing
numbers of Local ESL students did not complete assigned schoolwork or bring
to class the materials necessary for a lesson to proceed. To adapt to this
circumstance, Ms Ariel, Ms Cheney, and Mr Day each began assigning
alternative classwork: spontaneous, unplanned assignments, which normally
entailed little instruction or effort to complete (e.g. freewriting, reviewing for
upcoming quizzes, looking up vocabulary words in a dictionary). This sort of
classwork was frequent enough that another teacher in the ESL program had a
specic term to refer to it: ller.
The rst interaction is from Ms Ariels class, and occurred weeks before
winter vacation. On the whiteboard was the following agenda for this
extended 95-minute class period:
1 Vocab test
2 Reading/summaries and nal book tests
3 Extra credit and make Xmas cardsdue today (ELA32Wfn: 17641766).
Below this information was a series of bulleted instructions detailing the
extra credit Christmas card-drawing activity, which was part of a school-
wide drive for charity.
The interaction commences as the class was transitioning from the
vocabulary quiz into #2: completing readings/summaries for either Dogsong
(Paulsen 1985) or Island of the Blue Dolphins (ODell 1960), and reviewing for
the upcoming nal book exam. Both the bookwork and exam review had
been assigned as homework in the preceding class. CKY had just turned in
his quiz, but was not doing the bookwork.
Extract 3. Just do this [ELA32Wmd6: 1888-1899]
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Ms. Ariel: do you have your book.
(3.9) ((Ss talking in b.g.))
CKY: ( leave it) at home.
Ms. Ariel: at home!
(2.2) ((Ss talking in b.g.))
Ms. Ariel: u::m. ((looks at whiteboard?))
(4.6) ((Ss talking in b.g.))
Ms. Ariel: well.
Eddie: ((points at whiteboard)) Mis, kaen wi du
dat?=
Miss, can we do
that?
Ms. Ariel: =yeah, you [can.
Eddie: [number three.
(0.6) ((Ss talking in b.g.))
Eddie: number three.
Ms. Ariel: ((to the class)) if- if you dont have
your book, (0.3) you can just do this::.
((points to Christmas card activity on
whiteboard)) this is due today though,
634 THE CULTURAL PRODUCTIONS OF THE ESL STUDENT AT TRADEWINDS HIGH

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
its for (0.6) the card drive?
(0.4)
((several turns clarifying instructions
omitted))
Ms. Ariel: bring your books next time! if you have
them at home, bring them to class [next
time.
Raven: [( )
already.
Ms. Ariel: please.
Dannica: which book.
(1.7) ((Ss talking in b.g.))
Ms. Ariel: if youre saying which book, then it
probably doesnt even matter.
(0.6) ((Ss talking in b.g.))
Dannica: oh.
(0.5) ((Ss talking in b.g.))
Ms. Ariel: the books (weve) been reading.
Similar to Extracts 1 and 2, there are several acts and activities here that entail
a school-sanctioned ESL student identity. However, while CKY and Eddie
have participated in at least one of these activities, the vocabulary quiz, they
do notcannot, since they do not have the requisite materialsparticipate
in the reading/summary assignment or nal exam review, the main
instructional activities for the class (cf. Laidplayers completion of the
grammar exercise above). In place of this work, Ms Ariel winds up assigning
the extra credit activity of Christmas card-drawing, suggested by Eddie in
lines 910.
Signicantly, Ms Ariel offers this assignment not just to CKY and Eddie,
but the entire class: if if you dont have your book, (0.3) you can just do
this. It is noteworthy that there is no check to see if anyone else has left
their books at home (cf. Talmy forthcoming-b). Rather, once CKY and Eddie
indicate they have not brought their books, the apparent presumption is that
other students have not done so either. Whats more, there is no check here
or at any point during the period about whether anyone actually needs time
to do the bookwork or exam review in class, which, as just mentioned, had
been previously assigned as homework. This suggests that Ms Ariel has
oriented to the likelihood that the homework would not have been done,
necessitating class time to complete it. Further, the mild rebuke in line 4 (at
home!), the elaboration of the directions for the activity (omitted), and the
mitigated directive in lines 2325 (if you have them at home, bring them to
class next time.), which is followed by a politeness upgrade (please), each
in their own way index accommodation toward these circumstances, and by
extension, Ms Ariels uptake to the acts, stances, and activities of a rather
different ESL teacher: one who no longer requires students to complete
reading/summaries homework, or review for the nal exam; who accedes to,
if not anticipates students leaving materials at home; who pursues no
accounts for this behavior; and who assigns an alternative ller activity
instead (see Table 3).
STEVEN TALMY 635

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Each of the preceding interactions took place during a study hall class
session. As noted earlier, study hall involved setting class time aside so
students could catch up on late work. It was the most common accom-
modation deployed in the three ESL-A classes, with greater proportions of
class time devoted to them as the school year progressed. This is hinted at in
the next extract, which occurred at the beginning of a class, early in the nal
quarter of the year.
Extract 4. Extra chance [ELA42XmdS13: 127-141]

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Mr. Day: shh. how many of you finished your work
for today.
Ioane: not me!
Mr. Day: not [Ioane.
Joyleen: [not me either!
?Ss: (3.3)((inaudible; overlapping talk))
Mr. Day: okay thats good, thats good. ( ) is
good.
Jennie: uh[:::.
Mr. Day: [shhhhh. today Im gonna give you guys a
little bit of an extra chance to finish
your work.
(0.8)
Mr. Day: how many of you rea::d (.) the (.) pages
you were supposed to read in the book?
Laidplayer: (dont look at me, brah.)
Mr. Day: no?
Laidplayer: Mister. I dont know where I put my book.
Mr. Day: okay well get you one, well find it.
shh! today were gonna be doing bookwork
and grammar.
Table 3: Acts and activities constituting productions of ESL teacher identity at
Tradewinds
School-sanctioned ESL teacher Uptake to Local ESL students
Assigning ofcial curriculum (e.g. No sanctions for noncompliance
juvenile ctionbookwork) No pursuit of accounts
Giving instructions Reducing assignments; requirements
for them (especially writing)
Setting due dates
Monitoring student performance Extending deadlines for assignments
Evaluating student performance Providing alternative assignments
Helping/remediating performance as
necessary
Providing extra class time (study
hall) for overdue work
Providing extensive reviews for tests
636 THE CULTURAL PRODUCTIONS OF THE ESL STUDENT AT TRADEWINDS HIGH

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

What is notable here is that Mr Day appears to have anticipated that
students would not have nished work due this class. His question in lines
12 is designed such that negative responses like Ioanes in line 3 and
Joyleens in line 5 are not disagreeing or necessarily accountable (Ford
2001), even though a teacher could normatively expect that schoolwork
assigned for today would be complete. In fact, Mr Day does not pursue
accounts from either Ioane or Joyleen, or from Laidplayer following his turn
in line 18. Though it is unclear whether Mr Days repeated assessments of
good in lines 78 concern these students actions or what is inaudible in line
6, they just as well could: Mr Day has evidently planned this class for
bookwork and grammar (lines 2021), with concomitant deadlines for the
assignments that were due today extended, and future in-class time set
aside to work on them.
Instructional accommodations such as these were arguably aimed at
promoting academic performance, or at least, helping students improve their
grades. However, despite the increasing provision of these accommodations,
Local ESL students school grades in fact declined, alarmingly so, over the
course of a school year. To give some indication of this, I present in Figure 1
the quarterly grades of 55 students for whom I have these data, 25 that I
identied as Local ESL students, and 30 that I considered were not.
12
Obviously, it is a mistake to draw too many conclusions from grades alone.
However, they provide one (school-sanctioned) determination of classroom
performance, and are of particular interest because the ESL-A classes actually
got easier over the course of the year rather than more difcult.
Groups by Quarter
4 3 2 1
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Group
Local ESL
Non-Local ESL
Quarter
M
e
a
n

g
r
a
d
e

(
4
.
0

s
c
a
l
e
)
Figure 1: Comparison of quarterly grades over one academic year (4.0 scale;
Year 2 of study)
STEVEN TALMY 637

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

As the information in Figure 1 indicates, students in both Local ESL and
non-Local ESL groups completed the rst quarter of the school year with
roughly similar grades in their ESL classes, and although the Local ESL group
was slightly below the non-Local ESL group, this difference is not signicant
(t .679, df 53, n.s.). For the remainder of the year, however, the mean
grade of the non-Local ESL group remained comparatively stable (ranging
from 2.27 to 2.37), whereas for the Local ESL group, it declined: from 2.12 in
the rst quarter, to 1.88 in the second, and 1.4 in the third, though it
recovered slightly in the fourth. Differences between groups were signicant
for the third quarter (t 2.355, df 53, p 5.025) and fourth quarter
(t 2.358, df 53, p 5.025). A comparison of means within a repeated-
measures analysis of variance showed a statistically signicant interaction
between Local ESL/non-Local ESL group membership and quarter
[F(3,51) 2.939, p 5.05]. Repeated-measures t-tests used as post-hoc tests
indicated that for the Local ESL group, performance was signicantly lower
in Quarter 3 (t 2.688, p 5.05) and Quarter 4 (t 2.521, p 5.05) than
Quarter 1. No other differences between quarters were statistically signi-
cant. For the non-Local ESL group, none of the differences between
quarters were statistically signicant.
13
In light of these data, the newcomer
teachers instructional accommodations can be viewed as an attempt to
mitigate such a substantial decline in Local ESL students academic
performance over the school year.
Contingency and multidirectionality, cultural production
and reproduction
In this paper, I have foregrounded contingency and multidirectionality in LS
by focusing on a population of oldtimer ESL students opposition to
participating in the acts, stances, and activities that comprised a school-
sanctioned ESL student identity. This was, I have argued, reciprocally
constitutive of an alternative ESL identity, one that indexed resistance to,
difference from, and lack of investment in ESL, as well as orientations toward
and afliations with Local and mainstream communities beyond ESL. These
oldtimer students refusal to accommodate the school-sanctioned productions
of ESL illustrate the essentially contingent character of socializing processes,
particularly those that involve older learners in a stratied institutional
setting such as a high school, and that centrally concern the (compulsory)
ascription of a contested, low-prestige identity such as ESL student.
Multidirectionality was also evident as increasing numbers of students took
up participation in what I have called a Local ESL CoP: denotatively (e.g.
explicit, referential confrontation with teachers), interactionally (e.g. in terms
of absence or delay of projected responses, or responses given as sequentially
projected but otherwise out of line) and in embodied action (e.g. not
bringing materials to class). As withdrawal from ofcial curricular and
instructional business became broader and more sustained, and as the
638 THE CULTURAL PRODUCTIONS OF THE ESL STUDENT AT TRADEWINDS HIGH

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

newcomer ESL-A teachers increasingly accommodated this circumstance by
extending deadlines, providing study hall sessions, eliminating homework,
and so on, it became unclear who. . . was socializing whom, and into what
(Duff and Early 1999, in Zuengler and Cole 2005: 307; cf. Lave 1991: 79).
That is to say, Local ESL students productions of the ESL student threw
into question what precisely were the target community, cultures, and
practicesthe language, tools . . . symbols, well-dened roles . . . tacit conven-
tions, subtle cues, untold rules of thumb (Wenger 1998: 47)that students
were being socialized into. These oppositional practices served as socializing
resources through and to use language, for students, and signicantly, for
teachers as well, complicating normative assumptions that socialization ever
proceeds straightforwardly or inevitably, particularly along lines of hierar-
chical status, institutional role, or age. That notwithstanding, it should be
noted that the Local ESL students productions of ESL were manifestly,
relationally tied to the ofcial ones. Thus, there was already multi-
directionality in socialization: Local ESL students may have opposed the
school-sanctioned productions of ESL, and affected classroom processes and
curriculum, but they were still ascribed the institutional identity of ESL
student; there may have been a slowing down in the ESL curriculum, but
there was still an ESL curriculum; classwork may not have been completed
or turned in, but as a consequence, students received poor grades, earned the
label of low-achieving, and remained stuck in ESL. In this respect, it is
important to note that although contingency and multidirectionality in
socialization are processes that need to be foregrounded in any LS analysis,
that resistance, for example, to hegemonic socializing forces (e.g. into an
infantilized ESL student identity) may not necessarily be transformative, but
culturally and socially reproductive (Willis 1977, 1981; Giddens 1979; see
Talmy forthcoming-a, forthcoming-b). Indeed, as students and teachers in the
Tradewinds ESL-A classes subtly yet progressively disengaged from
doing much else beyond decontextualized grammar and vocabulary work-
sheets, the ESL program became precisely what the Local ESL students
claimed throughout this study to dislike about it: an easy, academically
inconsequential program that did little to meet their L2 learning or
educational needs.
CONCLUSIONS
LS research has considered how experts or oldtimers socialize novices to
become competent members of social groups, by exposure to and
participation in language-mediated interactions (Ochs 1986: 2). With the
explicit focus on socialization through language and to use language, the
originators of this research tradition were careful to cast it as a contingent,
bi- or multidirectional process. However, these themes may have been
obscured in earlier studies, concerned as they have often been with the ways
STEVEN TALMY 639

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

that caregivers socialize young children in and through an L1 into particular,
culturally-specic world views.
This paper has returned to the clearly asserted, but less often demonstrated
commitments of early LS scholarship to foreground the contested, unpre-
dictable, and reciprocal character of LS. I have done so by considering the
ostensible socialization of older learners, who were generally uninvested,
unwilling incumbents of a stigmatized identity category, studying an L2 in a
multilingual, compulsory educational context. Although these themes were
prominently featured above, given the focus of this study, they are inherent
in LS, due to its orientation toward socialization as an interactionally-
mediated achievement. To return to a point made earlier, the call for a more
dynamic model of LS, while initially compelling, is in fact unwarranted;
what is needed is analytic attention to the essential unpredictability,
contestedness, and uidity of socialization, as it is or is not achieved, in ways
anticipated or not, in L1 and in L2, among younger and older novices and
experts, at earlier and later stages of the lifespan, across a range of mono-
lingual, multilingual, naturalistic, and institutional contexts.
SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
An appendix can be found at Applied Linguistics online
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Early versions of this paper were presented at AAAL/ACLA-CAAL 2006 in Montreal, Canada, and
at NCTE 2007 in New York, where it received a 2007 NCTE Promising Research Award. Research
was funded by grants from The Spencer Foundation and The International Research Foundation.
I am grateful to both organizations for their support. I would also like to thank the participants
of the 2006 AAAL/ACLA-CAAL colloquium, the three anonymous Applied Linguistics reviewers,
and Gabi Kasper for insightful comments on previous drafts. All remaining errors are my own.
NOTES
1 The names of the school and the
people who participated in this study
have been changed. Please note that
students provided their own pseudo-
nyms, unless denoted at rst mention
by an asterisk (*).
2 Several rst-rate LS reviews
have appeared recently: Garret and
Baquedano-Lo pez (2002); Duff (2003);
Watson-Gegeo and Nielsen (2003);
Zuengler and Cole (2005). A major
encyclopedic review has also appeared
(Duff and Hornberger 2008). To con-
serve space, readers are directed to
these sources for overviews of LS
research.
3 Although the teachers were in their
rst year at Tradewinds, all had
previous teaching experience, though
not in a public high school.
4 In order to preserve condentiality in
the small educational community in
Hawaii, I have omitted or altered many
details about teacher participants,
640 THE CULTURAL PRODUCTIONS OF THE ESL STUDENT AT TRADEWINDS HIGH

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

REFERENCES
Ahearn, L. M. 2001. Language and agency,
Annual Review of Anthropology 30: 10937.
Bayley, R. and S. R. Schecter. 2003. Introduc-
tion: Toward a dynamic model of language
socialization in R. Bayley and S. R. Schecter
(eds): Language Socialization in Bilingual and
Multilingual Societies. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters, pp. 16.
Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective
and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bullough, R. V., J. Knowles, and N. Crow. 1992.
Emerging as a Teacher. London: Routledge.
Cameron, D. 2001. Working with Spoken Discourse.
London: Sage.
Cole, K. and J. Zuengler. 2003. Engaging in an
authentic science project: Appropriating, resist-
ing, and denying scientific identities in
R. Bayley and S. R. Schecter (eds): Lan-
guage Socialization in Bilingual and Multilingual
Societies. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters,
pp. 98113.
Condon, S. L. 2001. Discourse ok revisited:
Default organization in verbal interaction,
Journal of Pragmatics 33: 491513.
Creech, S. 2000. The Wanderer. New York:
HarperCollins.
Curtis, C. P. 1999. Bud, not Buddy. New York:
Yearling.
including race/ethnicity, gender, and
L1 background. I recognize that this
limits analysis; though regrettable, I
have accepted these limits as necessary.
5 I observed ESL-A (1X) in the piloting
year of research when I did no audio-
recording. Thus, the data below come
from ESL-A (2W) and (2X). However,
my ndings from all three classes
were remarkably consistent.
6 See Ohnuma (2002) for discussion of
the ostensibly oxymoronic category of
Local haole.
7 The population that Local ESL refers
to has elsewhere been called genera-
tion 1.5 (see Harklau et al. 1999).
8 However, 40% of the ESL students
who participated in the Tradewinds
study had lived in the US for over
2 years, 20% for 49 years, with
several born in Hawaii. This circum-
stance nds parallels across North
America, where it has been esti-
mated that in the US alone, 46% of
the nearly four million school-age
limited English procient students
in 200001 had been born in the US,
with an additional 15% having lived
in the US for 5 years or more (Zehler
et al. 2003).
9 Although this study focuses on a Local
ESL CoP, it was but one CoP in the
Tradewinds ESL classes; it was not the
only one, nor was it always evident.
Neither did students I identied as
Local ESL always participate in it, nor
was it their only CoP membership.
10 Some might argue that these stu-
dents display lack of investment to
school in general rather than to
ESL. However, Local ESL students
consistently indicated (to teachers,
classmates, and me) that the putative
problem with school was ESL; in
fact, the public display of such
a perspective was itself a constitutive
practice of Local ESL CoP member-
ship (see Talmy 2005, ch. 8; forth-
coming-a). Furthermore, school for
most of these students predomi-
nantly was ESL, both in terms of
their dedicated-ESL and sheltered-
content ESL class placements
(see Talmy 2005, ch. 7; cf. Nespor
1990).
11 Playing cards, especially Texas Hold
Em, was a practice undertaken daily
in the school by mainstream stu-
dents.
12 Those in the non-Local ESL group
were Local ESL students new-
comer and lower-L2-English-pro-
cient classmates.
13 My gratitude to Carsten Roever for
his assistance with the statistical
analysis.
STEVEN TALMY 641

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Dahl, R. 1961. James and the Giant Peach. NewYork:
Knopf.
Davidson, J. 1984. Subsequent versions of
invitations, offers, requests, and proposals deal-
ing with potential or actual rejection in J. M.
Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds): Structures of Social
Action: Studies inConversationAnalysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 10228.
Dixon, R. J. 1956. Regents English Workbook, Book 2:
IntermediateAdvanced. New York: Regents Pub-
lishing Company.
Duff, P. A. 1995. An ethnography of communica-
tion in immersion classrooms in Hungary,
TESOL Quarterly 29: 50537.
Duff, P. A. 2002. The discursive co-constructionof
knowledge, identity, and difference: An ethnog-
raphy of communication in the high school
mainstream, Applied Linguistics 23: 289322.
Duff, P. A. 2003. New directions in second lan-
guage socialization research, Korean Journal of
English Language and Linguistics 3: 309339.
Duff, P. A. and N. H. Hornberger (eds). 2008.
Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol. 8:
Language socialization, 2nd edn. Boston: Springer.
Durkheim, E. 1997. The Division of Labor in Society,
trans. W. D. Halls. New York: The Free Press
(Original work published 1893).
Eisenhart, M. 1996. The production of biologists
at school and work: Making scientists, conser-
vationists, or flowery bone-heads? in B. A.
Levinson, D. E. Foley, and D. C. Holland (eds):
The Cultural Production of the Educated Person:
Critical Ethnographies of Schooling and Local Prac-
tice. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp. 16985.
Ford, C. E. 2001. At the intersection of turn
and sequence: Negation and what comes next
inM. Selting andE. Couper-Kuhlen(eds): Studies
in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, pp. 5179.
Freud, S. 1939. Moses and Monotheism. New York:
Vintage.
Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Garrett, P. 2004. Review of Bayley & Schecter,
2003, Language in Society 33: 7769.
Garrett, P. and P. Baquedano-Lo pez. 2002.
Language socialization: Reproduction and con-
tinuity, transformation and change, Annual
Review of Anthropology 31: 33961.
Giddens, A. 1979. Central Problems in Social
Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in
Social Analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of Cali-
fornia Press.
Gumperz, J. J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. NewYork:
Cambridge University Press.
Harklau, L., K. M. Losey, and M. Siegal (eds).
1999. Generation 1.5 Meets College Composition:
Issues in the teaching of writing to US-educated
learners of ESL. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
He, A. W. 2003. Novices and their speech roles in
Chinese heritage language classes in R. Bayley
and S. R. Schecter (eds): Language Socialization in
Bilingual and Multilingual Societies. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters, pp. 12846.
Jacoby, S. and P. Gonzales. 1991. The constitu-
tion of expertnovice in scientific discourse,
Issues in Applied Linguistics 2/2: 14981.
Kelchtermans, G. and K. Ballet. 2002. The
micropolitics of teacher induction: A narrative-
biographical study on teacher socialisation,
Teaching and Teacher Education 18: 10520.
Koshik, I. 2002. A conversation analytic study
of yes/no questions which convey reversed
polarity assertions, Journal of Pragmatics
34: 185177.
Kulick, D. and B. B. Schieffelin. 2004. Language
socialization in A. Duranti (ed.): A Companion to
Linguistic Anthropology. Malden, MA: Blackwell,
pp. 34968.
Kuzmic, J. 1994. Abeginning teachers search for
meaning: Teacher socialisation, organisational
literacy, and empowerment, Teaching and
Teacher Education 10: 1527.
Labrador, R. N. 2004. Speechplay, Hawaii ethnic
humor, and the myth of multiculturalism,
Pragmatics 14/23: 291316.
Lave, J. 1991. Situated learning in communities
of practice in L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, and
S. D. Teasley (eds): Perspectives on Socially Shared
Cognition. Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association, pp. 6382.
Lave, J. and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning:
Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, B. A., D. E. Foley, and D. C. Holland
(eds). 1996. The Cultural Production of the Educated
Person: Critical Ethnographies of Schooling and Local
Practice. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Mead, M. 1961. Coming of Age in Samoa: A
Psychological Study of Primitive Youth for Western
Civilization. New York: Morrow (Original work
published 1928).
Mehan, H. 1979. Learning Lessons. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Naylor, P. R. 1991. Shiloh. New York: Atheneum.
642 THE CULTURAL PRODUCTIONS OF THE ESL STUDENT AT TRADEWINDS HIGH

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Nespor, J. 1990. Curriculum and conver-
sions of capital in the acquisition of disciplinary
knowledge, Journal of Curriculum Studies 22/3:
21732.
Norton, B. 2000. Identity and Language Learning:
Gender, Ethnicity, and Educational Change. London:
Longman
Ochs, E. 1986. Introduction in B. B. Schieffelin
and E. Ochs (eds): Language Socialization Across
Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 113.
Ochs, E. 1999. Socialization, Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology 9/12: 230233.
Ochs, E. and B. B. Schieffelin. 2008. Language
socialization: An historical overview in
P. A. Duff and N. H. Hornberger (eds): Encyclo-
pedia of Language and Education, Vol. 8: Language
Socialization, 2ndedn. Boston: Springer, pp. 315.
ODell, S. 1960. Island of the Blue Dolphins. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Ohnuma, K. 2002. Local haoleA contradiction
in terms? The dilemma of being white, born and
raised in Hawaii, Cultural Values 6/4: 27385.
Okamura, J. Y. 1994. Why there are no Asian
Americans in Hawaii: The continuing signifi-
cance of local identity, Social Process in Hawaii
35: 16178.
Parsons, T. 1937. The Structure of Social Actions.
New York: The Free Press.
Paulsen, G. 1985. Dogsong. New York: Bradbury
Press.
Phillipson, R. 1988. Linguicism: Structures
and ideologies in linguistic imperialism in
T. Skutnabb-Kangas and J. Cummins (eds):
Minority Education: From Shame to Struggle. Phila-
delphia: Multilingual Matters, pp. 33958.
Pomerantz, A. 1984. Pursuing a response in
J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds): Structures
of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 15263.
Sacks, H. 1992. Lectures onConversation, Vols I and2.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Sakoda, K. and J. Siegel. 2003. Pidgin Grammar:
An Introduction to the Creole Language of Hawaii.
Honolulu: Bess Press.
Schecter, S. R. and R. Bayley. 2004. Language
socializationintheory and practice, International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 17/5:
60525.
Schieffelin, B. B. and E. Ochs. 1986a. Language
socialization, Annual Review of Anthropology 15:
16391.
Schieffelin, B. B. and E. Ochs. 1986b. Language
Socialization across Cultures. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Schutz, A. 1967. The Phenomenology of the Social
World, trans. G. Walsh and F. Lehnert. Evanston,
IL: Northwestern University Press.
Siegal, M. 1996. The role of learner subjec-
tivity in second language sociolinguistic
competency: Western women learning Japa-
nese, Applied Linguistics 17: 35682.
Talmy, S. 2005. Lifers and FOBs, rocks and
resistance: Generation 1.5, identity, and the
cultural productions of ESL in a high school,
unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Hawaii at Ma noa, Honolulu, HI.
Talmy, S. 2007. Reproduction and recursivity in
high school ESL: A critical analysis of classroom
language-in-use. Plenary address to the 17th
International Conference on Pragmatics and
Language Learning, Honolulu, HI.
Talmy, S. forthcoming-a. Forever FOB?: Resisting
and reproducing the Other inhigh school ESL in
A. Reyes and A. Lo (eds): Beyond Yellow English:
Toward a Linguistic Anthropology of Asian Pacific
America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Talmy, S. forthcoming-b. Resisting ESL:
Categories and sequence in a critically moti-
vated analysis of classroom interaction in
G. Kasper and H. T. Nguyen (eds): Talk-in-inter-
action: Multilingual Perspectives. Honolulu,
HI: University of Hawaii, National Foreign
Language Resource Center.
ten Have, P. 2001. Applied conversation analysis
in A. McHoul, and M. Rapley (eds): How to
Analyze Talk in Institutional Settings: A Casebook of
Methods. London: Continuum, pp. 311.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. and S. Nielsen. 2003.
Language socialization in SLA in C. Doughty
and M. H. Long (eds): Handbook of Second
Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell,
pp. 15577.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning,
Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wentworth, W. M. 1980. Context and Understand-
ing: An Inquiry into Socialization Theory. NewYork:
Elsevier.
White, G. 1977. Socialisation. London: Longman.
Willis, P. 1977. Learning to Labour: How Working
Class Kids get Working Class Jobs. New York:
Columbia University Press.
STEVEN TALMY 643

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Willis, P. 1981. Cultural production is different
from cultural reproduction is different from
social reproduction is different from reproduc-
tion, Interchange 12/23: 4867.
Wrong, D. H. 1961. The oversocialized conception
of man in modern sociology, American Socio-
logical Review 26/2: 18393.
Zehler, A. M., H. L. Fleischman, P. J. Hopstock,
T. G. Stephenson, M. L. Pendzick, and
S. Sapru. 2003. Descriptive Study of Services to
LEP Students and LEP Students with Disabilities,
Vol I. Arlington, VA: Development Associates/
U.S. Department of Education.
Zeichner, K. and J. Gore. 1990. Teacher sociali-
sation in R. Houston (ed.): Handbook of Research
on Teacher Education. New York: Macmillan,
pp. 32948.
Zimmerman, D. 1998. Identity, context, and
interaction in C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe
(eds): Identities in Talk. London: Sage,
pp. 87106.
Zuengler, J. and K. Cole. 2005. Language
socialization and L2 learning in E. Hinkel (ed.):
Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching
and Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, pp. 30116.
644 THE CULTURAL PRODUCTIONS OF THE ESL STUDENT AT TRADEWINDS HIGH

a
t

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

M
a
l
a
y
a

o
n

M
a
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
4
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
p
p
l
i
j
.
o
x
f
o
r
d
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
o
r
g
/
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m