TESOL Graduate Shifting Perceptions On China English

“I Mean I’m Kind of Discriminating
My Own People:” A Chinese TESOL

Graduate Student’s Shifting Perceptions
of China English
KYLE NUSKE
Nagoya University
Nagoya, Japan
World Englishes has become a robust field of inquiry as scholars pur-

sue more nuanced understandings of linguistic localization and mul-
tilinguals’ negotiations of language differences. Yet research
demonstrates that teachers and learners of English as a foreign lan-
guage continue, albeit in a partially conflicted way, to believe that
prestigious native speaker varieties are the sole acceptable targets of
instruction. Thus, there is a need for further inquiries into the fac-
tors that influence individuals’ attitudes toward localized Englishes
and the efficacy of classroom interventions in modifying these. Utiliz-
ing a qualitative case study approach, the present study traces one
Chinese TESOL graduate student’s journey from harshly repudiating
China English to vindicating its use. Drawing from semistructured
interviews conducted over approximately 3 years, the study illustrates
how the participant’s language attitudes were bound up with her
emotional understandings of significant life experiences. It also expli-
cates how the complex ramifications of a blunt provocation from one
of her instructors and a sense of alienation arising from studying
alongside U.S. native speakers ultimately led her to defend China
English outside the classroom. The article concludes with practical
recommendations for TESOL programs that seek to instill more tol-
erant dispositions toward linguistic differences while avoiding superfi-
cial inscriptions of Western discourses.
doi: 10.1002/tesq.404
t is an early April afternoon, and I am speaking with Linlin,1 a

I Chinese woman who is approaching the end of her first year in a
Master of Arts TESOL program at a U.S. university. As I prompt Linlin
to recount noteworthy occurrences in her graduate studies to this
1
All individuals are referred to by pseudonyms.
360 TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 52, No. 2, June 2018

© 2017 TESOL International Association
point, she is at times contemplative and guarded to the point of near
inertia, with murmured comments seeming to scarcely escape her lips.
Yet there is some degree of rapport between us—I have interviewed
her on two previous occasions, and I was an active participant observer
in one of her courses last semester. As such, I am glad to observe her
slide into a more comfortable demeanor when making satirical
remarks about U.S. culture or mildly irritating aspects of her life
abroad. In these moments, she accentuates her words with a wry grin
and subdued laughter.
Our conversation touches on many topics, from the course content
she finds most and least relevant to her professional development to
her ongoing but gradually diminishing anxieties about attending
classes with U.S. native speakers of English. It is not until Linlin turns
her attention to a recent classroom occurrence, however, that some-
thing approaching the revelatory seems to occur:
Linlin: We had to write reflections for Dr. Roberts’s class and one time I wrote
something negative about the pronunciation of Chinese students and
then she gave me feedback on that thing, she wrote, “Who cares about
pronunciation?” [laughs]. I didn’t dare to tell her “I care about
pronunciation.” So yeah, I care. But there is something called World
Englishes. So it’s kind of . . . I don’t know.
Interviewer: So OK you’re very aware of World Englishes . . . but in your
opinion pronunciation is still important. Is that correct?
L: That’s what I thought but right now I’m thinking, I mean, I’m kind of
discriminating my own people. Because . . . someone who speaks English
with a French accent, different accent, I’m OK with it. But someone speaks
English with a strong Chinese accent I just cannot listen to it.
I: Why do you think that’s the case that a Chinese English accent kind of gets
on your nerves more than others?
L: I don’t know. I just figured out right now. Why I do that? Why I do that?
(April 4, 2013)
In my initial interpretation, Linlin had experienced a critical moment—
an unplanned, fortuitous instant in which implicit assumptions and
value judgments come to the fore and existing schema of relations are
open to change (Pennycook, 2004). More specifically, she questioned
why she had tended to dismiss China English (CE) so harshly, and her
newfound perspective that she was “discriminating [her] own people”
indicates that she had begun to question the problematic conse-
quences of deeming CE inferior to native speaker (NS) varieties.
“I MEAN I’M KIND OF DISCRIMINATING” 361

Considering that Linlin was an aspiring scholar-practitioner, these
embryonic stirrings of attitudinal change were significant in that they
carried the potential to catalyze a more receptive outlook on the mul-
tilingual-normative models of language use that have long been advo-
cated in TESOL literature. Although scholars debate the merits of the
various conceptual vocabularies that have been proposed to depict
and interpret the multilingual experience, such as translanguaging and
plurilingualism, there is clearly a common imperative to dispute mono-
lingualism’s characterizations of languages as discrete, monolithic enti-
ties or the exclusive properties of native-speaking nations and peoples
(Canagarajah, 2013; Mahboob, 2017; P. K. Matsuda, 2014). Alternative
conceptions of language as fluid, hybridized, and continually evolving
are advanced to pursue more nuanced and respectful understandings
of how multilinguals negotiate language differences in various commu-
nicative contexts. Moreover, their proponents attempt to disrupt
enduring power disparities rooted in the discursive dichotomization of
native and nonnative speakers, which is often bound with other bina-
ries in historical legacies of oppression (e.g., colonizer and colonized,
self and other). The introduction of such perspectives into formal
teacher training programs, while crucial, must occur in concert with
guided reconsideration of core concepts. For instance, Mahboob
(2017) stressed the necessity of fundamentally reconceptualizing lan-
guage and grammar, with the latter being understood as a heuristic
for describing, interpreting, and predicting how native and nonnative
speakers use language to impart meaning rather than a prescriptive
system of rigid and native-centric rules.
Considering the ethical dimensions of promoting multilingual-nor-
mative understandings, it is tempting to celebrate Linlin’s seeming epi-
phany as the crucial first step toward a more pluralistic and inclusive
mindset. Yet there is cause to question whether the event she narrated
was a mere inscription of the superficial liberalism that some view as
dominant in the TESOL field (e.g., Pennycook, 2001). In this latter
reading, Dr. Roberts’s brusque remark (“Who cares about pronuncia-
tion?”) effectively shut down discussion at a moment when a vital dia-
logue could have been opened. After all, Linlin originally disagreed
with the position that pronunciation is unimportant but was intimi-
dated into silence. Thus, Dr. Roberts’s comment may have been less of
a provocation toward critical reflection and more of an authoritative
pronouncement of the “correct” or enlightened viewpoint—that is,
that multilingual English learners ought not to be disparaged on the
basis of their speech. For all of their obvious rectitude, such liberalistic
assertions of inherent equality obscure the social and political circum-
stances through which discourses of difference are constructed and
(self-)stigmatizing attitudes are fostered.
362 TESOL QUARTERLY

As a teacher and teacher-educator, I often struggle with the delicate
question of how to encourage learners to develop or enhance their
critical consciousness on their own terms. Hence, I found myself pon-
dering Linlin’s self-directed question (“Why I do that?”) and where
this line of inquiry would lead her. Had she simply identified a senti-
ment that she would be rewarded for expressing throughout the
remainder of her graduate studies, or would her newfound perspective
on localized Englishes catalyze a lasting system of dispositions and
deeds to be enacted in settings beyond the graduate classroom? Of
course, in order to seek meaningful answers to these questions, I also
needed to elicit the factors influencing the disdainful attitudes toward
CE that Linlin had developed prior to journeying abroad.
Linlin’s accounts of her experiences also raise implications for the
pressing question of how responsive symbolically prestigious TESOL
programs are to the needs of diverse student populations. I define sym-
bolically prestigious programs as those that attract substantial numbers of
international enrollees and are often housed in economically and
politically powerful nations where English is widely spoken as a first
language (L1). The appeal of these programs arises in part from the
circulation of discourses that construct idealized spaces under vague,
exoticized labels such as “the West,” wherein cutting-edge information
and techniques not available elsewhere can ostensibly be obtained.
Though NS biases are doubtless prevalent in many English teacher
training contexts across the globe, symbolically prestigious programs
are uniquely positioned to reinforce or subvert novices’ ingrained
assumptions: Whether deliberately or unconsciously, some teacher
educators working in romanticized contexts may merely reproduce
unequal power relations by positioning apprentice multilingual practi-
tioners as passive recipients of Western-derived knowledge. Conversely,
others may make critical use of their settings by carefully guiding
novices through the deconstruction of NS supremacist ideologies,
including those influencing their very decisions to undertake their
training abroad. Yet, however well-intentioned these attempts at
empowerment may be, learners might respond with feelings of frustra-
tion or half-hearted gestures of compliance because they feel their
intentions of obtaining sophisticated Western methods are going
unfulfilled. Therefore, Linlin’s case suggests insights about how exten-
sively the teaching of concepts that run contrary to students’ expecta-
tions can stimulate meaningful negotiations and dialogues rather than
shallow embrace of prominent academic discourses (Ilieva, 2010;
Nuske, 2016).
This article presents a qualitative case study of Linlin’s shifting per-
ceptions of CE. In the next section, I contextualize Linlin’s narrative
by providing concise definitions of World Englishes and China

English, critically surveying literature on multilingual teachers’ and
learners’ preferences regarding English varieties, briefly overviewing
proposed means of devising diversity-centric orientations to English
instruction, and positioning the present study in relation to previous
work. Subsequently, I provide more details about my methodological
approach. Following that, I employ Park’s (2012) device of snapshots to
portray Linlin’s attitudes as they were crystallized at particular points
in her personal and professional development. I conclude by dis-
cussing possible ramifications of Linlin’s outcomes for teacher educa-
tion programs in TESOL that seek to instill more tolerant dispositions
toward linguistic differences.
LITERATURE REVIEW
World Englishes
Among the many terms that have been suggested to describe the
phenomenon of distinct and discernible features emerging in the Eng-
lishes of various groups, World Englishes (WE) is arguably the most
common (Murata & Jenkins, 2009). Dating back to Kachru’s (1985)
seminal concentric circles model, WE scholarship has tended to classify
English varieties in terms of geographical location and sociohistorical
factors such as colonization and diaspora. A related concept is English
as a lingua franca (ELF), which emphasizes that international or tran-
scultural interactions among speakers of English as an additional lan-
guage are rarely restricted to any single variety or characterized by
adherence to standard grammars (Murata & Jenkins, 2009); instead,
the phenomenon of ELF communication is in perpetual flux depend-
ing on the linguistic resources and communicative intentions of the
parties involved. Work in WE is commonly concerned with cataloguing
the unique linguistic forms that “competent . . . speakers produce sys-
tematically and frequently” (Jenkins, 2009, p. 42), whereas work in
ELF is often geared toward documenting real-time modification and
accommodation strategies. Both, however, seek to establish the legiti-
macy of nonstandard codes and, by extension, validate the identities
of those who use them.
China English
Although the main purpose of this article is not to delineate the
numerous features of CE, I draw a definition of CE and several exam-
ples of its characteristics from He and Li (2009) and Zhichang (2010)
364 TESOL QUARTERLY

to briefly clarify the various traits and practices to which Linlin may
have implicitly referred. According to He and Li (2009),
“China English” is most appropriately defined as a performance variety
of English which has the standard Englishes as its core but colored with
characteristic features of Chinese phonology, lexis, syntax and dis-
course-pragmatics, and which is particularly suited for expressing con-
tent ideas specific to Chinese culture through such means and
transliteration and loan translation. (p. 83)
Table 1 displays a partial list of salient features of CE accompanied by
specific examples.
Several of the commonalities that Zhichang (2010) observed regard-
ing discursive, pragmatic, and social aspects of CE are discussed in
what follows, with the caveat that they should be understood as typical
means of enacting cultural values through communication rather than
essential characteristics of those who speak the variety. Analysis of a
corpus of spoken CE interactions revealed a significant incidence of
transitions and responses that, compared to representative NS prac-
tices, were seemingly abrupt, only obliquely connected to the preced-
ing utterance, or nonsequiturs. As such, coherence in CE appears in
some cases to be predicated on inference and implication to a greater
extent than in L1 Englishes due to mutual unspoken awareness of
social norms and customs. Concerning written discourse, the question
of whether a similarly sudden and digressive shift from the main topic
is a distinguishing feature of the prevalent qi cheng zhuan he (begin-
ning-continuing-transition-summary) structure has been the subject of
much controversy (e.g., Cahill, 2003).
The CE features most relevant to the present study arise from the
profound influence of social hierarchies and related concepts such as
face, politeness, and filial piety on pragmatics. Zhichang’s (2010) cor-
pus indicates that CE speakers often obeyed imperatives to denigrate
TABLE 1
Features of China English
Category Features Example(s)

Phonology General lack of voiced Dental fricative /h/, as in the word theory,
fricatives might be pronounced as /f/, /s/, or /t/ (p. 72)
Lexis Loan translation Paper tiger; Great Cultural Revolution (p. 73)
Syntax Four morphosyllable “effort halved, result doubled” (p. 73)
idioms
Parallel structure “a fall into the pit, a gain in your wit” (p. 73)
Topicalization of “Before I left the office, I had finished the work”
adjuncts (p. 73)
Null subject parameter “Miss you a lot” (pp. 73–74)
Source: He & Li (2009).

the self and respect the other; maintain a polite and formal distance
when addressing superiors; and expressly avoid seeming too eager
when accepting compliments, requesting favors, or pursuing any
course of action that would benefit one or one’s family. As described
below, these cultural mandates caused Linlin to struggle with adopting
the communication styles that were valued in her graduate classes.
Teachers’ and Learners’ Attitudes Toward Localized Englishes

as Targets or Media of Instruction
Research in this vein consistently demonstrates teachers’ and stu-

dents’ entrenched perceptions that NS varieties are the sole acceptable
models for English language learners, whereas localized varieties are
inappropriate, undesirable, or unproductive targets (Ahn, 2014, 2015;
A. Matsuda, 2003; Young & Walsh, 2010), though there are isolated
cases in which learners expressed disdain for NS standards (Sridhar &
Sridhar, 1994). Native speaker biases are typically justified by reference
to a range of elements that are held to exert an incontestable influ-
ence on the scope of possibilities in local teaching contexts. These
include prescribed curricula tied to materials from Western publishers;
high-stakes standardized exams centered on NS norms; the perceived
need for a standard dialect to ensure mutual intelligibility in cases of
traveling, studying, or conducting business abroad; and students’ own
expectations of learning prestigious varieties.
Even among instructors and learners who find explorations of lan-
guage differences appealing on a conceptual level, there exists the per-
ception of extensive barriers to the ousting of NS-centered modes of
language teaching (Ahn, 2014; Jenkins, 2005; Young & Walsh, 2010).
From a critical perspective, these viewpoints can be understood as the
effects of hegemonic machinations by governmental or corporate insti-
tutions of powerful countries in which English is a common mother
tongue (Phillipson, 1992). For example, major publishers capitalize on
connotations of prestige and deploy extensive marketing resources to
dominate international English learning contexts, and various public
and private organizations coordinate the exportation of poorly quali-
fied NS teachers to various locales so that they might broker access to
ostensibly authentic speech.2 By reinforcing the belief that English is
2
A noteworthy counterexample to these general dynamics of NS privilege is presented by
Derivry-Plard and Griffin (2017), who detail how native-speaking-English teachers work-
ing in France’s public schools are required to possess advanced proficiency in their
students’ mother tongue and detailed knowledge of the local educational system. When
contextualized against global trends in the English teaching profession, however, such
cases seem to remain exceptions that prove the general rule.
366 TESOL QUARTERLY

the rightful proprietary asset of first-language cultures, such measures
propagate systematic inequalities in opportunities to construct and
implement pedagogical knowledge.
Bourdieu’s (1991) concept of symbolic capital is useful in understand-
ing why NS standards take root in the psyches of some multilingual
learners and shape their motivations and subjectivities so profoundly,
even though their everyday communicative realities may be centered
on altogether different modes and principles of interaction, including
codeswitching and real-time negotiation of usage norms (Firth & Wag-
ner, 2007). Symbolic capital refers to tangible or abstract commodities
that enable individuals to exhibit socially recognized forms of prestige,
which in turn facilitates the acquisition of further, otherwise inaccessi-
ble resources and positions. Some straightforward examples are bench-
mark scores on NS-centric standardized tests, which allow students to
study abroad or gain admission to foreign universities, and degrees
from Western institutions, which may ensure preferential treatment
for candidates on the job market. On personal and social levels, then,
the NS ideal can function as an ideological apparatus through which
certain individuals assert their superiority and power hierarchies are
naturalized, to the extent that subjugated populations may accept their
own marginalization as the natural state of affairs (Bourdieu, 1991).
Such networks of belief, preference, and prejudice can result in self-
fulfilling prophecies that negate possibilities for pedagogical reform. If
alternate teaching approaches that incorporate localized Englishes are
dismissed out of hand in light of what teachers are expected to do in
their contexts, the status quo is perpetuated. Of course, instructors
working in contexts that restrict their autonomy through rigid curric-
ula and enforced standardization of lesson procedure may have no
recourse but to focus solely on American or British English. However,
numerous studies have posited that unquestioned assumptions account
for the belief that dominant NS varieties are the only acceptable tar-
gets: Young and Walsh (2010) found that diverse cohorts of multilin-
gual graduate students in TESOL, applied linguistics, and education
had little conscious awareness of what specific varieties they had stud-
ied or taught, and those who were least familiar with the notion of WE
were most likely to characterize localized varieties in negative terms
such as “broken,” “simplified,” and “not standard” (p. 11).
Similarly, Ahn (2015) observed that the population of Korean Eng-
lish teachers in her study were largely unacquainted with Singaporean,
Indian, Chinese, and Japanese Englishes, and those who had not per-
sonally interacted with speakers of these varieties were more inclined
to regard linguistic diversity as a potential source of communication
difficulties. Synthesizing findings from several of her previous studies
on teachers’ language attitudes, Jenkins (2009) contended that various

World Englishes are not marginalized in relation to native Englishes
to an identical degree. Rather, a subhierarchy exists among them, with
some varieties perceived to be highly native-like, such as Swedish and
Dutch English (or French English in Linlin’s case), generally being
afforded more respect than those which are not, such as Japanese and
China English.
A body of conflicted and contrary attitudes also emerged from Jenk-
ins’s (2005) interview study on eight nonnative English teachers’ atti-
tudes toward localized English pronunciation. The majority of
participants reported that they would be pleased to be mistaken for an
NS, yet they retained feelings of pride in their L1 identity and averred
they would not abandon their accents if hypothetically given the
chance. Moreover, they offered platitudes about a willingness to teach
“a pronunciation model based on their local L2 [second language]
accent” in theory even as they characterized phonological features of
ELF as “incorrect” and anticipated that resistance from colleagues
would render ELF approaches untenable in practice (p. 540). All par-
ticipants could identify life experiences when others responded to
their accents cruelly or judgmentally, suggesting that these volatile
beliefs were inseparable from the contours of their personal histories.
Lee, Schutz, and van Vlack (2017) likewise stated that self-perceptions
of “inadequate language proficiency” often arise among practitioners
of English as an additional language because they are perpetually sub-
ordinated to an unattainable NS ideal, culminating in “anxieties, inse-
curities, or a sense of inferiority” (p. 121).
Specifically regarding Chinese teachers’ and learners’ attitudes toward
English varieties, widely cited large-scale studies have identified clear
propensities for NS standards: Kirkpatrick and Zhichang (2002)
employed a survey questionnaire to elicit undergraduate students’ (n =
171) perspectives on the value and viability of CE in the classroom.
Among their findings suggestive of a systemic NS bias were 60.8% of par-
ticipants disagreeing with the statement that they want to be identified as
Chinese when speaking English and 64.3% agreeing that “most Chinese
need English to communicate mainly with native English speakers”
(p. 277). Considering these results in tandem with China’s deeply
ingrained traditions of adhering to codified standards in education, the
authors conjectured that a dominant NS variety, most likely American
English, would remain the only feasible choice for English instruction in
the foreseeable future. Their reasoning is both reflective and constitutive
of the impasse that has emerged, in which propagating the current system
of power relations is seen as the only pragmatically feasible option.
Two subsequent studies pursuing similar lines of inquiry, He and Li
(2009) and He and Zhang (2010), drew from a common extensive data
corpus, which crucially included university English teachers (n = 210)
368 TESOL QUARTERLY

in addition to undergraduates in various majors (n = 820). Their over-
all findings demonstrate that “the majority of student participants
(56.9%) and teachers of college English (67.2%) in China prefer an
exonormative, NS based model of English as the teaching model” (He
& Li, 2009, p. 85). However, these studies also reveal some curious
inconsistencies indicative of a nascent drive toward vindication of Eng-
lish spoken with Chinese accents. For example, 46.7% reported no
objection to accents that did not impede communication, and 61.4%
“agreed that college students should be taught select features of
‘China English’ and other varieties of English besides ‘Standard Eng-
lish’” (He & Li, 2009, p. 79).
Two subpatterns emerged within these conflicting viewpoints. First,
teachers and students alike were reluctant to accept grammatical or syn-
tactic aspects of CE that diverged from those of its standard counterparts
(e.g., null subject parameter sentence construction, as in “Very glad to
write to you again”; He & Li, 2009, p. 73). Second, students were more
willing to accept phonetic features of CE than teachers were, with 57%
of the latter group expressing a desire for their pupils to acquire native-
like pronunciation even as 58% of learners reported that one who spoke
with a discernible accent yet communicated clearly was a more prefer-
able and realistic role model (He & Zhang, 2010). (See also Levis, Son-
saat, and Link, 2017; although not situated in the Chinese context, this
study provides yet another example of extensive ambivalence and con-
tradiction in learners’ attitudes toward localized pronunciation.)
Though these studies prioritized detailed elicitation of language atti-
tudes more than the factors that had given rise to them, He and
Zhang (2010) did discuss students’ (n = 82) and teachers’ (n = 21)
specific reasons for supporting or opposing the integration of CE into
English as a foreign language (EFL) curricula through brief interview
excerpts. For example, one teacher argued in favor of accepting CE
on the grounds that “it is really hard for [students] to speak English
totally free from the cross-linguistic influences of the Chinese lan-
guage,” whereas another held that CE targets were too easily attained
by learners to constitute a rigorous pedagogical model (p. 783).
Proposed Multilingual-Normative Teaching Approaches
Although pedagogical changes have seemingly been slow to take

hold in actual practice due to the above-mentioned obstacles, scholars
have put forth detailed commentaries concerning how pluralistic Eng-
lish as an international language pedagogies could be fashioned in
particular contexts. To cite but one example, McKay (2003) advocated
centering instruction on the specific communicative purposes English

serves in users’ linguistic inventories, abandoning the ethnocentric
presumption that teaching materials related to the cultures of native-
speaking countries are innately appealing or useful to English learners
at large, and basing policy and practice development on firsthand
knowledge of locally valued learning practices rather than essentializ-
ing discourses of cultural difference.
Beyond pedagogical training, there has been a call for the continued
formal codification of diverse Englishes via their inclusion in dictionar-
ies and textbooks (Jenkins, 2005; A. Matsuda, 2012). Because such
resources are often perceived as “high profile [sources] of input” by stu-
dents (A. Matsuda, 2012, p. 168), they can enhance perceptions of legiti-
macy and perhaps eventually make learners more amenable to the
notion that English not only takes a multiplicity of lexical and phonetic
manifestations but also gives expression to an array of value systems.
Intended Contributions of the Present Study
The primary ambition of the present research is to build on the

insights achieved in the studies reviewed above by further illuminating
attitudes surrounding CE and—perhaps more importantly—how, why,
and to what extent attitudinal change occurs over time. More specifi-
cally, I employ a longitudinal qualitative case study to augment the
more tightly controlled data collection tools (e.g., questionnaires,
matched guise experiments) used in prominent large-scale investiga-
tions (He & Li, 2009; He & Zhang, 2010).
In keeping with arguments for the methodological utility of moving
beyond abstract appraisal of linguistic diversity and attempting to
unearth the memory-based origins of language attitudes (Jenkins,
2005), the present study also inquires into how outlooks on the value
or appropriateness of localized Englishes have been shaped or
restricted by individual, social, historical, and political factors.
In sum, given that scholars have professed interest in forecasting the
likelihood that CE will become a full-fledged component of official cur-
ricula, it would appear beneficial to draw from teacher education
research and investigate how language attitudes are inculcated, rein-
forced, and reappraised. The next section outlines the methodological
approach that I used to conduct one such qualitative case study inquiry.
METHODOLOGY
Data presented are drawn from a larger mixed-methods study on

how a first-year cohort of TESOL graduate students (n = 13)
370 TESOL QUARTERLY

responded to the teaching of critical pedagogical concepts, different
subsets of which have appeared elsewhere (Nuske, 2015, 2016). The
research site is located in the mid-Atlantic United States. Its 2-year
Master of Arts TESOL program annually enrolls both international
and U.S. students. As is typically the case, the former group comprised
the majority of Linlin’s cohort, which contained two additional individ-
uals from mainland China, four from Saudi Arabia, one from South
Korea, one from Indonesia, one from Hong Kong, and four from the
United States. Unlike programs focusing on domestic contexts, this
program carries a primarily multicultural and transnational emphasis,
aiming to help apprentices cultivate a repertoire of scholarly and peda-
gogical knowledge that can be applied or adapted in their various mili-
eus. Indeed, all of the cohort’s international students expressed an
intention to return to their home countries after completing their
degrees, connoting an expectation that what they learned abroad
could be readily and profitably implemented in familiar EFL settings.
Although space restrictions preclude reference to all of the elicited
data types in this article, I will briefly clarify the scope of my inquiry. I
adopted a triangulation approach (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008), combining
semistructured interviews, classroom observation, and concept mapping
tasks to elicit students’ evolving understandings of critical pedagogy.
Participants also provided me with copies of their course papers and
other written assignments. These texts, however, were used primarily to
test interpretations developed from the other data sources and were not
subjected to a systematic analysis. Semistructured interviews were con-
ducted with individual participants at approximately the beginning and
midpoints of their first semester along with the endpoint of their second
and final semester of the academic year. I also functioned as an active
participant observer in one of the cohort’s first-semester courses, in
which critical imperatives such as empowerment of multilingual practi-
tioners and promotion of multilingual normative paradigms of language
learning were given considerable emphasis.3 As I attended every class
session, I took field notes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003) on seemingly mean-
ingful occurrences, many of which became discussion points in subse-
quent interviews. It is important to clarify that all interviews were
conducted in English owing to the need to implement a uniform
methodology across a diverse participant group comprising individuals
from five different L1 backgrounds. This practical necessity led to the
possibility of translation loss for Linlin and other participants who spoke
English as an additional language. In order to offset the risk of miscon-
struing these individuals’ views to the greatest extent possible, I strove to
3
See Nuske (2015) for a more comprehensive account of the readings and pedagogical
strategies the instructor utilized to promote critical concepts.

carefully scrutinize the consistency of my interpretations across the data
types (e.g., by examining how closely sentiments expressed during inter-
views aligned with classroom behaviors, concept maps, and positions
adopted in course papers) and invited each cohort member to take part
in member checking of interview transcripts and manuscript drafts.
Thematic analysis of interviews and field notes was performed recur-
sively throughout the period of data collection to craft holistic portraits
of participants’ life trajectories and learning journeys in the form of
qualitative case studies (Stake, 1995). In keeping with prevailing per-
spectives that teacher education is a complex and individualized phe-
nomenon encompassing multiple human dimensions, including
novices’ emotions, interpersonal relationships, and sense of self (John-
son & Golombek, 2011), participants’ processes of engaging with critical
ideas were largely unique, with different notions and issues attaining
greatest prominence depending on their specific backgrounds and lived
experiences. To be sure, most cohort members appeared to labor under
a deliberate or unwitting conviction in the intrinsic superiority of NS
varieties during the early portions of their studies. Nonetheless, Linlin’s
interview comments, concept maps, and written texts indicated that her
attempts to cultivate critical consciousness were predicated on reconsid-
eration of deep-seated, contemptuous attitudes toward localized Eng-
lishes to a greater extent than any of her peers. It was for this reason
that I selected Linlin as the focal participant in the present inquiry.
To present a qualitative case study of Linlin’s fluctuating perceptions
of CE, I draw from three semistructured interviews conducted over six
months (September 2012–April 2013) along with a follow-up e-mail
interview completed in May 2015. In focusing on a single participant, I
seek to establish how Linlin’s process of navigating her graduate career
was intertwined with a body of deeply personal emotions and beliefs.
These human elements are held to exercise a seminal influence on out-
comes of teacher education (Johnson & Golombek, 2011), yet they are
commonly obscured or erased via the abstraction inherent to larger
scale inquiries. Thus, by foregrounding the ambivalent and partially
contradictory nature of Linlin’s attitudes as well as the unforeseen devel-
opments that would occur in her life, I strive to honor the unique trajec-
tories and dynamics characteristic of the individual human experience.
As indicated above, I used Park’s (2012) technique of snapshots—
short interview excerpts accompanied by contextual information and
thematic interpretation—to depict Linlin’s implicit or explicit attitudes
toward CE and the factors that may have been structuring these at
specific points in time. Incidents occurring prior to the start of data
collection, such as Linlin’s English learning and workplace experi-
ences in China, were described retrospectively during her first inter-
view, and noteworthy developments in her graduate study were
372 TESOL QUARTERLY

recounted in subsequent interviews. Two years after the initial period
of data collection had ceased, I sought to resume investigating the
ramifications of the critical moment that Linlin had perhaps experi-
enced while contemplating Dr. Roberts’s remark about pronunciation
and whether the apparent shift in perspective evidenced in that instant
had endured now that she had obtained her master’s degree. By that
point, however, the geographical distance between us rendered the
prospect of another face-to-face interview impractical. Hence, I
e-mailed Linlin and solicited her participation in a follow-up interview
by e-mail or an online videoconferencing program such as Skype. She
consented and selected the former option because it would enable her
to answer my questions at her convenience.
Table 2 provides additional information about the sequence of
interviews I conducted with Linlin.
RESULTS: LINLIN’S LEARNING JOURNEY
Snapshot 1: “You Don’t Use the Things You Learn From the
Textbooks”
Linlin’s formal English study began in junior high school. As in

many Asian contexts, her school adopted a grammar-translation
TABLE 2
Summary of Linlin’s Interview Sequence
Length
Interview session Format Date in minutes Topics addressed
1. Early first Face-to-face Sept. 4, 2012 36:28 English learning
semester history; reasons for
enrolling in an MA
TESOL program in
the United States
2. Midpoint of Face-to-face Oct. 30, 2012 35:45 Significant classroom
first semester experiences;
impressions of course
content, including
critical pedagogy
3. End of second Face-to-face April 4, 2013 45:06 Significant classroom
semester experiences;
impressions of course
content; emerging
areas of scholarly
interest
4. Two-year E-mail May 28, 2015 n/a Life path after finishing
follow-up correspondence MA TESOL program;
current perspectives
on China English

approach to English instruction and placed near-exclusive emphasis
on reading and writing skills, leaving little room for learners to engage
in spontaneous or self-directed conversations. Accordingly, Linlin wove
a familiar narrative in describing her early learning experiences as a
dreary routine of rote memorization and mechanistic drilling. Around
the same time, she was exposed to a markedly different register of
English in the film Titanic. Though the film’s fast-paced, colloquial
speech was largely incomprehensible to her, it provided a fascinating
glimpse into an exotic world filled with romance and suspense. Watch-
ing U.S. movies soon became one of Linlin’s passions and motivated
extensive independent study. She viewed the native speech these films
contained as vibrant, authentic, and the diametric opposite of the
stilted expressions and antiquated vocabulary characteristic of her offi-
cial English classes:
Interviewer: Did you enjoy English as a school subject?

Linlin: [My English lessons were] kind of boring. And . . . the stuff you learn
from the textbooks is like one day you go to English-speaking countries,
you don’t use the things you learn from the textbooks. Not really. . . .
[So] I started to watch a lot of . . . American movies but I didn’t
understand what they were saying without the translation. And then, I
figured out if I wanted to know more about what they were really
saying I gotta study this thing hard.
(September 4, 2012)
Consequently, the drive to emulate the NS ideal seemed to underlie
the majority of Linlin’s objectives and motivations for English learning
at this formative stage. By critiquing textbook content on the grounds
that it was irrelevant to communication in “English-speaking coun-
tries,” she implied a belief that real and purposeful English use
involved interacting with native speakers as natives themselves spoke.
Snapshot 2: “I Want More Money, I Want More Vacations”
These NS biases persisted throughout Linlin’s undergraduate stud-

ies and on into her career as an office worker at a Chinese university.
Initially, she was very enthusiastic about her work because it involved
assisting visiting NS teachers from the United States4 with various
4
Throughout our interactions, American English was the only variety Linlin associated
with native speakers. However, I developed the impression that this was due to the cir-
cumstances of her learning journey (becoming enamored with U.S. films, interacting
with Americans at her previous job, and undertaking her graduate studies in the United
States) rather than any objection to other prestigious NS varieties.
374 TESOL QUARTERLY

personal and professional matters, thereby allowing her to continue
practicing conversational English. However, she quickly became disillu-
sioned with the inferior position she perceived herself to occupy
within her workplace’s hierarchies of prestige and material compensa-
tion. Linlin reported that Chinese colleagues who held English teach-
ing positions enjoyed more generous salaries and longer vacation
periods. Far from being rooted in mere envy, her objection to this dis-
parity was fueled by her belief that she spoke “better” English than
many of her instructor counterparts. Her primary motivation for pur-
suing an MA TESOL degree, therefore, was to obtain the paper quali-
fication that would make a teaching position accessible, in effect
rectifying the injustice she felt at being subordinated to those who
were perceived to speak less fluently:
Interviewer: What led you to a Master of Arts TESOL program in the United
States?
Linlin: In China real teachers’ salary is always more than people who work in
offices in the school. And I don’t like that. And I found out some
English teachers in my school, I speak better English than them . . .
and I’m not happy about that. They got more money they got more
vacations than me.
I: Can you say more about what made your English better than theirs?
L: During [American teachers’] stay . . . they need someone or more than one
person to translate and help, and most of the time . . . people from my office
and a couple of young Chinese English teachers do this. And American
teachers come to my office all the time, as well as Chinese English teachers.
Besides taking about work, we do small office chats too. So from those
conversations I realized at least in speaking, my English competence is better
than some of theirs.
I: OK, so you want to get the MA degree and then are you intending to return
to where you worked previously but just in a better position?
L: Right. I want more money, I want more vacations.
(September 4, 2012)
Once again, Linlin’s construal of her workplace experiences suggests
the centrality of the NS ideal to her impressions of legitimate and
meaningful English-medium communication at that time, in that the
abilities to communicate ideas to and be understood by Americans
were the only criteria she referenced in deeming her own English pro-
ficiency superior to those of some teachers at her institution.

Linlin’s apparent skepticism that English spoken entirely among
multilinguals could possess equal merit was likely attributable to her
lack of inclination or opportunities to use the language with her peers.
As she clarified, “I [didn’t] talk to Chinese English teachers in English
unless we were talking with foreign teachers.” Though it is unsurpris-
ing that interactions not involving Americans were conducted in their
L1, it is telling that the ability to enact linguistic behaviors attuned to
multilingual learners’ needs (e.g., speaking in a manner intelligible to
students of various ability levels, anticipating common areas of diffi-
culty, drawing on L1 resources to repair communication breakdowns)
did not enter into her conception of skilled English speakers even
within an educational setting.
Accordingly, as Linlin followed through on her intentions by enrol-
ling in a graduate TESOL program in the United States, pride in the
native-like qualities of her speech remained foundational to her concep-
tions of herself as an English user. Shortly after her studies commenced,
however, her sense of affiliation would shift as she found that attending
classes with native speakers and being evaluated on the same terms were
altogether different matters than approximating NS standards.
Snapshot 3: “Americans Know it. We Don’t.”
As Linlin’s first-semester courses got under way, she was taken aback
to discover that 4 of her 12 fellow cohort members were Americans.
Although the cohort developed an easy camaraderie outside of class,
she felt an immediate and debilitating anxiety upon observing her
American peers’ seemingly effortless capacity to grasp teachers’
instructions, answer questions, and vocalize their thoughts. Linlin
reported adopting the perspective that she had been condemned to
continual inferiority regardless of how vigorously she applied herself
in her academic endeavors:
Interviewer: How have your classes been so far?

Linlin: When I was in my class in here, first I didn’t expect I have so many
American classmates in my class. So it’s kind of somewhere in the
brain saying, “[No matter] how hard you study you cannot do
anything better than those students because they speak that language.”
. . . I felt pressure.
(September 4, 2012)
On one level, this remark intimated that Linlin had mistakenly equated
basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS)—the ability to make
376 TESOL QUARTERLY

oneself understood in everyday communicative contexts—with cognitive
academic language proficiency (CALP)—the analytical and evaluative
aptitudes necessary for success in academic domains (Cummins, 2008).
Consequently, she believed the scholarly merit of her own work could
not match that of work produced by her American counterparts simply
because the latter group spoke English with greater ease.
On another level, Linlin could discern that Americans were privi-
leged through their familiarity with assumed cultural knowledge. Such
an instance occurred when one of her teachers, Dr. Sohn, referred to
the American educational reform initiative No Child Left Behind.
Though the purpose of this reference was to critique the policy for
being unresponsive to the needs of students whose home language
was not English (field notes, August 30, 2012), the lack of contextual
explanation provided by Dr. Sohn ironically reinforced Linlin’s belief
that she possessed insufficient cultural awareness to participate as read-
ily as American students:
Interviewer: Can you give me an example of how [Americans are advantaged]?

Linlin: In Dr. Sohn’s class, she said something like President Bush say
something No Child Left Behind. . . . Americans know it. We don’t.
We are like, “What is it? Who said that?” It needs more time to process
that in the brain.
(September 4, 2012)
Given the context of these remarks, it is sensible to conclude that the
“we” that Linlin contrasted with “Americans” refers to herself and the
other eight international students in her cohort. Her construction of
this binary distinction indicated that her senses of identification and
allegiance were already in the midst of a dramatic realignment.
Whereas she had once been content to rise in hierarchies where legiti-
macy as an English speaker was measured by degree of native emula-
tion, she now began to question the justice of imposing nativity as an
implicit norm.
Snapshot 4: “Maybe I Sound More Stupid. So I’m Getting

Quiet.”
Perhaps most significantly, American students had been accultur-
ated to the active and assertive student habitus that held value in their
university culture. Therefore, they had few inhibitions about challeng-
ing authoritative figures and texts and spoke unhesitatingly even when
expressing tenuous understandings (see also Nuske, 2015). Linlin

referred to the perceived role of cultural conditioning in these behav-
iors by observing that “students from different cultural backgrounds
are different in class, for example, Americans more active, Asians more
quiet” during an in-class writing activity on her emerging pedagogical
principles (field notes, October 25, 2012). When I invited Linlin to
elaborate on this remark, she described how she had been raised to
value humility above personal achievement. As a result, her willingness
to express her thoughts was restricted by the fear that her views would
be rebuked or dismissed:
You could see in my [classes] the native speakers talk more than other
people and I was thinking . . . [about] why I didn’t talk. But I think I
got some kind of answer ’cause back in my home, when I was a student
my mom was always said, “I don’t think you can do that.” Even I got
the number one in my class I got home I was so happy to tell her she’s
like “Next time you will fall to 10.” She was always like that for us. And
some of my friends’ parents are like that too. And they have their own
theories like “I’m saying that because I don’t want you to . . . be too
proud of [yourself].” . . . So it’s like when I got something in my mind
I want to speak it out I will think “Is that too stupid to say that out?”
Maybe I sound more stupid. So I’m getting quiet. (October 30, 2012)
In summary, Linlin’s early experiences in the United States placed her
in a very different position relative to the NS ideal. When working in
China, Linlin could utilize the ideological construct as justification for
proclaiming her language skills to be greater than those of other CE
speakers. Yet the inaugural weeks of her graduate coursework proved
dispiriting, as she perceived that detailed knowledge of American culture
and comfort with speaking in a forthright, declarative, and self-assured
manner were unjustly taken for granted in her new classroom environ-
ment. Hence, as she felt obligated to fulfill the same academic responsibil-
ities as Americans without enjoying any of their myriad privileges, she
came to understand how alienating a false pretense of equal footing could
be. Enduring these adversities prompted her to embrace the “nonnative”
identity she had previously sought to deny or diminish through approxi-
mation of NS standards (see also Park, 2012). Her remarks also hinted at
latent stirrings toward acceptance of multiple Englishes, although attitudi-
nal change in this regard would continue to develop slowly.
Snapshot 5: “You May Tell Your Students Something About

That Accents”
The final portions of Linlin’s first year of graduate study found her
claiming her multilingual identity in an ever more self-assured
378 TESOL QUARTERLY

manner. In response to a question about how she was managing the
week-to-week demands of her coursework, she recalled a conversation
with another international student, Hani, who questioned whether she
could comprehend assigned texts on the same level as American stu-
dents: “Hani asked me, ‘Do you think the native speakers are like
much better than us in reading [academic books and articles]?’ I was
like, ‘I think they just know more words than us’” (October 30, 2012,
emphasis added). Linlin’s reply connotes a reversal of her previous
conflation of BICS and CALP. Moreover, she again used an us/they
dichotomy to reinforce her identification with other multilingual Eng-
lish users while emphasizing that her American peers’ classroom per-
formance was fueled by privilege rather than ability alone.
When I asked Linlin to name some examples of particularly relevant
or interesting content from her first year of coursework as a whole,
she referenced a chapter on language variation in her sociolinguistics
textbook:
Linlin: This week we came to a new chapter, language variation. And

everyone so excited about reading that chapter ’cause we can find
ourselves in the [examples]. ’Cause everyone talks different and we
were all happy to discuss that chapter.
Interviewer: OK. And did that chapter suggest anything that you could
actually do as a teacher?
L: Um, it doesn’t suggest anything but we got out from that thing is in school
you have to teach some kind of standard English but somehow you may tell
your students something about that accents.
(October 30, 2012)
Linlin’s measured answer could be interpreted as reflective of a con-
tinued belief in the supremacy of NS standards. In light of the vehe-
mence with which she had formerly disparaged CE, however, her mere
willingness to acknowledge localized varieties in her hypothetical
future teaching is suggestive of incremental movement toward an
inclusive disposition.
Linlin continued to recall significant classroom experiences during
that same interview, and she eventually turned her attention to Dr.
Roberts’s provocative comment, “Who cares about pronunciation?” As
previously established, the mounting tension between her entrenched
devotion to the NS ideal and her burgeoning advocacy for multilin-
guals and their English varieties came to a head in that moment. Lin-
lin twice inquired into the reasons for her attitudes during a fleeting
spell of intense contemplation (“Why I do that? Why I do that?”), but
a definite answer proved elusive during our conversation. Shortly

thereafter, contact between us became sporadic as the period of data
collection for the larger mixed-methods study concluded. Still, ques-
tions about the long-term ramifications of Linlin’s potentially critical
moment lingered in my mind, culminating in my decision to request a
follow-up interview nearly 2 years later.
Snapshot 6: “I Think My World Englishes Concept Changed

Me on That”
My e-mail correspondence with Linlin revealed that the course of
her life after completing the MA TESOL program had taken several
unanticipated turns. Her ambitions of attaining a prestigious English
instructor position at a Chinese university gradually faded as she mar-
ried an Indian American and then gave birth to a daughter in the fall
of 2014. She reported an intention to remain in the United States and
explore career options not limited to English teaching.
After eliciting details about Linlin’s life trajectory, I presented my
most essential question: “When we conducted our last interview, you
mentioned that you had started to think about why you previously
viewed China English negatively. What are your current thoughts
about China English and the more general concept of World Eng-
lishes?” Although the notion of pursuing a teaching career had been
reduced to a slight probability after once constituting Linlin’s primary
source of motivation, she could nonetheless identify a moment when
her study of the WE paradigm had influenced her perception of CE as
spoken by one individual:
One months ago, people laughed at MI (a Chinese cellphone brand)
CEO Mr. Lei Jun’s English when he had a brief presentation in India.
I watched the video and thought he was doing OK, but when I talked
with my friends (they are all Chinese people who married to people
from English speaking countries), most of them thought Mr. Lei Jun
should have practiced English more before he went to India. I think
my World Englishes concept changed me on that. (May 28, 2015)
Linlin explained that part of what provoked her friends’ scorn was a sim-
ple blunder on Lei’s part, in which he exclaimed, “I’m really happy to
be in China” instead of his actual location, India. The bulk of their
mockery, however, was directed at the phonological characteristics of his
speech, which they felt reflected very stereotypical deficiencies: “They
laughed at Lei’s strong Chinese accent. [They felt that] if you close your
eyes and listen to him for just 2 seconds, you know he is Chinese.”
Video excerpts of the presentation to which Linlin referred are avail-
able online (e.g., Tech in China, 2015). They demonstrate that Lei’s
380 TESOL QUARTERLY

utterances indeed exhibited what some might consider a pronounced
accent, while several of his syntactic constructions would be deemed
ungrammatical (e.g., “Do you like?”) or unconventional by NS stan-
dards, as when he used the expression “Are you OK?” rather than some-
thing like “How do you feel about that?” to gauge the crowd’s reaction
after announcing that everyone in attendance would receive a free prod-
uct. Yet the audience’s enthusiastic cheering appeared to signify that
they readily understood his words. Linlin was thus faced with a choice:
She could deride Lei’s English usage for its conspicuous nonstandard
attributes, as did the majority of her friends, or she could focus on the
communicative efficacy of his words in the given situation.
Crucially, Linlin fell on the side of inclusivity. Though the language
she used in approving Lei’s performance was muted (“I . . . thought
he was doing OK”), it signified a consummation of the attitudinal shift
that had been gestating since the early portions of her graduate stud-
ies and slowly eroding the (self-)subjugating ideologies that had gov-
erned her beliefs and viewpoints so extensively. The perspective Linlin
expressed might seem tame or mundane when contrasted with the
goals of emancipation and revolution often espoused in critical peda-
gogical literature, but it bears mentioning that many forms of social
progress have taken shape through the painstaking accrual of minor
changes in belief and action.
Additionally, I asked Linlin whether she had expressed her diver-
gent point of view to her friends, and she confirmed that she had,
albeit in a manner that avoided reenacting the curtly didactic demean-
or Dr. Roberts had adopted with her:
I didn’t want to lecture my friends just because I had a TESOL degree.
. . . I think I said “Well, you can’t expect [NS standards] from someone
who is an engineer, a CEO, and doesn’t [typically] need to speak Eng-
lish at work.” (May 28, 2015)
Through the deft use of nonconfrontational rhetoric, Linlin may have
opened spaces to question the appropriateness of native speech as a
universal norm. Her gesture of dissent, therefore, can be seen as a
small but distinct effort to intervene in the reproduction of inequality
within her sphere of influence.
To conclude our follow-up interview, I queried Linlin about
whether she would incorporate CE into lessons if she were to teach
Chinese English language learners in the future and, if so, what partic-
ular pedagogical functions it might serve. She replied that localized
varieties would not constitute the main focus of her teaching
approach. However, she intended to draw on resources such as
accounts of personal experience and film clips to illustrate the fluid
character of English as used in genuine interactions:

I will try to introduce [World Englishes] as a small portion in my class,
not only China English, but also other varieties. I will probably tell my
experiences and my friends’ who are in English speaking countries,
and video clips from dramas, to illustrate communications in the real
world out there. But it will only take about 10 minutes in every 90-min-
ute-long class. (May 28, 2015)
This was the only specific tactic Linlin mentioned, and she once again
adopted a position more practical than revolutionary. In her hypothetical
teaching scenario, she did not intend to depose NS standards from their
privileged position as primary targets of instruction, but she would regu-
larly supplement them with examples of various English varieties.
Although her pluralistic perspective appeared to be partially counter-
acted by her continued penchant for defining “English-speaking coun-
tries” as those inhabited by native speakers, Linlin’s strategy merits
respect for its acknowledgment of diversity. Moreover, it is closely attuned
to research demonstrating support among Chinese EFL students for the
teaching of select “well-codified and successfully promoted features of
China English” alongside NS norms (He & Zhang, 2010, p. 769).
DISCUSSION
The preceding snapshots illustrate how Linlin’s language attitudes

were bound up with her emotional understandings of significant life
experiences. Her adolescent infatuation with the speech contained in
U.S. films was compounded by resentment of Chinese EFL teacher col-
leagues during a previous period of employment, leading her to repu-
diate CE up to the onset of her MA studies. In the next 3 years, a
sense of alienation arising from studying alongside U.S. native speak-
ers and periodic contemplation of Dr. Roberts’s inciting remark ulti-
mately led her to defend an instance of CE use that others had
derided. Though often couched in tentative language, Linlin’s attitudi-
nal change was substantial. Her case raises numerous implications for
scholarly discussions surrounding teacher training in TESOL, each of
which is discussed in turn throughout the remainder of this section.
The Challenges of Promoting Linguistic Diversity in

Symbolically Prestigious TESOL Programs
The need to make TESOL programs more responsive to diverse

populations of novice scholar-practitioners is a long-established topic
of research (e.g., Chowdhury & Phan, 2014; Ilieva, 2010; Liu, 1998),
382 TESOL QUARTERLY

and there is a general consensus concerning the need to amend tradi-
tional, “top-down” paradigms of teacher education predicated on the
transmission of a “preselected and presequenced body of knowledge
from the teacher educator to the prospective teacher” (Kumaravadi-
velu, 2001, pp. 551–552). However, the particular issues that may arise
in symbolically prestigious programs seeking to promote linguistic
diversity are in need of further consideration. Details of Linlin’s case,
of course, will not apply to all international students. Yet, given the
clear preferences for NS varieties elicited in the above-cited large-scale
studies, it is reasonable to anticipate that some multilingual novices
will journey abroad for their training having internalized stigmatizing
attitudes toward localized Englishes, including or especially their own,
and carrying the expectation that their coursework will reconfirm their
conviction in the inherent superiority of NS pronunciation and usage
customs.
Because the attempted deconstruction and reappraisal of language
biases is likely to be an emotionally fraught process entailing a high
risk of resistance, critical teacher educators cannot fall into the trap of
assuming that the noble aims of their endeavors justify harsh provoca-
tions; interventions must be crafted thoughtfully and scaffolded over
time. Indeed, one can conclude that Linlin’s modest critical awaken-
ing was fortunate in light of certain circumstances of her graduate
education. Although one of Linlin’s instructors encouraged learners
to unpack NS myths of their own accord (Nuske, 2015), the moment
when Dr. Roberts bluntly negated her preexisting perspectives stood
out foremost in her memory. In an outcome similar to what Ilieva
(2010) cautioned against, this heavy-handed attempt to prescribe a lib-
eral stance provoked silent resistance and could have caused Linlin to
remain mired in largely uncritical worldviews if not for the subsequent
reflection she undertook through her participation in the present
study. Instead of inviting students to commence dialectical negotia-
tions between familiar and new conceptual understandings in order to
achieve internally persuasive discourses, such banking modes of educa-
tion can prompt “ventriloquation of Western discourses”—that is, the
forced or superficial embrace of concepts for the sake of pleasing the
instructor or obtaining a good grade (Ilieva, 2010, p. 363).
Fostering an Appreciation of Critical Approaches as Feasible,

Intercultural, and Negotiated
Great caution is needed to avoid reducing critical education to a
process of ideology reproduction wherein the instructor’s views are

fashioned as self-evident among enlightened or rigid universal truths
(Aukerman, 2012). Attempts at inscription can paradoxically reverse
critical pedagogy’s intended liberatory aims, in effect rendering critical
discourses oppressive to vulnerable populations and characterizing crit-
ical awareness as something altruistically bestowed by those in author-
ity (Ellsworth, 1989; Lin, 2004). Instructors who recognize that TESOL
courses populated by international students are “[sites] of cultural
struggle over preferred modes of learning and teaching” can pursue a
dialogic conception of criticality, which compels them to join learners
in opening their convictions to discussion and debate while inquiring
into the situational appropriateness of common critical imperatives
such as the support of diverse Englishes (Pennycook, 2001, p. 129).
This in turn can help to forestall the likelihood that students will auto-
matically reject critical pedagogical approaches because they are per-
ceived to clash with rules and restrictions in their home contexts.
Interactions of this type can be accompanied by careful examination
of how educational traditions, expectations of students and stakehold-
ers, and prominent sociopolitical issues in a given context facilitate or
frustrate the incorporation of WE into EFL curricula as well as what
solutions for circumventing prohibitions may lie within practitioners’
grasp.
Moreover, teacher educators can facilitate voluntary attitudinal
change not only by eliciting and analyzing the life experiences
through which seeming certainties have taken root but also by openly
admitting that international students often face greater adversities in
enacting the implicitly Western-centric versions of critical thought that
are predominant in the TESOL field (Jenkins, 2005; Nuske, 2015). By
actively working to clarify assumed cultural knowledge and counteract
the privileging of NS students who possess vocal and assertive demea-
nors, educators can nurture the perception that criticality is responsive
to diverse ways of knowing and being.
Blending the Pragmatic and Progressive to Reconcile

Contradictory Preferences
As established above, a body of conflicting viewpoints emerges from

large-scale survey research on Chinese teachers’ and learners’ opinions
regarding the suitability of WE as targets or media of EFL instruction.
At the core of this ambivalence is a lingering tension between contin-
ued allegiance to NS standards and nascent drives toward self-affirma-
tion, as reflected in students’ professed beliefs that discernible accents
were unobjectionable so long as they did not interfere with
384 TESOL QUARTERLY

communication and highly proficient CE speakers were more credible
role models than native speakers (He & Li, 2009; He & Zhang, 2010).
However, these inconsistent stances are unlikely to cohere into a clear
agenda for pedagogical reform if teachers continue to insist on main-
taining native targets for pronunciation more stringently than learners.
This disparity is possibly attributable to instructors’ lack of awareness
of the scope of diverse Englishes (Young & Walsh, 2010) or deficit-
oriented views of linguistic plurality, resulting in the belief that a WE
approach would be plagued by difficulties such as breakdowns in com-
munication (Ahn, 2015).
Because preservice and novice teachers will frame and guide the
learning of future generations, they are likely to play a decisive role in
either perpetuating the dominance of NS-centric modes of instruction
or gradually establishing WE as legitimate curricular components.
Teacher trainers could therefore encourage apprentices to follow Lin-
lin’s example in determining a practical yet forward-thinking method
in which NS varieties are not radically displaced from their position of
prominence but rather augmented with routine explorations of local-
ized Englishes through film clips, tales of personal experience, and
other formats likely to be considered authentic and enjoyable. Such
tactics could minimize initial resistance by meeting students’ expecta-
tions of studying codes that are viewed as prestigious while subtly chal-
lenging assumptions and laying the foundation for the development
of more tolerant and self-empowering outlooks in the long-term
(A. Matsuda, 2012). Linlin’s hypothetical approach also raises ques-
tions of balance. Just as de Dios Martinez Aguda (2017) advocated
directing novice teachers to contemplate the most judicious uses of L1
in the L2 classroom and what might constitute appropriate ratios of
L1 to L2 speech, apprentices could also benefit from reflecting on
what proportions of localized and standard Englishes would result in
the greatest benefits for their students.
In contexts where special efforts are needed to make largely
homogenous student populations appreciate the relevance of WE and
ELF, practitioners could implement a range of research and interac-
tion-based tasks, potentially including technology-mediated collabora-
tive projects with students who are speakers of other English varieties.
By providing a concrete context and purpose for transcultural commu-
nication, instructors might encourage students to transcend merely
abstract or shallow endorsements of equality and develop a firsthand
appreciation of how mutual understanding can be achieved through
negotiation and accommodation practices, such as adopting unfamiliar
usage customs. If access to such WE speakers is unavailable, another
potential option is to design interview or ethnographic fieldwork
assignments that require students to interact with individuals who do

not share their L1 (e.g., those in local immigrant communities). Even
if the resulting interactions make sparse use of English, learners may
still experience a mode of communication in which the degree of for-
mal “correctness” achieved is not necessarily as important as utilizing
ingenuity and flexibility to fulfill their objectives. Teachers can addi-
tionally invite students to compare their perspectives on pluralization
in their L1 and in English, an approach that could be beneficial for
Chinese learners in light of some evidence of tolerant attitudes toward
variation across Putonghua (e.g., Zhou, 2001).
Along the same lines, both EFL learners and apprentice EFL teachers
would benefit from questioning whether they have directly or subcon-
sciously accepted the proposition that certain WE varieties possess more
inherent value than others. Nevertheless, while developing the willing-
ness to validate marginalized codes is a significant step for practitioners,
it is not necessarily an endpoint for investigations of linguistic diversity;
rather, teacher trainers can encourage learners to interrogate the very
practice of demarcating Englishes with nation-based labels, which can
reify perceptions of innate difference or encourage the mere cataloging
of linguistic features rather than substantive inquiry into “how meaning
is construed or communicated in and across [English] varieties” and
“how language varies based on who is using it, for what purposes, with
what resources, and when” (Mahboob, 2017, p. 17).
Last, teachers and teacher educators can pose what is perhaps the
most provocative question of all by asking students to contemplate
whether multilingual normative principles of interaction should be
applied to exchanges with native speakers. In other words, learners
can work to decenter NS biases by considering whether the prevailing
belief that speakers of localized varieties are obliged to unfailingly
accommodate native speakers’ expectations is just, or whether natives
should likewise be expected to adapt to unfamiliar pronunciations,
grammatical constructions, and lexical items (Jenkins, 2000).
CONCLUSION: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE

RESEARCH
Scholars will doubtless continue to advance theories and terminolo-

gies designed to promote more thorough and respectful understand-
ings of multilinguals’ English varieties. Some will continue to conduct
large-scale studies aimed at codifying salient features of CE, whereas
others will problematize nationality-based schemes of categorization,
and still others will focus on eliciting teachers’ and students’ prefer-
ences regarding targets of English instruction. As this work proceeds,
386 TESOL QUARTERLY

it would behoove researchers to conduct further qualitative case stud-
ies on the factors informing new teachers’ attitudes toward CE as well
as the efficacy of overt instruction in modifying these. During such
inquiries, special attention could be placed on how teacher educators’
methods of positioning critical notions that are intended to be
empowering affect the extent to which their students come to
embrace and actualize critical ideas in personally meaningful ways.
Optimally, these inquiries would also investigate the extent to which
the teaching of WE scholarship motivates expressions of linguistic tol-
erance in settings beyond the classroom, where external rewards such
as grades or commendation from instructors are absent. These
research approaches could result in more comprehensive understand-
ings of how the inclusive aims articulated in WE scholarship are real-
ized, resisted, or reinvented by those performing the work of English
instruction.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank Ann Amicucci, David Hanauer, Gloria Park, Ryuko Kubota, and
the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on earlier versions of this
text.
THE AUTHOR
Kyle Nuske is a designated associate professor of English at Nagoya University. His

research interests include critical language teacher education and ideologies of
English in Japan.
REFERENCES
Ahn, H. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards Korean English in South Korea. World
Englishes, 33, 195–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12081
Ahn, H. (2015). Awareness of and attitudes to Asian Englishes: A study of English
teachers in South Korea. Asian Englishes, 17, 132–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13488678.2015.1036602
Aukerman, M. (2012). “Why do you say yes to Pedro but no to me?” Toward a crit-
ical literacy of dialogic engagement. Theory Into Practice, 51, 42–48. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00405841.2012.636335
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (G. Raymond & M. Adamson,
Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cahill, D. (2003). The myth of the turn in contrastive rhetoric. Written Communica-
tion, 20, 170–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088303020002003

Canagarajah, A. S. (2013). Negotiating translingual literacy: An enactment.
Research in the Teaching of English, 48, 40–67. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.
org/stable/24398646
Chowdhury, R., & Phan, L. H. (2014). Desiring TESOL and international education:
Market abuse and exploitation. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the dis-
tinction. In B. Street & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and
education, Volume 2: Literacy (2nd ed., pp. 71–83). New York: Springer Science +
Business Media LLC. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_36
de Dios Martinez Aguda, J. (2017). Non-native teachers’ code-switching in L2
classroom discourse. In deDios Martinez Aguda J. (Ed.), Native and non-native
teachers in English language classrooms: Professional challenges and teacher education
(pp. 75–98). Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Introduction. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lin-
coln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 1–44). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Derivry-Plard, M., & Griffin, C. c. Beyond symbolic violence in ELT in France. In
de Dios Martinez Aguda J. (Ed.), Native and non-native teachers in English lan-
guage classrooms: Professional challenges and teacher education (pp. 33–52). Boston,
MA: De Gruyter Mouton.
Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the
repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59, 297–324.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.59.3.058342114k266250
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social
accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. Modern Language
Journal, 91, 800–819. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00670.x
He, D., & Li, D. (2009). Language attitudes and linguistic features in the “China
English” debate. World Englishes, 28, 70–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
971X.2008.01570.x
He, D., & Zhang, Q. (2010). Native speaker norms and China English: From the
perspective of learners and teachers in China. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 769–789.
https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.235995
Ilieva, R. (2010). Non-native English speaking teachers’ negotiations of program
discourses in their construction of professional identities within a TESOL pro-
gram. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 343–349. https://doi.org/10.3138/
cmlr.66.3.343
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford, Eng-
land: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2005). Implementing an international approach to English pronuncia-
tion: The role of teacher attitudes and identity. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 535–543.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3588493
Jenkins, J. (2009). Exploring attitudes toward English as a lingua franca in the east
Asian context. In K. Murata & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Global Englishes in Asian contexts:
Current and future debates (pp. 40–56). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2011). A sociocultural theoretical perspective
on teacher professional development. In K. E. Johnson & P. R. Golombek
(Eds.), Research on second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on
professional development (pp. 1–12). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification, and sociolinguistic realism: The Eng-
lish language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. Widdowson (Eds.), English
in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11–30). Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
388 TESOL QUARTERLY

Kirkpatrick, A., & Zhichang, X. (2002). Chinese pragmatic norms and “China Eng-
lish.” World Englishes, 21, 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00247
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 45,
537–560. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588427
Lee, M., Schutz, P. A., & van Vlack, S. (2017). Non-native speaking teachers’ anxi-
eties and insecurities: Self-perceptions of their communicative limitations. In
de Dios Martinez Aguda J. (Ed.), Native and non-native teachers in English lan-
guage classrooms: Professional challenges and teacher education (pp. 119–138). Bos-
ton, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.
Levis, J., Sonsaat, S., & Link, S. (2017). Students’ beliefs about native vs. non-
native pronunciation teachers. In de Dios Martinez Aguda J. (Ed.), Native and
non-native teachers in English language classrooms: Professional challenges and teacher
education (pp. 205–238). Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.
Lin, A. M. Y. (2004). Introducing a critical pedagogical curriculum: A feminist
reflexive account. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and lan-
guage learning (pp. 271–290). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, D. (1998). Ethnocentrism in TESOL: Teacher education and the neglected
needs of international TESOL students. ELT Journal, 52, 3–10. https://doi.org/
10.1093/elt/52.1.3
Mahboob, A. (2017). Understanding language variation: Implications of the
NNEST lens for TESOL teacher education programs. In de Dios Martinez
Aguda J. (Ed.), Native and non-native teachers in English language classrooms: Profes-
sional challenges and teacher education (pp. 13–32). Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mou-
ton.
Matsuda, A. (2003). The ownership of English in Japanese secondary schools.
World Englishes, 22, 483–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2003.00314.x
Matsuda, A. (2012). Teaching materials in EIL. In L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu,
& W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as an interna-
tional language (pp. 168–185). New York, NY: Routledge.
Matsuda, P. K. (2014). The lure of translingual writing. PMLA, 129, 478–483.
https://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2014.129.3.478
McKay, S. L. (2003). Toward an appropriate EIL pedagogy: Re-examining com-
mon ELT assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1473-4192.00035
Murata, K., & Jenkins, J. (2009). Introduction: Global Englishes from global per-
spectives. In K. Murata & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Global Englishes in Asian contexts: Cur-
rent and future debates (pp. 1–16). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nuske, K. (2015). Transformation and stasis: Two case studies of critical teacher
education in TESOL. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 12(4), 283–312.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2015.1096734
Nuske, K. (2016). Novice practitioners’ views on the applicability of postmethod
and critical pedagogy in Saudi EFL contexts. In L. Buckingham (Ed.), Lan-
guage, identity and education on the Arabian Peninsula: Bilingual policies in a multi-
lingual context (pp. 199–219). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Park, G. (2012). “I am never afraid of being recognized as an NNES”: One
teacher’s journey in claiming and embracing her nonnative-speaker identity.
TESOL Quarterly, 46, 127–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.4
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pennycook, A. (2004). Critical moments in a TESOL praxicum. In B. Norton & K.
Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 327–346). Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Sridhar, S. N., & Sridhar, K. K. (1994). Indigenized Englishes as second languages:
Toward a functional theory of second language acquisition in multilingual
contexts. In R. K. Agnihotri & A. L. Khanna (Eds.), Second language acquisition:
Sociocultural and linguistic aspects of English in India (pp. 41–63). London,
England: Sage.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tech in China. (2015, April 26). Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun’s rare English speech on
Mi4i launching at New Delhi (雷军在印度). Retrieved from https://www.youtu
be.com/watch?v=rKT-169biQw
Young, T. J., & Walsh, S. (2010). Which English? Whose English? An investigation
of “non native” teachers’ beliefs about target varieties. Language, Culture and
Curriculum, 23, 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908311003797627
Zhichang, X. (2010). Chinese English: Features and implications. Hong Kong: Open
University of Hong Kong Press.
Zhou, M. (2001). The spread of Putonghua and language attitude changes in
Shanghai and Guangzhou, China. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 11,
231–253. https://doi.org/doi./10.1075/japc.11.2.07zho
390 TESOL QUARTERLY

TESOL Graduate Shifting Perceptions On China English

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

TESOL Graduate Shifting Perceptions On China English

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TESOL Graduate Shifting Perceptions On China English

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“I Mean I’m Kind of Discriminating

My Own People:” A Chinese TESOL

World Englishes has become a robust field of inquiry as scholars pur-

t is an early April afternoon, and I am speaking with Linlin,1 a

360 TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 52, No. 2, June 2018

“I MEAN I’M KIND OF DISCRIMINATING” 361

362 TESOL QUARTERLY

“I MEAN I’M KIND OF DISCRIMINATING” 363

364 TESOL QUARTERLY

Category Features Example(s)

Source: He & Li (2009).

“I MEAN I’M KIND OF DISCRIMINATING” 365

Teachers’ and Learners’ Attitudes Toward Localized Englishes

Research in this vein consistently demonstrates teachers’ and stu-

366 TESOL QUARTERLY

“I MEAN I’M KIND OF DISCRIMINATING” 367

368 TESOL QUARTERLY

Proposed Multilingual-Normative Teaching Approaches

Although pedagogical changes have seemingly been slow to take

“I MEAN I’M KIND OF DISCRIMINATING” 369

Intended Contributions of the Present Study

The primary ambition of the present research is to build on the

Data presented are drawn from a larger mixed-methods study on

370 TESOL QUARTERLY

“I MEAN I’M KIND OF DISCRIMINATING” 371

372 TESOL QUARTERLY

RESULTS: LINLIN’S LEARNING JOURNEY

Linlin’s formal English study began in junior high school. As in

“I MEAN I’M KIND OF DISCRIMINATING” 373

Interviewer: Did you enjoy English as a school subject?

Snapshot 2: “I Want More Money, I Want More Vacations”

These NS biases persisted throughout Linlin’s undergraduate stud-

374 TESOL QUARTERLY

“I MEAN I’M KIND OF DISCRIMINATING” 375

Snapshot 3: “Americans Know it. We Don’t.”

Interviewer: How have your classes been so far?

376 TESOL QUARTERLY

Interviewer: Can you give me an example of how [Americans are advantaged]?

Snapshot 4: “Maybe I Sound More Stupid. So I’m Getting

“I MEAN I’M KIND OF DISCRIMINATING” 377

Snapshot 5: “You May Tell Your Students Something About

378 TESOL QUARTERLY

Linlin: This week we came to a new chapter, language variation. And

“I MEAN I’M KIND OF DISCRIMINATING” 379

Snapshot 6: “I Think My World Englishes Concept Changed

380 TESOL QUARTERLY

“I MEAN I’M KIND OF DISCRIMINATING” 381

The preceding snapshots illustrate how Linlin’s language attitudes

The Challenges of Promoting Linguistic Diversity in

The need to make TESOL programs more responsive to diverse

382 TESOL QUARTERLY

Fostering an Appreciation of Critical Approaches as Feasible,

“I MEAN I’M KIND OF DISCRIMINATING” 383

Blending the Pragmatic and Progressive to Reconcile

As established above, a body of conflicting viewpoints emerges from

384 TESOL QUARTERLY

“I MEAN I’M KIND OF DISCRIMINATING” 385

CONCLUSION: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE