This article was downloaded by: [Colorado State University]

On: 04 September 2014, At: 02:34

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Multilingual and

Multicultural Development
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

Language identity among Iranian

English language learners: a nationwide
survey
a b c
Saeed Rezaei , Mohammad Khatib & Sasan Baleghizadeh
a
Languages and Linguistics Department, Sharif University of
Technology, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
b
English Department, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran,
Islamic Republic of Iran
c
Department of English Language and Literature, Shahid Beheshti
University (G.C.), Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Published online: 24 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Saeed Rezaei, Mohammad Khatib & Sasan Baleghizadeh (2014) Language
identity among Iranian English language learners: a nationwide survey, Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 35:5, 527-536, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2014.889140

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2014.889140

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Colorado State University] at 02:34 04 September 2014
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2014
Vol. 35, No. 5, 527–536, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2014.889140

Language identity among Iranian English language learners: a

nationwide survey
Saeed Rezaeia*, Mohammad Khatibb and Sasan Baleghizadehc
a
Languages and Linguistics Department, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Islamic Republic
of Iran; bEnglish Department, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran;
c
Department of English Language and Literature, Shahid Beheshti University (G.C.), Tehran,
Downloaded by [Colorado State University] at 02:34 04 September 2014

Islamic Republic of Iran

(Received 1 May 2013; accepted 25 January 2014)

The present study is a nationwide survey of language identity among English language
learners in Iran. The participants who completed the survey in this research included
1851 English language learners from different parts of the country who belonged to
different genders, age groups and English language proficiency levels. The main
instrument was a validated questionnaire which included 19 items and was
administered online and by hand. The results of this survey revealed that Iranian
English language learners had a moderate level of language identity and there was no
significant difference between the language identity of male and female participants.
In addition, the results indicated that there were significant differences in the language
identity of participants across different age groups (teenagers and adults) and language
proficiency levels (low- and high-proficiency learners). Finally, the results showed that
73.3% of the participants preferred American English, followed by British English
(23.6%), Persian English (1.6%), Canadian English (1.2%) and Australian English
(0.3%) as their favourite varieties of English.
Keywords: language identity; English language learners; survey; Iran

Introduction
Language and identity are two inseparable concepts meaning that the language we use
reveals our identity and our language in turn forms our identity. The inseparability of
language and identity is long established in the literature (Djité 2006), and based on
Block (2007), language identity is understood as the assumed and/or attributed relation-
ship between one’s sense of self and a means of communication which might be known
as a language (e.g. English), a dialect (e.g. Geordie) or a sociolect (e.g. football speak).
Joseph (2004) in his book Language and Identity clearly delineates the relation
between these two concepts. He shows how people’s identity can be determined through
the language they speak. An example is hearing two different individuals saying:

A: Shut up
B: Please be quiet

*Corresponding author. Email: srezaei@sharif.edu

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

 528 S. Rezaei et al.

Although these two sentences can have similar perlocutionary effects, they differ in the
meaning they connote. If we do not know about the gender of these two speakers, we
might say that the first speaker is rude and of lower social status, and the second speaker
could be a polite individual and probably a woman! That is one way to identify these
individuals through the language they use. If we see these two individuals and look at the
way they are dressed, we could probably better guess about their identity. But for now, it
is the language that can be revealing about people’s identity.
In this study, language is defined within the broad sociocultural scope rather than
merely focusing on grammar and vocabulary. Language in this sense is a political tool
for the people of one tribe, community or country to salute to or use as a means of
communication. Hence, people speaking one language have a sense of belonging to one
whole and are affiliated with each other. Subsequently, language can be the main tool for
Downloaded by [Colorado State University] at 02:34 04 September 2014

people’s identification to factor others out as a stranger.

On the other hand, language identity is an important element in the integrity, solidarity
and independence of countries. According to Rajagopalan (2001), the idea of nationhood
and language was given due recognition based on the favourite slogan of one nation, one
people, one language. History shows how language has often been the main instrument for
political independence and national identity for newly developed countries such as
Bangladesh when separated from Pakistan in 1971. To fulfil such a purpose, language
became one of the main means to distinguish Bangladesh from Pakistan. Bengali became
the language of the country and hence the tool for identity of that nation since 1971 and
henceforth language identity became a decisive point for the people in Bangladesh.
Another telling example is the case of East Timor, formerly colonised by Portugal and
known as Portuguese Timor before Portugal’s decolonization and the invasion by
Indonesia in 1975 (Rajagopalan 2001). Timor was declared as the first sovereign state in
the twentieth century; one of the main tools they used to distinguish themselves from
Indonesia was the Portuguese language spoken by the majority of the population.
One more interesting example for the place of language in identification is related to
the refugee claimants in Australia coming from the Hazara minority in Afghanistan
(McNamara 2005) who were interviewed before being given their Permanent Residency
(PR). Their interviews were taped and sent to language experts to be examined if they
truly were Hazaras or from other similar language minorities in Pakistan, faking their
language and national identity. In this example, some refugees tried to fake their language
identity to obtain PR in Australia.
In Iran, similarly, in spite of several minority languages such as Turkish (Azari) and
Kurdish among many other distinct languages and dialects, Persian is still the national
language. In fact, Persian is the language that the majority of Iranians affiliate themselves
with in order to be recognised as Iranians. It should however be noted here that some
researchers (Bugarski 2012) differentiate linguistic identity from language identity, with
the former referring to the language people use in a community with which they are
associated, and the latter referring to the identity of the language itself, i.e. whether a
language like English is related to one language or a myriad of languages.
Although sociolinguistic issues in Iran have been investigated from various aspects
including the sociolinguistics of Persian and identity in diaspora (e.g. Modarresi 2001;
Mostofi, 2003; Namei 2008), English in post-revolutionary Iran (Borjian 2013), language
planning in Iran (Hayati and Mashhadi 2010), forms of address in post-revolutionary Iran
(Keshavarz 1988) and Iranian women gender identity in diaspora (Jamarani 2012a,
2012b), there has been little research within Iran on language identity. This study
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 529

investigated language identity in Iranian English language learners. In order to reach this
general purpose, the following research questions were formulated:

(1) What is the degree of Iranian English language learners’ language identity
measured through the language identity questionnaire? Is that low, moderate
or high?
(2) Are there any significant differences between Iranian English language learners’
language identity and their demographic characteristics including their gender,
age and English language proficiency level?
(3) What variety of English do Iranian English language learners favour more:
American/British/Canadian/Australian English, or do they favour a local
pronunciation pattern (i.e. Persian English)?
Downloaded by [Colorado State University] at 02:34 04 September 2014

Language identity in this study is mainly informed by the way people identify each other
through the language they speak or the dialect or accent they converse in. To put it in an
elliptical and gnomic statement, language identity in this study constitutes six components
of attachment to the Persian language, pronunciation attitude, language and social
status, L1 use/exposure in the society, language knowledge and finally script/alphabet
and is operationalised through a model and actualised in a survey instrument as reported
in Khatib and Rezaei (2013b).

Nationwide survey
Participants
For the nationwide survey, a combination of stratified random sampling and cluster
sampling was employed. The provinces/regions (i.e. east, west, north and south of Iran)
were selected as the strata; and the schools, institutes and universities were selected as the
cluster. Since this study was to unravel English language learners’ language identity in
the whole country, sampling the best representative group was a decisive factor. The
participants for the nationwide survey were 1851 Iranian EFL learners holding different
academic degrees, from different age groups, genders, language proficiency levels,
language schools and colleges, and cities. The reason for doing so was to accomplish
diversity and hence generalizability for the findings.
The participants from Tehran made up 41.3% of the total participants. The
participants from the northern provinces were from Mazandaran (6.5%), Gilan (1%)
and Golestan (1%); from the southern provinces from Bushehr (3.3%), Fars (2.5%),
Khuzestan (1.5%), Kohkiluyeh-va-Buyer-Ahmad (0.8%) and Hormozgan (0.6%);
from central Iran from Alborz (6.7%), Chahar-Mahal-va-Bakhtiari (5.2%), Kerman
(4.4%), Esfahan (4.2%), Yazd (2.7%), Qom (0.4%) and Markazi (0.2%); participants
from western Iran were from Eastern Azarbaijan (2.5%), Zanjan (2.3%), Hamedan
(1.9%), Kurdistan (1.7%), Western Azarbaijan (1%), Ghazvin (0.4%), Kermanshah
(0.2%) and Ardabil (0.2%); and finally, the participants from eastern Iran were from
Southern Khorasan (4.2%), Razavi Khorasan (3.1%), and Sistan and Baluchestan (0.2%).
The descriptive statistics (frequency and percentage) for age, gender and English
language proficiency level of the participants are shown in Table 1. Language proficiency
in this study was self-rated by the respondents based on their level of English language
proficiency at their institutes, schools or universities. Language proficiency at first was
grouped into basic, elementary, pre-intermediate, intermediate, high intermediate and
advanced; however, it was later changed into low proficiency (basic, elementary and pre-
 530 S. Rezaei et al.

Table 1. Frequency of age, gender and proficiency level.

Gender frequency Proficiency level frequency

Low High
Age frequency Male Female proficiency proficiency

Teenagers (11–20) 470 (25.4%) 218 252 209 261

Adults (20+) 1381 (74.6%) 680 701 222 1159
Total % 1851 (100%) 898 (48.5%) 953 (51.5%) 431 (23.4%) 1420 (76.6%)

intermediate) and high proficiency (intermediate, high intermediate and advanced) to ease
analyses and reports. In the same spirit, age was initially categorised into 11–15, 16–20, 21–
25 and 25+ groups but was later changed into teenage group (11–20) and adults (20+).
Downloaded by [Colorado State University] at 02:34 04 September 2014

As Table 1 indicates, the participants from the adult group form the majority of
participants (74.6%) with the teenage group forming only 25.4% of the total participants.
In addition, this table shows that there are more female participants than males with a
ratio of 1.06 among whom 48.5% are male and 51.5% are female. Furthermore, as
presented in this table, high- and low-proficiency English language learners form 76.6%
and 23.4% of the participants, respectively.
Table 2 also presents the mean and standard deviation for each of the items in the
questionnaire based on the responses received from the participants.

Language Identity Questionnaire1

The language identity questionnaire in this study included 19 items and was taken from
Khatib and Rezaei (2013b). The questionnaire was validated through exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis and its reliability was estimated to be 0.73 which is an
acceptable degree (for a complete description of the procedure to develop and validate
this questionnaire see Khatib and Rezaei 2013b).

Data collection and analysis

In order to collect the data in this study, the questionnaire was administered throughout
Iran and filled out by English language learners either online (almost 80%) or by hand
(almost 20%) in their classes at institutes, schools or universities. The online version of
the questionnaire was uploaded on surveymonkey.2 After the data were collected, they
were imported into SPSS for analysis.

Research question one: results and discussion

In order to answer the first research question, the scores obtained from the language
identity questionnaire were computed. The scales in the questionnaire were ranked
from 1 to 6 with strongly disagree at one end of the scale receiving 1 point and strongly
agree at the other end receiving 6 points. Thereupon, each respondent received a total
score from the whole questionnaire which fluctuated between 19 as the minimum score
and 114 as the maximum score.
In order to specify the cut-off points for the low, moderate and high groups, the scores
should be categorised in a statistically appropriate way. In order to do so, the mean and
standard deviation were computed. The scores falling one standard deviation above and
below the mean were considered as the high and low scores, respectively. And finally, the
Downloaded by [Colorado State University] at 02:34 04 September 2014

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

Table 2. Mean and standard deviation for each item in the questionnaire.

Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Mean 3.81 3.02 4.40 1.71 1.89 3.75 5.20 3.73 5.20 3.73 4.23 3.32 4.14 4.26 3.51 4.15 2.63 3.98 3.04
SD 1.60 1.60 1.62 0.91 1.08 1.73 1.07 1.93 1.42 1.55 1.49 1.38 1.71 1.44 1.17 1.15 1.21 1.04 2.05

531
 532 S. Rezaei et al.

scores between these two belonged to the moderate zone. The results of the questionnaire
administration to 1851 Iranian English language learners across the country indicated that
the mean score and the standard deviation obtained were 54.7 and 15.8, respectively.
Subsequently, the scores between 38.9 and 70.5 were considered to be moderate
and the scores below 38.9 and above 70.5 showed low and high language identity,
respectively. To interpret the scores obtained from the questionnaire, the higher the scores
were, the more the participants felt attached to their first language, i.e. in this study
Persian language identity. Before running the computation in SPSS, some of the items
were reverse-coded because they were negatively keyed items.
Hence, in response to the first research question, the results of the survey showed that
this group of participants exhibited a moderate level of language identity. More specif-
ically, of all the participants in this study, 7.9% belonged to the high language identity
Downloaded by [Colorado State University] at 02:34 04 September 2014

group and 23.8% and 68.3% belonged to the low and moderate language identity groups,
respectively.
This finding is comparable with Davari-Ardakani and Mostafa’s (2011) results which
found that among the Kurd participants of their study, 5.7% had a positive attitude
towards Persian, 65.3% had an average attitude and 29% had a negative attitude. This
negative attitude towards Persian is related to how Kurdish native speakers view Persian
in comparison to Kurdish language. However, in our study Persian was compared to
English and a relatively fewer number of participants were from Kurdish L1 background.
In Davari-Ardakani and Mostafa, 93.6% were Kurdish native speakers, 5.4% Persian
native speakers and 1.9% of the participants were from other L1 backgrounds.
Although Chaichian (1997) investigated identity in diaspora among Iranian immi-
grants in Iowa, the findings of our study also corroborate the findings of Chaichian’s
study in that English language learners in Iran still have a strong sense of attachment to
their language, as Chaichian found in Iowa. In addition, Schumann (cited in Hoffman
1989) narrates her own experience in Iran and how Iranians tried to speak English before
the 1979 Revolution to show a high social status even among their own Persian fellows.
Hoffman (1989) also argues how Iranians in the USA conversed in English even with
their own fellow countrymen in order to avoid formalities and politeness strategies in
Persian, and as a way not to stand out among Americans. Interestingly now, this mentality
has changed dramatically and as Hoffman further argues based on her interviews with
Iranians in Los Angeles, she realises how some families who resisted sending their
children to Persian schools now feel regretful about it.

Research question two: results and discussion

The second research question was transformed into three separate null hypotheses:

. Null hypothesis one: There is no significant difference between male and female
participants and their language identity level.
. Null hypothesis two: There is no significant difference between Iranian English
language learners’ language identity level and their age.
. Null hypothesis three: There is no significant difference between Iranian English
language learners’ language identity level and their English language proficiency
level.

In order to test the first null hypothesis, a t-test was run to compare the scores obtained
from the male and female groups and to see which group possessed a higher language
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 533

identity as measured through the questionnaire in this study. The descriptive statistics
(including the frequency of the participants and the mean) showed that the mean for the
female group was higher than the male group; nevertheless, an independent t-test was
run and the result was t(1851) = 0.36, p > 0.05 showing that there was no significant
difference between the language identity of male and female participants in this study.
Therefore, it can be concluded that Iranian male and female English language learners do
not differ in their language identity. They exhibit similar levels of language identity in
Iran in spite of their exposure to English language in their lives.
In order to test the second null hypothesis, another t-test was run to compare the
language identity of the teenage group with the adult one. The result was t(1851) = 0.84,
p = 0.00 showing that the null hypothesis is rejected and it can be concluded that there are
significant differences between the language identity of the participants from these two
Downloaded by [Colorado State University] at 02:34 04 September 2014

age groups.
In order to test the third null hypothesis, the language identity of the low- and high-
proficiency learners was compared. The result of the t-test was t(1851) = 0.76, p = 0.00
indicating that the null hypothesis is rejected and there are significant differences between
the language identity of the learners from the low- and high-proficiency levels.
Davari-Ardakani (2006) found that there were no significant relationships among
attitude to the Persian language, gender, birthplace, mother tongue, more than six month
stay abroad, knowing multiple languages and length of residence in Tehran. In spite of
the fact that Davari-Ardakani’s study suffers from some research methodological
deficiencies – she did not utilise validated instruments in her study – and the fact that
her research approach is somehow different from our research – she focused mainly on
Persian and the language policy issues related to that – her findings and work on language
policy, language attitudes and language awareness in Iran has been very helpful.

Research question three: results and discussion

Part of the questionnaire provided an item inquiring what type of English the participants
favour. The participants ticked their favourite pronunciation among the five options of
American English, British English, Canadian English, Australian English or English with
a Persian accent. The majority of the participants (73.3%) selected American English as
their favourite pronunciation type followed by British English (23.6%), Persian English
(1.6%), Canadian English (1.2%) and Australian English (0.3%). The reasons why
Australian and Canadian Englishes were not as favourable as Persian English could be
related to their being less known in the Iranian context; however, this should not make
these two varieties of English as non-acceptable in Iran.
According to He and Zhang (2010), the participants of their study who were 1030
non-English students and teachers from four different parts of China accepted that using
China English in pronunciation is fine as far as the message is intelligible which can be
comparable with the findings in the current study.
With the rise of the World Englishes concept in the literature, it is of utmost
importance from the sociolinguistic perspective to perceive which variety of English is
better accepted in the world. In other words, sociolinguists have attempted to predict the
future of English through language attitude studies. Within the Iranian context, a good
reason for probing this issue was to grasp the stance of English varieties in Iran as an
important and large country in the Middle East. In addition, it was intended to foresee
whether Persian English as a potential variety of English can be welcomed in the Iranian
EFL context. Persian English in this study refers to a specific type of English when
 534 S. Rezaei et al.

learners prefer to use Persian pronunciation patterns in their speaking. In other words,
learners are not necessarily cherishing any dominant English pronunciation patterns such
as American, British, Canadian or Australian English.
With the introduction of World Englishes promoted by Kachru (1986), researchers are
more alert to predict the future of English and the approval or disapproval of local
Englishes. Understanding the status of English either as a local variety or an international
one can help us conceptualise a better model of English language for our educational
system too. Based on the findings of this research, Iranian context cannot yet welcome
local English and the educational system should be still based on the Inner Circle Model
of English. However, future directions can shape the status of English in Iran and
probably a new understanding of English language will emerge.
Downloaded by [Colorado State University] at 02:34 04 September 2014

Conclusion
Identity has been explored and researched extensively across the globe. However, what
distinguishes these studies is the way each researcher has probed identity. Methodological
tools, methods, designs and research questions vary from one study to another. This
can also be a point of distinction in the current study. Depending on the research
philosophies, various research methods, designs and tools are also utilised to research
identity (Rezaei 2012) which could be interpreted based on their philosophical stands.
The results of this nationwide survey showed that English language learners
possessed a moderate level of language identity. The results also indicated that there
was no difference between the language identity of male and female participants in this
study but age and English language proficiency were influential in the language identity
of these participants.
The results of this study can be helpful on a number of grounds; first and foremost to
shed light on a number of issues related to language identity of Iranian English language
learners. In addition, the results can show whether English language has affected Iranian
English language learners’ perception of their own first language. The attitudes of English
language learners can inform us about the status of Persian in Iran, and Iranians’ level of
language awareness.
Although questionnaires have been used scantly in research on identity (e.g. Ehala
2012; Lee 2003), they have not received enough attention for researching sociolinguistic
issues in Iran due to the lack of validated instruments. On the other hand, as Lee (2003)
argues, identity research has been mostly done in Inner Circle countries like Britain. More
studies are needed to be done in the Expanding Circle countries, on i.e. EFL contexts.
Finally, an understanding of our language learners’ identity can help our language
teachers, materials developers, teacher trainers and others involved in language education
to make judicious decisions for the betterment of the language education system. The
findings of this study can better show us how English among many other possible factors
has affected English language learners’ language identity in Iran.
Regarding the limitations and delimitations of this study, an issue sitting high on the
agenda is related to the use of questionnaires in identity research. Pavlenko (2002)
criticises surveys and questionnaires for researching identity and instead suggests
ethnographic longitudinal research as an alternative. We cannot agree more that
ethnographic studies can give detailed accounts of identity in context, but the potential
problems in ethnographic research, such as their being time-consuming, costly and less
generalizable, should not be neglected (Rezaei 2012). Professional and academic acts
were executed to develop a reliable questionnaire for the survey in this study; however,
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 535

we strongly suggest that future users of this questionnaire should pilot it once more
before administration.
There are many studies focusing on language attitude, and they have approached
the subject through various methodological tools including questionnaires, interviews,
matched-guise tests and ethnography. Studies also exist about different languages and
different English accented types including Spanish-based accented English (Brennan and
Brennan 1981). Though the dominant approach to researching attitude in language is that
of questionnaires and interviewing, these tools cannot give an in-depth and authentic
view of language attitude in individuals. Language attitude can also be captured through
ethnographic research where people are recorded in their actions and behaviours rather
than their views (see Khatib and Rezaei 2013a; Ladegaard 2000).
On the other hand, this study was situated and contextualised in Iran. Due to the
Downloaded by [Colorado State University] at 02:34 04 September 2014

exploratory nature of this study and its being primarily contextualised, the generalizability
is limited to the Iranian context. Researchers working on identity strongly suggest that
identity research can hardly be conducted based on a pre-established questionnaire in
different contexts. That is why we do not suggest the use of this questionnaire without
further piloting and localisation.
Moreover, the participants were selected from different provinces and cities in Iran to
gather more data with more heterogeneity, but still the data may not be truly
representative of the whole population of language learners in Iran. This could be
levelled against any other studies because absolute representativeness can never be
achieved in reality. Future research can focus on a particular research site (e.g. a city) for
more in-depth investigation.

Notes
1. This questionnaire is available upon request.
2. The survey was available at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FB3GZNT

References
Block, D. 2007. Second Language Identities. London: Continuum.
Borjian, M. 2013. English in Post-Revolutionary Iran: From Indigenization to Internationalization.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Brennan, E. M., and J. S. Brennan. 1981. “Measurements of Accent and Attitude toward Mexican-
American Speech.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 10 (5): 487–501. doi:10.1007/
BF01076735.
Bugarski, R. 2012. “Language, Identity and Borders in the Former Serbo-Croatian Area.” Journal
of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33 (3): 219–235. doi:10.1080/01434632.2012.
663376.
Chaichian, M. A. 1997. “First Generation Iranian Immigrants and the Question of Cultural Identity:
The Case of Iowa.” International Migration Review 31 (3): 612–627. doi:10.2307/2547288.
Davari-Ardakani, N. 2006. “Barnāmah-rizi zabān va hūšyāri zabāni: Bā negāhi be Iran.” [Language
Policy and Language Awareness: A Look on Iran]. PhD diss., University of Tehran.
Davari-Ardakani, N., and T. Mostafa. 2011. “Barresi-e negareš-hāye zabāni va jāygāh-e do zabān- e
Fārsi va Kurdi dar hoviat-e meli.” [Investigating Language Attitudes and the Place of Persian
and Kurdish Language in National Identity]. Iran Nameh 26 (1, 2): 209–222.
Djité, P. G. 2006. “Shifts in Linguistic Identities in a Global World.” Language Problems &
Language Planning 30 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1075/lplp.30.1.02dji.
Ehala, M. 2012. “Cultural Values Predicting Acculturation Orientations: Operationalizing a
Quantitative Measure.” Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 11 (3): 185–199.
doi:10.1080/15348458.2012.686388.
Hayati, A. M., and A. Mashhadi. 2010. “Language Planning and Language-in-Education Policy in
Iran.” Language Problems & Language Planning 34 (1): 24–42. doi:10.1075/lplp.34.1.02hay.
 536 S. Rezaei et al.

He, D., and Q. Zhang. 2010. “Native Speaker Norms and China English: From the Perspective of
Learners and Teachers in China.” TESOL Quarterly 44 (4): 769–789. doi:10.5054/tq.2010.
235995.
Hoffman, D. M. 1989. “Language and Culture Acquisition among Iranians in the United States.”
Anthropology & Education Quarterly 20 (2): 118–132. doi:10.1525/aeq.1989.20.2.05x0843k.
Jamarani, M. 2012a. “Encountering Differences: Iranian Immigrant Women in Australia.” In
Feminism and Migration: Cross-cultural Engagements, edited by G. T. Bonifacio, 149–164.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Jamarani, M. 2012b. Identity, Language, and Culture in Diaspora: A Study of Iranian Female
Migrants to Australia. Melbourne: Monash University.
Joseph, J. 2004. Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Kachru, B. 1986. The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions, and Models of Non-Native
Englishes. New York: Pergamon Institute of English.
Keshavarz, M. H. 1988. “Forms of Address in Post-Revolutionary Iranian Persian: A Socio-
Downloaded by [Colorado State University] at 02:34 04 September 2014

linguistic Analysis.” Language in Society 17 (4): 565–575. doi:10.1017/S0047404500013105.

Khatib, M., and S. Rezaei. 2013a. “The Portrait of an Iranian as an English Language Learner: A
Case of Identity Reconstruction.” International Journal of Research Studies in Language
Learning 2 (3): 81–93. doi:10.5861/ijrsll.2012.176.
Khatib, M., and S. Rezaei. 2013b. “A Model and Questionnaire of Language Identity in Iran: A
Structural Equation Modeling Approach.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Develop-
ment 34 (7): 690–708. doi:10.1080/01434632.2013.796958.
Ladegaard, H. J. 2000. “Language Attitudes and Sociolinguistic Behaviour: Exploring Attitude-
Behaviour Relations in Language.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 4 (2): 214–233. doi:10.1111/
1467-9481.00112.
Lee, S. K. 2003. “Multiple Identities in a Multicultural World: A Malaysian Perspective.” Journal
of Language, Identity, and Education 2 (3): 137–158. doi:10.1207/S15327701JLIE0203_1.
McNamara, T. 2005. “21st Century Shibboleth: Language Tests, Identity and Intergroup Conflict.”
Language Policy 4 (4): 351–370. doi:10.1007/s10993-005-2886-0.
Modarresi, Y. 2001. “The Iranian Community in the United States and the Maintenance of Persian.”
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 148: 93–116. doi:10.1515/ijsl.2001.017.
Mostofi, N. 2003. “Who We Are: The Perplexity of Iranian-American Identity.” The Sociological
Quarterly 44 (4): 681–703. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2003.tb00531.x.
Namei, S. 2008. “Language Choice among Iranians in Sweden.” Journal ofMultilingual and
Multicultural Development 29 (5): 419–437. doi:10.1080/01434630802147924.
Pavlenko, A. 2002. “Poststructuralist Approaches to the Study of Social Factors in Second
Language Learning and Use.” In Portraits of the L2 User, edited by V. Cook, 277–302.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Rajagopalan, K. 2001. “The Politics of Language and the Concept of Linguistic Identity.” Revista
de Filologia y su Didactica 24: 17–28.
Rezaei, S. 2012. “Researching Identity in Applied Linguistics.” Journal of Language, Culture and
Society 35: 45–51.