Joflinguisticanthropology 2007

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/230527013
Language Choice as a Means of Shaping Identity
Article in Journal of Linguistic Anthropology · June 2008

DOI: 10.1525/jlin.2007.17.1.105
CITATIONS READS
50 3,669
1 author:
Janet M Fuller
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
29 PUBLICATIONS 660 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Janet M Fuller on 04 August 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 105
■ Janet M. Fuller
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY AT CARBONDALE
Language Choice as a Means

of Shaping Identity
In this study of four Mexican-American fourth grade children in a Spanish–English
bilingual classroom, language choice is shown to be a mechanism for constructing social
identity. While all four children use both English and Spanish to perform their identi-
ties, the diversity of their social identities leads them to use the same linguistic resources
in a variety of ways. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses show how specific lan-
guage choices may be tied to societal norms to index pre-existing identity categories,
most saliently ethnicity and nationality; yet frequently specific language choices are
used to construct identities in which gender, friendship ties, and classroom roles are focal
aspects. [language choice, code-switching, identity, gender, classroom roles]
Introduction
T
his article addresses the question of how language choice is used to express and
negotiate identity. The approach taken here is that although the social address
of a speaker (i.e., ethnicity, sex, age, etc.) influences the experiences which
shape identity, social identity is not something which is determined by these factors,
but rather something which is constructed through discourse (LePage and Tabouret-
Keller 1985; Blackledge and Pavlenko 2001). Further, the construction of identity
varies situationally as the salient aspects of interlocutors’ identities change across
interactions.
In these data, I look at the language use of four fourth graders in a combined
fourth/fifth/sixth grade bilingual classroom containing 13 Mexican-American chil-
dren. I will show that while the children in this classroom explicitly define them-
selves as an ethnic/national group set apart from the students in mainstream
(monolingual) classrooms at their school, they also use language choice to differen-
tiate among themselves and construct nuanced individual identities.
In the following sections, a framework for identifying language choice and code-
switching will be introduced, and research on language and identity which informs
this analysis will be discussed. The following section contains background informa-
tion and a review of relevant literature about the children’s construction of their
identities in terms of ethnicity/nationality, gender, student role and language profi-
ciency. The subsequent sections present the research setting and analysis.
Language Choice and Code-switching

Because the term code-switching is used with many different meanings in the litera-
ture on bilingual discourse, a discussion of how this concept is operationalized in
this research is warranted. The main focus of this research is on changes in language
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, Vol. 17, Issue 1, pp. 105–129, ISSN 1055-1360, EISSN 1548-1395. © 2007
by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. Direct requests for permission to pho-
tocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions
website, http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintInfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/jlin.2007.17.1.105.
105
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 106
106 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology
choice across speaker turns, for example, when speaker A speaks Spanish and
speaker B responds in English. This type of language alternation is the most frequent
type of code-switching in these data.
In addition, however, there is some code-switching within a single speaker’s turn,
both inter-sentential and intra-sentential. Yet only 8/412 (1.9%) of the turns in the
quantitatively analyzed interaction (X412) contained lexical material from both lan-
guages. Because of the relatively minor occurrence of intra-turn code-switching, and
the many issues involved in the analysis of such data, utterances which contained
lexical elements of both languages were excluded from the quantitative analysis.
Thus, issues such as the distinction between code-switching and borrowing, and the
distinction between inclusion of elements on the lexical level versus morphological,
syntactic or phonological levels will not be addressed in this article.
Language and Identity

Social identity is defined as the socially constructed membership in a social group or
category (Kroskrity 2000a). While groups and categories themselves are often pre-
existent (e.g., national identification such as “Mexican,” or social categories such as
“jocks” and “burnouts,” as discussed by Eckert 1989), an individual’s memberships
are socially constructed through their own (and others’) language and social behav-
ior. This article focuses on linguistic means of identity construction.
In a recent discussion of research in the field of language and identity, Mendoza-
Denton (2002:249) discusses several approaches, among them what she terms practice-
based variation. This approach, which employs ethnographic and discourse analytic
methods, is the one used in this article. According to Mendoza-Denton, such studies
“track the shifting identities of speakers as interaction progresses, affording re-
searchers a closer look at the micro-dynamics of indexicality in variation as well [as]
processes of performance, achievement, and construction of identity” (2002:489).
Identity emerges within the interaction, although the linguistic means to construct
identity are linked to the real and perceived speech of individuals and members of
certain groups. All identities, including ethnic identity, are negotiable and variable,
and there is no one-to-one correspondence between language and ethnic or national
identity.
Integral to the study of identities within this framework is the idea that individu-
als may adopt multiple positions, and that these different aspects of identity may be
salient in different interactions, or even concurrently. Studies of bilingual communi-
ties have shown that language choice is often a key aspect in such identity construc-
tion. Bailey (2001) has illustrated this particularly well with data from Dominican
Americans, who use Dominican Spanish, African American Vernacular English, and
other local varieties of English to enact identities which are distinct from both
African Americans and European Americans. Further, variable use of these three
codes also allows them to make distinctions within Dominican American circles and
to vary their alignment situationally.
One aspect of identity negotiation in a multilingual community is the status of a
given code as majority or minority language in a particular society (Blackledge and
Pavlenko 2001). The symbolic associations and socio-pragmatic meanings of a certain
code choice may vary across communities of practice, as well as within them, but such
macro factors are nonetheless present in the context of the interaction. In the setting
for my study (see details below), the status of English as the language of the wider
community and mainstream education, and Spanish as a minority language spoken
primarily by members of a particular ethnic group in ingroup settings are critical
aspects in the negotiation of identity. This does not mean that English is de facto the
language of authority or prestige, or that Spanish use necessarily indexes solidarity;
both languages can be used to develop a variety of speaker roles and identities.
However, the availability of these interpretations in the community must be incor-
porated into the analysis.
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 107
Language Choice as a Means of Shaping Identity 107
Research by Potowski (2004) shows one effect of the status of English in the wider
community on students in U.S. schools. In a dual language program in Chicago, that
is, in a classroom setting in which 50 percent of the children had Spanish as their first
language, utterances by the children during Spanish instruction were only in
Spanish 56 percent of the time; most peer interaction was carried out in English. In
the present study, the influence of English as the majority language can also be seen,
despite the fact that 100 percent of the students in the classroom analyzed had
Spanish as their first language.
According to Kroskrity (2000a), identity construction is completed through both
the use of particular language choices as well as through communicative practices.
Clearly language choice is not the only means through which these speakers con-
struct their social identities, and ultimately language choice is intertwined with other
communicative practices in the performance of identity.
In this article, I will show how these speakers draw on expectations of what is con-
sidered feminine and masculine, American and Mexican, monolingual and bilingual,
and a good student and a bad one to shape and re-shape their own identities.
Although the children use language to indicate their membership in pre-existing
groups, they also use language to bridge the gaps between these groups, combine
them, and create new categories and identities as they do so.
Ethnicity and Nationality

The bilingual classroom which was the primary site for my study served fourth, fifth,
and sixth graders who were speakers of Spanish as their first language and who were
classified as having “Limited English Proficiency.” All of the children in this class-
room were either themselves from Mexico or were the offspring of parents who had
immigrated to southern Illinois from Mexico shortly before their birth. Their length
of stay in the U.S. varied from a sixth grade girl who had been born in the region and
lived there all her life, to a sixth grade girl who arrived in February of the 2003–2004
academic year. As would be expected with these different backgrounds, the chil-
dren’s levels of proficiency in English also varied a great deal. Eight of the children
had had previous schooling in English when the school year began, while five stu-
dents had their first experience in English language instruction during this school
year (three starting at the beginning of the year, and two joining the class about mid-
way through the year).
Despite this lack of uniformity in their linguistic and cultural backgrounds, there
was at least superficially a unified ethnic/national categorization for the group: they
referred to themselves as “Mexicans,” in contrast with the students in the main-
stream classrooms, whom they called “Americans.”1 These national identity labels
were applied in a binary and static fashion within the school context. Although the
monolingual classrooms also contained children from Mexico and the bilingual
classroom contained at least one child born in the U.S. and possibly others with U.S.
citizenship, nationality labels were regularly used to depict the dichotomy between
the children in their bilingual classroom and those in the “regular” monolingual
classrooms.2 For example, while explaining to me why they were not allowed to play
soccer on the playground, I was told that “the Americans” (meaning, some children
in a monolingual classroom) had caused trouble while playing soccer, so now no one
was allowed to play.
Contributing to the binary usage of these terms was the lack of an explicit contin-
uum of Mexicanness or Americanness. I never heard them refer to themselves or oth-
ers as “being Americanized” or “acting American/Mexican,” or anything to that
effect. There is evidence from other research that identification of ethnic group as a
predetermined social category may be something which is abandoned as these chil-
dren grow older. Quiroz (2001) shows narratives by eighth graders on the topic of
“Who Am I?” discussed ethnicity as a predetermined category. These students in
Quiroz’s study would use statements such as “I was born in Mexico” or “my parents
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 108
are from Puerto Rico” without additional elaboration about the meaning of being
“from” a place. There was also no discussion of how their own actions made them
more or less Mexican or Puerto Rican. However, high-school students participating
in this study discussed their own construction of their ethnic identity and how it
played a role in the larger society, indicating a more complex understanding of what
identity is.
The children in the current study are several years younger than the eighth
graders in Quiroz’s study, and it is unsurprising that they, like these eighth graders,
use overt labeling of themselves as “Mexican,” a seemingly static category which
contrasts with “American.” However, their language use belies this simplistic under-
standing of ethnicity (and other social categories). These children are highly skilled
in using language choice to construct very nuanced and differentiated social identi-
ties for themselves and others. The following analysis will show how identification
with one group or another may be situational, ambiguous, and multiple, represent-
ing not one continuous identity but a repertoire of identities (Nagata 1974; Kroskrity
2000b).
In this analysis, I will show that while there are symbolic associations between
language and national/ethnic group, both language and ethnicity may be hybrid
constructs. Further, such pre-existing categories and associations may be inconse-
quential in the face of other interactional or identity factors. The following analysis
seeks to show how and when ethnicity is constructed with language choice.
Gender
This article adopts the theoretical position on gender as presented in Bucholtz 2001,
stressing the practices and performance of gender as opposed to generalizations
about differences across the sexes. In addition to providing a local focus, this per-
spective includes a more holistic approach to the study of identity, with gender as
one aspect of identity which is intertwined with other dimensions of the self.
In this classroom, certain patterns of behavior emerged which indicate that gen-
der is a salient aspect of the social organization of the classroom. For example, when
children used the two computers in the classroom, they invariably separated into
dyads or triads based on gender categories, with boys using one computer and girls
another. Playground activities were also gendered; certain activities were pursued by
only boys (e.g., marbles) or only girls (e.g., sitting on the swings and talking). In this
multi-grade classroom, gender categories were further divided into age categories,
with the most frequent companions for most children being the others of the same
sex from their year in school.
Because gender differences are apparent in the nonverbal behavior of these children,
investigation of how they constructed this separation with verbal means appears a fruit-
ful pursuit. Linguistic differences in discourse have been reported for girls/women and
boys/men in a number of studies (see Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 2003 for a recent
summary). While no consistent pattern of differences in code-switching behavior across
sex categories has been found (Cheshire and Gardner-Chloros 1998), studies have
shown that in specific communities there may be compelling reasons for the choice of
one language over another by one sex group (see Gal 1978). In these data, the fourth
grade girls show a higher level of use of English than the fourth grade boys, but these
gender differences are embedded in a complex array of friendship patterns, differences
in family background, and varied orientations toward school.
An aspect of gendered behavior which will be presented in this study is the pattern
of the “best friend” category being primary used by and for girls. Thorne (1993)
speaks to the generalizability of this pattern with evidence from her research on two
elementary classrooms. She notes that while she did indeed observe the gendered pat-
terns of girls forming dyads of best friends and boys playing in large, hierarchical
groups, these patterns were salient because they were the ones enacted by the pop-
ular boys and girls in the classroom. Other children—less visible to their peers,
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 109
teachers, and even researchers because of their less prominent social positions—
showed behavior that did not fit these generalizations. This insight helps to explain
how the cultural construct of “best friends” has become associated with feminine rela-
tionships, while at the same time not being applicable to all, or even most, girls.
A second issue to be dealt with in this study is the shape of discourse which marks
feminine gender. In a study of teenagers in the classroom, Davies (2003) reports that
the girls’ strategies for showing solidarity—the frequent use of backchanneling, col-
laborative telling or building on each other’s comments—is conducive to completing
academic tasks. Cook-Gumperz and Szymanski 2001, which looked at third graders
in an English–Spanish bilingual classroom in California, also showed gender differ-
ences in small group interactions. Their findings show that girls generally played a
more organizational part in the group-work, enacting a facilitating “big sister” role
which is compatible with the role they may also be expected to play in the home.
However, some of these studies also stress that girls’ interactions are not necessar-
ily devoid of features of competitive speech. The Cook-Gumperz and Szymanski study
also claimed that verbal sparring was most often the result of two girls vying for con-
trol of the group’s activities. Ardington (2003), in her discussion of alliance-building
among preadolescent girls, notes that explicitly supportive behaviors are not the only
type of practices included in the interactions between allied girls. In particular,
sequences of playful insulting, name-calling, and confrontation are common between
girlfriends as part of their construction of friendship. Further, Goodwin (2002) dis-
cusses the construction of asymmetrical power relationships within girls’ peer groups,
defying the depiction of girls as involved primarily in egalitarian relationships.
Research on the construction of masculinity also provides a backdrop for this
study. In the Davies 2003 study mentioned above, the boys in the classroom she stud-
ied were markedly different from the girls. There seemed to be a conflict between the
means of constructing hegemonic masculine identities and discourse that was pro-
ductive to completing their assigned task. In particular, the boys’ displays of masculin-
ity required repeated diversions from the task. Other studies on men’s construction of
hegemonic masculinity suggest that common patterns among male friends include
displays of knowledge, ability, and physical power (Bucholtz 1999; Kiesling 2001),
along with the discussion of unacceptable behavior for boys or men (Cameron 1997;
Evaldsson 2002). In the classroom, some studies have shown that boys tend to be
louder and more disruptive, and this may drown out girls’ voices, often with the tacit
cooperation of teachers (Swann and Graddol 1988; Baxter 2002).
The current research looks carefully at the language choices used in the classroom
to assess how gender is constructed within this group. In this process, gender iden-
tity is intertwined with other aspects of identity such as friendship statuses, bilin-
gualism, and classroom role.
Classroom Roles
A salient aspect of identity in the classroom, be it a bilingual or monolingual one, is
the orientation the student has toward achievement and comportment in school. Do
speakers wish to portray themselves as students who do well in school, or as people
who are too cool to care about academic achievement? Do they wish to be seen as
cooperative participants in the classroom or as the class clown? As indicated above,
gender may be a significant factor in what role a child takes on in the classroom.
Young (2004) found that high status male identities (which were not necessarily
linked to ethnicity) required downplaying academic achievement. Cammarota
(2004) suggests that Latina youths may use academic achievement to challenge roles
which do not offer status and educational opportunity; that is, by doing well in
school they can challenge the expectations for working-class Hispanic females, for
whom the roles of girlfriend, wife and mother are valued above individual achieve-
ment. Such research supports the position that both gender and ethnicity may be
intertwined with a child’s construction of student identity.
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 110
In addition, enactment of a student identity is particularly important in the dis-

cussion of the language choices that children make. In this classroom, academic sub-
jects were explicitly linked to particular languages (e.g., math was done in Spanish,
social studies in English) and some assignments were overtly linked to developing
literacy skills in the language of instruction. Therefore, some activities in the class-
room (e.g., reading and discussing a text) had clear norms for language choice.
Compliance with or defiance of the language norm was often indicative of far more
than simply language proficiency or salience of Mexican or American identity. In
some cases, it was an indicator of speakers’ attitudes toward the task, their teacher,
or their own academic success.
Language Proficiency/Bilingualism
Complicating the interpretation of language choice as an indicator of identity is the
aspect of language proficiency and speakers’ confidence in their speech production
in a given language. Speaking Spanish during English instruction could be a sign of
rebellion, but for some children it could equally well be motivated by gaps in com-
prehension, vocabulary, et cetera. Thus, proficiency, and how it ties in to identity, is
an issue which must be addressed in this research.
Recent research on language proficiency and identity in a similar population
(Spanish-speaking children from Mexico in an agricultural community) in California
has shown that the relationship between English proficiency and identity as (U.S.)
American is far from straightforward (Fleck 2004). In this study, English proficiency
is operationalized as the mastery of a number of syntactic and morphological fea-
tures which reflected deep-structure differences between Spanish and English.
Identity is operationalized as the product of symbolic associations with the two cul-
tures and preferences for food, music, sports, holiday foods, and location. There were
no significant correlations between a high English proficiency rating and a high
American identity index, nor were there significant correlations between high English
proficiency and any of the sub-categories within the identity variable. However, there
was a correlation that approached significance between having English-only speaking
associates and having an American identity, suggesting that social networks are integral
to identity development.
In the current study, proficiency is not examined through formal measures.
Instead, the analysis is concerned with the construction of self and others in terms
of language proficiency (e.g., as bilingual, Spanish-dominant or English-dominant).
As discussed in Nero 2005, the self identities of English Language Learners do not
necessarily match the external categorization of having limited English proficiency;
that is, learners of English may identify as English speakers, not English Learners.
Part of this identification comes from the fact that as “learners,” their proficiency is
usually on the increase, and English may become their main, or even only, medium
for communication.
The construction of identity as a fluent speaker of English, or not, is an essential
thread in the current research. Identification as bilingual was not an aspect of iden-
tity shared by all the children in the classroom, and bilingual identity was enacted
differently by children at similar levels of English proficiency. As will be shown in
the analysis below, some children used Spanish–English code-switching to construct
a bilingual identity which in some senses superseded the Mexican versus American
dichotomy that was explicit in the classroom. By speaking two languages, the chil-
dren could forge a hybrid identity that showed their membership in the local
Spanish-speaking community yet also presented them as part of an English-speaking
American culture. However, not all of the children who had this option available chose
to use their two languages in the same ways, and these differences are intertwined
with their enactment of other aspects of identity.
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 111
Research Setting and Data Collection

I began observing in a bilingual program in a rural school in southern Illinois in
August of 2003 and continued to do research at this school until May 2005, although
this study is based on data collected in the 2003–2004 school year. The ethnographic
and discourse analytic approach chosen for this research project involves participant-
observation and the analysis of recorded small-group interactions. The goal of this
methodological approach is to gain an understanding of patterns of interaction in
the classroom as situated practices which are produced within specific sociocultural
contexts.
The bilingual program in which I conducted my research is a transitional program
which serves children from kindergarten to grade six. After grade six, children par-
ticipate in the mainstream academic program regardless of their proficiency in
English, although one period of ESL instruction continues to be available to students
who are categorized as having Limited English Proficiency.
Despite instruction in the heritage language of the students, the goal of transi-
tional programs such as the one in this study is not bilingualism but gaining profi-
ciency in English. Success in the bilingual program results in being put in what are
often called the “regular” classrooms. The implication is that bilingual education is
remedial education, something for children who are not part of the “regular” popu-
lation of the school (see Quiroz 2001 for a more lengthy discussion of this aspect of
transitional bilingual education). Because I object to the implication that there is
something irregular about bilingualism, I refer to the so-called “regular” classrooms
as the “monolingual classrooms,” which contrast with the bilingual classrooms in
which I spent my time.
A second consequence of the transitional program type is that the children in the
bilingual program are relatively isolated from the children in the monolingual class-
rooms. This tends to be counterproductive for the goal of the program, English learn-
ing, because it restricts the contact the transitional program students have with
native English-speaking peers.3
The bilingual program at the school where I conducted my research consisted of
three classrooms: two classrooms for kindergarten through third grade and one class-
room for the fourth, fifth and sixth graders. Although I observed regularly in the
younger grades, my research was focused on the fourth/fifth/sixth classroom.
During the 2003–2004 academic year, I was present in the fourth/fifth/sixth class-
room twice a week, once in the morning (the part of the day in which instruction was
in English) and once in the afternoon (during Spanish language instruction). In both
settings, I functioned as a volunteer and worked with one group of children while the
teacher worked with another. The activities in this small group-work varied consid-
erably; sometimes I did teacher-fronted instruction with them, in which I led a group
through reading a text and discussing it; on other occasions I worked with a group
more loosely, helping students as they had questions with assignments they were
doing on their own. In these settings, I made audio-recordings of the naturally occur-
ring interactions. At the end of the 2003–2004 school year, and throughout 2004–2005,
a research assistant (KS) also accompanied me to the school and similarly participated
in the classroom activities. Because of the dual role we played in the classroom, I will
refer to myself or KS as a “teacher/researcher” in the following discussion.
Although teachers and academic subjects in this classroom were clearly demar-
cated as “English” or “Spanish,” neither teacher was prescriptive about language
choice. At the beginning of the year, I observed very little use of English among the
children in the afternoons, designated as “Spanish time,” although my presence as a
low-proficiency Spanish speaker often triggered use of English. For the most part,
the children and the teacher spoke Spanish (everyone’s first language) to each other
except for a few school-related terms such as “recess” or “white slip” (a warning cita-
tion given for bad behavior). Although the Spanish teacher was also a fluent speaker
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 112
of English, my observations showed that she rarely if ever used English with the chil-
dren outside of such isolated lexical items; conversations with her confirmed that
this was a conscious strategy. Despite this consistent practice on the part of the
teacher, data from the spring show that the use of Spanish in the afternoon lessons
had become less categorical.
In the half of the day devoted to English, Spanish was frequently spoken by the
children when they were talking among themselves, especially if their conversa-
tion was not related to an academic task, but also often as they worked together on
English language assignments. The ESL teacher was a fluent speaker of Spanish
and made use of both languages in class. Outside of teacher-fronted activities, she
usually spoke English to the children, although the children addressed her in both
languages. Within teacher-fronted activities, while she made English use the goal,
she would sometimes use Spanish herself to ensure comprehension. This openness
to bilingual language practices created a setting in which code-switching was
common.
The following analysis of language use employs both quantitative measures of
language choice and a qualitative and interpretive analysis of the social meanings of
Spanish, English, and code-switching in the construction of social identity. The data
for this analysis come from audio-recorded interactions in the classroom. These
recordings were made when the children were working in small groups, sometimes
under the guidance of their teacher, this author, or a research assistant who also acted
as a volunteer in the classroom. On average the children were recorded about once a
week, as opportunities conducive to recording presented themselves. Over the
course of the 2003–2004 academic year, 25 recordings were made which involved the
fourth grade children, varying in length from 15 minutes to one hour. At the time of
the writing of this article, 11 of these recordings, or approximately six hours of data,
were transcribed and available for use in the analysis. Conversation X412 was
selected for the quantitative analysis because, as it was recorded toward the end of
the school year (May 18, 2004), it represented a point at which the children had had
the entire school year to develop patterns of interaction with each other, and it is this
point in time in the ongoing process of identity construction that is the focus of this
analysis.
The Fourth Graders: A Quantitative Overview

The four fourth grade children in this study are Dora, Lucia, Antonio and Miguel (all
names have been changed); the backgrounds of these children will be discussed in
detail below. The quantitative analysis presented here looks at the language choices
made in one conversation involving these four fourth graders at the end of the year.
The subsequent qualitative analysis brings in recorded data from other interactions
recorded in the spring of 2004 to provide additional examples of the linguistic means
of identity construction employed by these speakers toward the end of the academic
year; some earlier data excerpts are also provided for contrast in the case of the girls.
Conversation X412 was recorded in May of 2004, and took place while the chil-
dren were reading in Spanish with my research assistant (KS) who is a native speaker
of English and a highly proficienct speaker of Mexican Spanish, by virtue of having
lived in Mexico for 13 years. At the time of this recording, KS had been in the class-
room once before but had not worked with the fourth grade group. Thus their per-
formance of identities here is a portrayal of selves to a new audience, an aspect which
must be kept in mind in this analysis. However, data from other interactions are also
provided which support the contention that their language use in this conversation
was typical of their usual classroom interactions.
Because Spanish is the first language of all of the children involved in this interac-
tion, and a language spoken very fluently by KS, one might expect a high rate of
Spanish use. The additional fact that this lesson took place during Spanish instruction
and involved reading from a Spanish textbook would only strengthen this prediction.
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 113
Table 1
Language choices in peer-directed and adult-directed turns in conversation X412, reading
in Spanish with a bilingual researcher (recorded May 18, 2004).
Peer-Directed: Peer-Directed: Adult-Directed: Adult-Directed:

Speaker English Spanish English Spanish
Antonio 0 12/12 100% 7/30 23% 23/30 77%
Dora 16/24 67% 8/24 33% 22/28 79% 6/28 21%
Lucia 9/13 69% 4/13 31% 23/33 70% 10/33 30%
Miguel 1/23 4% 22/23 96% 3/45 7% 42/45 93%
Note: Three tokens which were deemed to be both PD and AD, as well as the eight utterances which were
classified as containing both languages (i.e., code-switching) are not included in this quantitative analysis.
Indeed, the first time KS came to the classroom and worked on a similar assignment
with the fifth graders, he later told me that he did not record the conversation because
they spoke exclusively in Spanish and thus there was no code-switching to analyze
(my observations of this interaction from across the room, as I worked with another
group, corroborated this). My observation of subsequent interactions of KS with the
children showed that the children readily accepted him as a Spanish speaker and did
not switch to English to address him (as they might be inclined to do with me).
It is in light of these observations about the language norms in the bilingual pro-
gram that the frequent use of English in conversation X412 are of particular interest.
The quantitative analysis of X412 provides us with a starting point for an analysis of
the frequent code-switching that is found in the interactions involving the fourth
graders (see Table 1). In X412, both girls (Dora and Lucia) use English frequently
with KS (79% and 70%), although this language choice is in conflict with the task at
hand, reading and discussing a Spanish text. The boys (Antonio and Miguel) use
English only 23 percent and seven percent of the time in adult-directed utterances,
indicating that they stuck to the language of instruction with KS much more faith-
fully than the girls. Peer code choices also show a large gender difference, with the
girls using English at rates of 67 percent and 69 percent, and the boys zero percent
and four percent.
To look more closely at the choices made in peer interactions, turns directed at
individual speakers were also analyzed, and are presented in Table 2. Unfortunately
for this aspect of the analysis, which seeks to bring out the dynamics of the individ-
ual relationships in the group, a lone interlocutor can be identified for only a small
fraction of the turns in this conversation. The vast majority of the peer-directed turns
could only be interpreted as comments voiced to the group at large. Despite this, this
Table 2
Language choices in utterances directed at individual peers (conversation X412).
To Antonio To Dora To Lucia To Miguel To All Peers

By Antonio — S (1/1) 100% S0 S (4/4) 100% S (7/7) 100%
(n 12) E0 E0 E0 E0
By Dora S (4/5) 80% — S (1/6) 17% S (2/3) 67% S (1/10) 10%
(n 24) E (1/5) 20% E (5/6) 83% E (1/3) 33% E (9/10) 90%
By Lucia S0 S0 — S0 S (4/8) 50%
(n 13) E (2/2) 100% E (3/3) 100% E0 E (4/8) 50%
By Miguel S (5/5) 100% S (1/2) 50% S (1/1) 100% — S (15/15) 100%
(n 23) E0 E (1/2) 50% E0 E0
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 114
table does provide some information about the general dynamics of peer relation-
ships, and illustrates that the variability of language choice is not merely dependent
on addressee. We can see that Dora and Lucia almost always address each other in
English. Dora uses more Spanish than English with the boys, but does address each
boy once in English; Lucia addresses only Antonio individually, and uses English.
The boys use exclusively Spanish with each other, the opposite pattern as found for
the girls in same sex conversation. Antonio uses Spanish for the one time he directly
addresses Dora (he does not address any of his comments solely to Lucia); Miguel’s
one peer-directed utterance in English is addressed to Dora, but he also addresses
both Dora and Lucia in Spanish (once each). These choices illustrate that within the
gender pairs there are strong language choice norms, but across gender boundaries
the correlation between addressee language preference and language choice are less
pronounced.
I suggest that the language choices portrayed in Tables 1 and 2 relate to the differ-
ent stances the children adopt toward their ethnicity/nationality, gender, language
proficiency, relationships and classroom roles. In the following section, linguistic per-
formance will be looked at in detail in excerpts from X412 and other conversations.
The Girls: Bilingual Best Friends

The following analysis deals with Dora and Lucia as a best-friends unit, and makes
the argument that salient parts of their identities, and their patterns of language
choice, are linked to this best-friend constellation. While differences between the
girls are brought to light, the emphasis here lies on the contrast between the salient
“bilingual best friends” identity the girls construct and the disparate identities per-
formed by Antonio and Miguel.
In order to understand the linguistic choices of Dora and Lucia, it is necessary to
incorporate their backgrounds and the history of their friendship into the analysis.
The girls had certain similarities in their backgrounds which fostered high profi-
ciency in English. Both came to the U.S. at preschool age, and all of their schooling
(beginning in the pre-K program) had been at their current school. They both lived
in families with older (as well as younger) siblings who spoke English fluently.
Neither of them had strong memories of living anywhere but their rural community
in southern Illinois, nor did they visit Mexico, or plan visits to Mexico, during the
12 months I had contact with them. While these factors in and of themselves need not
lead to a bilingual identity, they provided Lucia and Dora with the means and moti-
vation to construct bilingual personas in three important ways. First, their residence
in the U.S. and the language proficiencies of others in their families provided them
with the opportunity to develop their English skills. Second, having older siblings
who spoke English may have provided a model for them in terms of integration into
U.S. society. Third, their experience of being firmly planted in the U.S., but also keep-
ing strong ties to their Mexican-American friends and families, created positive asso-
ciations with the use of both languages.
In terms of student roles, the girls contrasted both with the boys (discussed below)
and with each other. Dora was a more diligent student than Lucia (although gener-
ally less conscientious than either Miguel or Antonio), and this relative seriousness
about academic achievement fit with the career goal Dora stated several times over
the course of the year: she wanted to become a dentist. Lucia was described by the
ESL teacher as having stronger English reading skills than Dora (something that was
confirmed by my own experience in reading with the fourth graders), but was over-
all a less motivated student. Lucia got little done in class when given time to work
on an assignment, a problem compounded by rarely completing homework assign-
ments. She was also less directed in terms of her future, although at one point she
told me that she would like to become a teacher. Information about Lucia and Dora
and their families given to me informally by their teachers indicated a decided dif-
ference between the two girls; while Lucia’s parents had the reputation for placing
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 115
little importance on their children’s schooling, which was reportedly reflected in

their poor academic performance, Dora’s family indicated more interest in and sup-
port for her and her older sister’s education.
Because of the clear message in the school that academic achievement meant par-
ticipating in the monolingual classroom, it would be rational for the children to
equate speaking English with academic success. Thus, future goals, and an under-
standing of the importance of English in succeeding in school and career, may have
contributed to the girls’ inclination to speak English, especially for Dora. Dora’s
clearer sense of the importance of doing well in school may be one explanation for
her overall high rate of English use (see Tables 1 and 2 above).
Another important factor which contributed to the ultimate development of bilin-
gual identities for Dora and Lucia was their “best friendship.” This dyadic relation-
ship grew out of the organization of the classroom: social relationships were
determined largely by gender and age, and the strongest friendship ties in all cases
were with others of the same sex, and within the same grade. Since it was a small
group of children, this did not leave many options for friendship ties.
At the beginning of the year, there were three fourth grade girls: Dora, Lucia, and
Raquel. On my second day in the classroom, I witnessed a tearful scene in which
Raquel and Dora—the strongest twosome of the triangle—rejected Lucia, resulting in
tears, much animated defense of their positions, and no apparent resolution to the sit-
uation. Indeed, the English teacher commented to me that such scenes were a nearly
daily occurrence among the three girls. Lucia was consistently the odd one out. Had
this configuration continued, Dora and Lucia’s linguistic performance over the year
might have been quite different, because although Raquel was a formidable opponent
in verbal disputes, her English skills were not as strong as Dora’s and Lucia’s.
However, the reason for Raquel’s lower proficiency in English was also a major
factor in the story of Dora and Lucia: every year, Raquel would come to southern
Illinois in the summer, and stay until the end of October (when the migrant housing
closed), and then return to Mexico with her family. Raquel had scarcely more than
two months of schooling in the U.S. each year, while Lucia and Dora had been in
school in the U.S. continually since they were preschoolers.
Before Raquel left, the language spoken among the girls was primarily Spanish.
On the last day of Raquel’s stay in the U.S., the three girls were recorded while play-
ing a computer game. In addition to the learning activity on the computer, the girls
were involved in covert distribution of different colored candies. As shown in the
excerpt in (1), this exchange is carried out almost entirely in Spanish. (See Appendix A
for the transcription convention key.)
(1) D = Dora; L = Lucia; R = Raquel

D: Quiéres una roja? “Do you want a red one?”
L: Sí. “Yes.”
R: =Yo! Yo quiero /una ro, una blue/ “Me! I want a re-, a blue one”
L: /(una azul una azul)/ una azul. “(A blue one a blue one) A blue one.”
R: Yo quiero una blue: “I want a blue: (one)”
D: Llévate esa, pero mañana xxx blue one. “Take that one, but tomorrow xxx blue one.”
R: Y yo una roja entonces. “And I get the red one then.”
L: Pero /(yo)xxx xxx/ acá “But (I) xxx xxx here.”
R: /Yo la roja./ “I get the red one.”
D: Qué? “What?”
R: Sí:! Mañana es mi last day. “Yes! Tomorrow is my last day.”
D: Llévatelo (ésa). “Take it with you (that one).” [F402:218–231]
In this interaction, the girls have turned away from their official activity (playing an
educational game on the computer) and are focused solely on personal matters—the
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 116
distribution of sweets and, along with them, social favor. Although the full transcript
of conversation F402 shows that the girls also overwhelmingly used Spanish in com-
puter game-related discussion, this excerpt is especially important because it involves
a negotiation in which friendship is being doled out along with candies. This dialogue
exemplifies that at this point in the girls’ relationship and linguistic development, the
language choice for personal conversations was Spanish. Although they might speak
English to each other during English instruction, their nonacademic interactions were
not carried out in that language. Although some isolated English words are found in
the discourse (used, interestingly enough, mostly by Raquel), these English nouns are
integrated into Spanish discourse structures. The friendship ties in this conversation
seem to have Spanish proficiency as their basis; English, while also part of their reper-
toire, plays a minor role.
But, as Raquel states, this was her last day in the classroom. After she left, Lucia
and Dora began to get along without incident. I watched them go through all of the
friendship rites common to preteens: passing notes saying “Best friends” (written in
English) and the exchange of stickers, candies, and other small gifts. They almost
always played together during recess, and often sat together to do their assignments.
This “best friends” status was challenged in December when Lucia’s cousin,
Frieda, came from Mexico to live in the community. Although Frieda was a fifth
grader, since there were no fifth grade girls she associated herself with the fourth
grade girls, an alignment made even more natural because Lucia was her cousin.
This created a trio of girls once again, but this time it was Dora who was the odd one
out. While this reorganization was less traumatic, I did witness Dora discussing her
plight with the Spanish teacher, and being counseled to be patient: Frieda was new,
and she was Lucia’s cousin; soon, the excitement of her arrival would wear off and
Lucia would want to spend more time with Dora again. And that was, in fact, how
it turned out. Both Lucia and Dora continued to be friends with Frieda, but reverted
to their own best-friend tie. This reuniting of the girls as best friends had somewhat
unanticipated linguistic consequences, namely, that they began to speak more English
to each other.
The following example, recorded a couple of weeks after Frieda’s arrival, was the
first time I noticed them using English with each other. Because it was raining, the
children were given free time in the classroom as a substitute for outdoor play, and
Lucia and Dora had gotten out a chess set and were playing checkers with it. When
I heard them discussing their plans and beginning to set up the game in English, my
curiosity was piqued and I began recording their conversation (with their enthusias-
tic approval). After a couple of minutes I left them alone with their game to avoid the
interference of my own participation in their language choices. The ensuing conver-
sation is marked with frequent code-switching, and Self (2005) has shown that the
two languages play different roles in the interaction: English is used to move the
action forward, while Spanish is used to provide supplementary material.
(2) L = Lucia; D = Dora

1 L: No no no no Back.
2 D: No, you can’t go back. xxx (come) back (to the)
3 L: Luego me vas a...mmm... “Later you’re going to me...mmm...”
4 Mejor muevo éste. Go. “I’d better move this one. Go.”
5 D: I know.
6 L: {laughs}
7 D: You can go, you’re crazy,
8 era una vez para atrás. “It was one space backwards.”
9 You can go this way.
10 L: No:, I don’t wanna go.
11 D: O/kay./
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 117
12 L: /I wanna / stay there.

13 D: I wanna go back.
14 L: So:, no. Eee! I wanna go back. {laughs}
15 D: Okay. Uhm. Mm:
16 L: Oh, my go:↑↓d! Me equivoqué. “Oh my god! I was wrong.”
17 D: No, no, no, no, no, no. [F403:31–42]
The interaction shown in (2) is greatly different from the peer interaction shown
in (1) in terms of language choice. Instead of English playing the minor role of pro-
viding isolated lexical items, as in example (1), in (2) English is used in full sentences
to provide most of the content. Spanish utterances in this excerpt are an elaboration
of previous English utterances or tangential comments. Lucia’s Spanish utterances in
line 3 are directed more or less to herself; when she directly addresses Dora in line 4,
she switches to English (“go”). In lines 7–9, the Spanish part of Dora’s turn provides
specific information, but the gist of her utterance (“you can go this way”) is in
English. Similarly, Lucia’s Spanish utterance in 16 is prefaced with an English excla-
mation which indicates that something is amiss; again, although the Spanish part of
the turn is more specific, it can be seen as Spanish elaboration on a theme already
made salient in English.
Although I do not have information about the girls’ experience in learning to play
checkers, there is some evidence that their use of English was not triggered by the
game itself. Toward the end of the recording several of the other children in the class-
room came over and began coaching the girls about what moves to make, and the
conversation at this point was carried out completely in Spanish. Also, throughout
the interaction both girls, as well as the other children who joined in later, used the
verb “comer” (‘to eat’) for the act of jumping over the opponent’s checker and cap-
turing it. Lucia also uses this expression translated into English at one point; Dora
has just given her a tip about how to move, and she says “oh, so you won’t eat me.”
Therefore it does not seem that the game of checkers is within an English domain for
them, but instead, their use of English–Spanish code-switching can be interpreted as
part of their construction of a bilingual identity.
Dora and Lucia’s use of Spanish–English code-switching is not surprising in a
larger context; it is commonplace for bilinguals to use both of their languages with
each other to index bilingual identity (e.g., Elías-Olivares 1976; Bailey 2001; Nayar
2002). This has been described as “codeswitching as an unmarked choice,” and is
especially common in casual interactions between social equals (Myers-Scotton
1993:119).
What makes Dora’s and Lucia’s code-switching behavior noteworthy is that the
other children in the classroom do not do it, or at least do far less of it. In the “check-
ers” interaction discussed above, 63 percent of Dora and Lucia’s utterances are in
English, and 19 percent in English–Spanish intra-sentential code-switching. In a con-
versation involving Antonio and Miguel playing on the computers, recorded in April
2004, only ten percent of the boys’ utterances are in English, with eight percent
involving intra-sentential code-switching. Considering that the boys are playing a
computer game in English, which could easily be a trigger for using English, these
figures are even more striking, and show the differences between these two dyads.
Proficiency is a factor here, although not in a straightforward sense—Dora and
Lucia are fluent English speakers, but not the highest proficiency English speakers in
the classroom. However, they form the only friendship group in the classroom that
contains only speakers who are comfortable speaking both languages; all of the other
strong friendships groupings (the two sixth grade girls, the three fifth grade boys,
and the two fourth grade boys) contain at least one speaker who prefers Spanish.
As suggested in the study by Fleck (2004), social ties are essential in the development
of social identity; through their strong tie of best friendship, the girls focus on an
aspect of their identities not shared with other friends (e.g., Frieda): bilingualism.
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 118
The choice to speak English in a peer relationship cannot be seen as merely the result
of their high proficiency in English, or we would see such linguistic behavior in the
speech of Antonio and Miguel, who by objective standards are at least as proficient
in English. (When the children were divided into three ESL groups, Antonio was in
the highest group, and Dora, Lucia and Miguel were in the middle group. By the end
of the summer program in 2004, all four of these children had reached a proficiency
level in English that enabled them to be put into monolingual classrooms for fifth
grade.) The distinction between Dora and Lucia on the one hand, and Antonio and
Miguel on the other, is not one of language proficiency but of preference based on
social identity.
An example of how the girls construct this identity in a group interaction can be
seen in example (3), from conversation X412. Here, KS has asked them about a trip
to the forest, trying to get them to talk about what forests are like in connection with
their reading. Unfortunately for the pedagogical goal of this question, what he
receives is a rather convoluted story and a dispute about who did and did not go to
the forest.
Although all of the children initially chime in to tell what seems to be an agreed-
upon storyline (an aborted school trip to the forest), at line 13 Miguel diverges from
this narrative and insists that they did indeed go to the forest on a class trip. The sub-
sequent dialogue shows that he is referring to a different trip that occurred during
summer school, so it is possible that both the girls (who insist they did not go) and
the boys (who claim they did) could be telling an accurate version of a fieldtrip to the
forest. (Further confusion emerges in line 16, when Antonio claims that he went to
the forest, but the others did not.)
What is significant in terms of the children’s language choices is that the girls
repeatedly use English (Dora in lines 2, 4, 29, 32, and 42, and Lucia in lines 10, 12, 21,
23, 25–26, 28, 30, 33, 37, and 43) to make their point about the story. Line 10 is Lucia’s
English repetition of Dora’s Spanish utterance in line 9, a complementary use of lan-
guage juxtaposition. In line 23, Lucia begins telling the story in English, and Dora
also uses this code to support her, and they continue to speak English until the end
of this sequence. This is a particularly salient choice because they are responding to
a question from KS which was posed in Spanish (line 20). Their united use of English
serves to stress their alignment, as it symbolically sets them apart from the boys, who
are arguing (with them and with each other) in Spanish.
(3) A = Antonio; D = Dora; KS = teacher/researcher; M = Miguel; L = Lucia

1 A: Íbamos a ir al bosque. “We were going to go to the forest.”
2 D: but it started raining and xxx
3 KS: Ha. Con la escuela? “Oh. With school?”
4 D: Yeah.
5 KS: (O) con: tu familia? “Or with your family?”
6 A: No. “No.”
7 M: /Con la escuela./ “With school.”
8 A: /Con las cl/ases. “With our classes.”
9 D: Todos (los) xxx “All (the[masc.pl]) xxx”
10 L: All the school.
11 KS: Como excursión? “Like a field trip?”
12 L: Yeah.
13 M: A que sí, sí hemos ido. “Yeah we did, we did go.”
14 L: /No, sí fui/mos. “No, yes we did.”
15 M: /Claro que sí./ “Of course we did.”
16 A: Yo sí, pero ustedes no. “I did, but you didn’t.”
17 KS: Y cómo era. “And what was it like.”
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 119
18 L: En vez, fuimos ahí en la Cruz. “Instead, we went over there to the Cross.”
19 KS: Ho:, cómo son.. “O:h, you guys.”
20 Cómo era (.) el bosque “What was (.) the forest like.”
21 L: It was: (1) We didn’t get to meet it.
22 A: Verdad que sí? “Right?”
23 L: Because it was raining, rem-
24 M: A que sí. “Uh-huh.”
25 L: No, it wasn’t raining,
26 it was go:ing to rain, so we decided / to go to the/
27 M: /En la escuela de vera:no:/ “In su:mmer school.”
28 L: to the, to the big,
29 D: =Ap/ple/
30 L: /huge /
31 M: O:h
32 D: Apple(fest) Cross.=
33 L: =Cross.
34 A: A que no. Miguel, no has ido. “Nuh-unh. Miguel, you haven’t been.”
35 L: /Aa:h./
36 A: /Cu/ándo? “When?”
37 L: We went there and it started raining (real /fast)/
38 A: /Dónde? “Where?”
39 KS: Y había (.) había basura “And was there (.) was there garbage”
40 (.) en el bosque? “(.) in the forest?”
41 M: No. “No.”
42 D: We don’t know.
43 L: We don’t know. We didn’t go:
44 KS: Oh, okay. [X412:80–123]
The cooperation between the girls in terms of content mirrors their coordination in
language choice. This is especially apparent as Lucia struggles to finish her story in
lines 21–33. Here, Dora chimes in to help explain where they went, although she
seems to be referring to attending Applefest (a harvest festival with a parade, rides,
etc.) while Lucia is apparently referring to visiting Bald Knob Cross, a local attraction
which has a large white cross planted on a hillside. Despite the fact that they seem to
be talking about two different events, they culminate in agreement when Dora, appar-
ently picking up on Lucia’s earlier mention of a “cruz” (‘cross’), produces the almost
comic “Applefest Cross” and Lucia finishes her utterance of “big, huge, cross.” They
continue to support each other in lines 42–43, when they assure the understandably
somewhat confused KS that they did not go to the woods, and therefore cannot dis-
cuss how it was. Adding to the confusion, as mentioned above, is the boys’ contention
that they did indeed go to the woods, although Antonio says only he went, not the
others; we will return to this part of the interaction in the next section.
The behavior of the girls in this example shows a clear line of identity construc-
tion. Their support of each other in this dialogue through co-telling contributes to
their display of alignment, as do their parallel switches into English. This is, as stated
above, especially significant because use of English with peers is, in the classroom as
a whole, a relatively marked choice, and it is only within their friendship dyad that
this pattern is unmarked.
The outcome of these linguistic choices is a construction of themselves as best girl-
friends and bilinguals. This identity, like all identities, is only meaningful in contrast
to other possibilities; for example, a more Mexican identity or a more competitive one.
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 120
Differing types of identities formed out of different constellations of English, Spanish

and a variety of speech acts will be presented in the next sections in the analysis of
the boys’ identity constructions.
The Boys
As can be seen in Table 1, both Miguel and Antonio differ from the girls in how much
English they use to both KS and their peers, but they also differ from each other in the
amount of English used with the teacher: Antonio uses English 23 percent of the time,
while Miguel does only seven percent. The reasons for this difference lie in their dif-
ferent social identities, and I will discuss them and how they use language to
develop their identities separately.
Miguel: “Yo soy Mexicano”

Of the four fourth graders, Miguel was the child who most explicitly identified as
Mexican. This orientation was, I suggest, linked to his background, which was much
different from Lucia’s and Dora’s. He first arrived in this school in the spring of his
kindergarten year (at least a year and half after Lucia and Dora), and he was in and
out of school in the U.S. during both first and second grades, with the time away
spent in Mexico. He attended the whole year of school in the U.S. for the first time in
third grade. Also, he was the oldest child of parents who, according to his teachers,
did not speak much English; he had one school-age brother who was also in the
bilingual program and several younger siblings who were not yet in school. In com-
parison to Dora and Lucia, who had older siblings who were fluent in English, his
home environment was presumably also more Spanish-dominant. He also visited
Mexico regularly, and during the 2003–2004 school year missed a month of school
right before the winter break for a trip to his hometown in Mexico. Unsurprisingly,
his allegiance to Mexico seemed stronger than the other children, and his confidence
in his English abilities (although not necessarily his actually ability to perform)
weaker.
In example (4), Miguel articulates his feeling of Mexican identity. In this excerpt
from X412, the children are discussing different types of crocodiles depicted in their
textbook, one of which is said to be Mexican. Miguel makes quite a production—
including loud volume and repeated chest thumping—to show off his status and
pride of being Mexican. Although all of the children could chime in at this point, put-
ting their own claims on Mexican identity, none of them do; he stands alone in this
patriotic identification with the Mexican crocodile.
(4) Miguel
¡Ho! Entonces, este es el, uh. “Oh! Then, this one is the uh.”
Y éste es el mexicano. “And this one is the Mexican one.”
Entonces, a mí me gusta éste más porque, “So I myself like this one better because”
Entonces yo soy éste, “then I’m this one,”
{thumping chest twice} yo soy mexicano. “{thumping chest twice} I’m Mexican.”
[X412:1069–1071]
In addition to this explicit articulation of national pride, Miguel uses his clear
preference for Spanish over English as a means of expressing his Mexican identity.
As can be seen in Tables 1 and 2 above, he clearly favors Spanish for peer interac-
tions. Although he does occasionally use English with his peers, he rarely if ever ini-
tiates these English exchanges; in a quantitative analysis of four conversations
among the fourth graders (Fuller, Elsman and Self forthcoming), Miguel has only
four peer-directed English turns (out of a total of 34), and all of them are in response
to English utterances from his peers. These choices are not merely the result of lower
English proficiency, as by academic standards Miguel was at the same level as Dora
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 121
and Lucia. Further, there is no evidence that Miguel’s use of English increased over
time; indeed, my data show that Miguel’s use of Spanish—at least with me—
increased as the year progressed.
Example (5) is taken from an interaction in which I was working with the fourth
graders on a math assignment; this was recorded in March of 2004, about two
months before X412 was recorded. (For the purposes of looking at the boys’ interac-
tions, a simultaneous background conversation between the two girls has been omit-
ted from this transcript.) This excerpt illustrates two things about Miguel’s language
choice patterns and the identity he constructs with them, and also how his peers rein-
force this identity. First, Miguel’s utterance in line 21 is a request for help from the
teacher/researcher, and is in Spanish. This is part of his construction of himself as a
Spanish speaker, and since math is a subject taught in Spanish, it also coincides with
the formal classroom norm. However, the contrast between Miguel’s Spanish request
for help in line 21, and Antonio’s English requests for help in lines 1 and 9–10, indi-
cates that these two boys are using language choice to construct different identities
for themselves. These utterances are representative of the pattern which, by the
spring of 2004, had been established in speaking to me outside of teacher-fronted
instruction: Miguel usually addressed me in Spanish, while Antonio, Lucia and Dora
usually spoke to me in English. The fact that Miguel’s language choices conflict with
the norm employed by his peers serves to emphasize his construction of himself as
a (Mexican) Spanish speaker, in contrast with the bilingual identities his peers con-
struct for themselves.
Second, although Antonio addresses me in English in lines 1, 9–10, 19, 22, 24, 26,
and 28, he uses Spanish to speak to Miguel in lines 4, 6, 8, 32, and 34. This exempli-
fies what the figures have already told us: peer-directed turns which involve Miguel
are overwhelmingly in Spanish. Miguel constructs himself as a Spanish-dominant
speaker, and his peers are participating in this identity construction. In addition to
this contrast between the two boys in terms of how they construct their own and
each other’s identities, it also shows a difference in how they construct my identity
in terms of language proficiency. While Antonio constructs himself as bilingual and
me as English-dominant, Miguel constructs himself as Spanish-dominant and me as
bilingual. (See below for more on Antonio’s code choices.)
(5) JMF = teacher/researcher; A = Antonio; M = Miguel
1. A: Teacher, is this twenty-five?
2. M: Cuánto lo pusistes? “How much did you put it as?”
3. Veinticinco no es.. “It’s not twenty-five.”
4. A: Sí. “Yes.”
5. M: No es “No, it isn’t.”
6. A: Sí:. “Ye:s.”
7. M: No. No, la maestra me dijo a mí que no.“No the teacher told me that it’s not.”
8. A: Y luego después de eso dijo que sí “And then after that she said that it was”
9. A: (3) Teacher, does, is it, uh is it twenty-five?
10. (.) for number fifteen? twenty-five?
11. JMF: Fifteen?
12. A: This is it /twenty five?/
13. JMF: /No:. (.)/ No. (.) You have to add those two numbers.
14. A: A/:dd?/
15. JMF: /be/cause the biggest one minus this one is this one, so if you add those two,
you get the /the things added so, ‘c’. (.) Yeah./
16. A: /Oh (.) Forty-eight plu:s (.)/ twenty-three.
17. Ocho y / tres, once/ “Eight and three, eleven”
18. JMF: /Yes (.) exa/ctly.
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 122
19. A: A hundred sixty-one. That’s what I get.

20. JMF: When you add twenty-three and forty-eight?
21. M: Maestra, /no lo/ entiendo a ésta. “Teacher I don’t understand this one.”
22. A: /Yes./
23. JMF: Oh, you’re adding o:ne twenty-three (2) or what? It’s just
24. A: Look, because eight plus three is: eleven, right? /Eleven./
25. JMF /and/ then you oh and then you carry, carry the one.
26. A: Fourteen (.) Oh no, Four (.) Oh yeah (.) Sorry.
27. JMF: Four, six: and then you /just add the one/
28. A: /Seventy-one./
29. JMF: Yes. (.) There you go.
30. A: Huh. I was doing something else.
31. JMF: Were you carrying the one all the way down?
32. A: En cuál vas M— “Which one are you on, M—?”
33. M: En la: diecisiete. “On seventeen.”
34. A: La diecisiete yo también. “Seventeen, me too.”[X409:185–229]
The peer interaction between Miguel and Antonio here shows more opposition
than solidarity. Although both are concerned with the answer for problem number
15, and they argue about this in lines 2–8, at no point do they use a joint appeal to
the teacher/researcher. Miguel does not appear to be attending to the long discus-
sion about this problem that Antonio has with JMF; his question in line 21 has to do
with problem 18. Indeed, far from coordinating efforts, the boys appear to be com-
peting with each other; this topic will be taken up on the next section on Antonio.
Finally, a word should be said about Miguel’s orientation to his role as a student.
Information from the ethnographic research in the classroom shows that Miguel is
preoccupied with academic achievement. Although this alone is not terribly signifi-
cant (most of the children in the classroom give at least superficial attention to earn-
ing good grades), in his case it leads to behavior which sets him apart from his peers.
Miguel was generally more conscientious about working on his assignments during
class time than his classmates, and better at keeping to the task at hand during
group-work. The figures in Table 1 support this in that they show a consistent use of
the appropriate code for the instruction, especially in adult-directed utterances. The
three utterances he directs at the teacher in English are his initial introduction of him-
self (“my name is Miguel”) and two one-word responses he gives in chorus with
other students (i.e., the answer “alligator” to a question about what is shown in a pic-
ture, and the agreement marker “yeah”).
More significantly, this pattern can also be seen in English instruction, which is the
type of interaction in which Miguel’s desire to speak Spanish could conflict with his
desire to fulfill academic requirements. During teacher-fronted instruction which was
recorded at the end of October, in which the fourth graders were reading and dis-
cussing a text in English with me, Miguel’s use of Spanish and English differs greatly
from that of the other children. The other three children use mostly English with their
peers (70–83%) as well as with me (89–100%), showing that they interpret the entire
interaction as a primarily English language one. Miguel, however, differentiates by
speaking mostly Spanish (75%) to his peers, and overwhelmingly English (97%) with
me. This pattern of code choice supports the observation that Miguel translated his
concern with academic achievement into adherence to instructional language norms.
The identity Miguel has set for himself is not a simple one; although he will not
back down on his preference to speak Spanish, it is sometimes at odds with his desire
to present himself as a good student. One obvious way he can balance these two things
is by adhering to the language of instruction during teacher-fronted interactions, but
using Spanish in more casual contexts. Another strategy he uses to balance these two
aspects of his identity is emphasis on his achievements, as shown in (6), an excerpt
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 123
from conversation X412. Here, his pride in achievement can be seen in playful brag-
ging. KS has been trying desperately to get the children to come up with a sensible
answer for where fresh water is found, and in line 5, Miguel finally does. When KS,
in his relief at finally getting an answer, thanks Miguel for providing it, Miguel plays
up his victory for amusement, but also to make sure his fellow students know he has
accomplished what they did not.
(6) KS = teacher/researcher; D = Dora; L = Lucia; A = Antonio; M = Miguel
1 KS: Dónde más hay agua? “Where else is there water?”
Dónde más hay: masas de agua? “Where else are there bodies of water?”
2 D: What?
3 L: Okay, I’m lost now.
4 A: Ho! E: e: no where eh where you wash your hands. “Oh, uh...”
5 M: Lagos? “Lakes?”
6 KS: ¡La:go:s! ¡Gracias, M-! “La:kes. Thank you, M-!”
7 A: La- g/ra:cia:s! Sí:./ “La- tha:nk you:! Ye:s.”
8 KS: /Ríos en en las montañas/ “Rivers in in the mountains”
9 M: Apréndala (xxx). ¡Apre:nden! “Learn it, (xxx). Learn [from my
example]!” [X412:875–886]
We will return to this example in the following discussion of Antonio’s identity

construction, but note three salient aspects of Miguel’s utterance in line 5. First,
unlike the girls, he is attending to the lesson and understands the question. Second,
unlike Antonio, he provides a succinct and reasonable answer to the question;
although Antonio’s answer is not entirely off base, it is not the answer KS is looking
for. Third, Miguel’s response to the question in Spanish is likewise in Spanish, unlike
the response of all three of his peers. Miguel distinguishes himself by attending to
the lesson and addressing the teacher in the language of instruction. The end effect
is an identity construction which is quite distinct from the bilingual girls. Also,
despite his display of knowledge in example (6), his identity is also distinct from the
more competitive identity of Antonio, as we shall see in the next section.
Antonio: Strategic Code-switching

Antonio, as can be seen from the data in Tables 1 and 2, falls somewhere between
Miguel, who has a clear preference for Spanish, and the girls, who speak more
English than Spanish. To some extent, this can be seen as a product of his back-
ground, which also falls in the middle of the group in terms of length of stay in the
U.S. Antonio first arrived in the U.S. at the end of kindergarten, and had been pres-
ent at the school ever since. He had therefore been in the U.S. for less time than Dora
and Lucia, but more continuously than Miguel.
However, Antonio was definitely at the top of the group in terms of academic
achievement. When the children were divided into ESL groups, he was in the high-
est group (along with a sixth grade girl and his older brother, who was in the fifth
grade). According to informal information shared with me by the teachers of the
classroom, he was academically the highest achiever of the fourth graders in the
classroom, and was considered a more capable student than several of the older chil-
dren as well.
Antonio’s use of English and Spanish can, I suggest, be tied in to his construction
of his own identity as a strong student; this is also consistent with societal norms for
hegemonic masculinity (see Bucholtz 1999; Kiesling 2001). The final exchange in
example (5) illustrates one aspect of Antonio’s identity: he frequently compared his
achievement (in this case, how quickly he can finish his math problems) to the other
students in the class, particularly Miguel. I suggest that the point of this exchange is
primarily to establish that he is “ahead”; the boys repeat this exchange no fewer than
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 124
ten times during the half hour recording. Significantly, the adjacency pair of question
and answer is initiated by Antonio every time. It is interesting to note that in this
same recording, Dora also initiates a similar exchange with Lucia, and it is quite
probable that Dora is performing the same type of act as Antonio: she knows that she
is ahead of Lucia and wants to make sure that everyone within hearing knows it.
However, the fact that Dora does this once, and Antonio ten times, stresses the far
higher importance of achievement for Antonio in his performance of identity than
for Dora in hers.
Language choice in this exchange is also significant. The question “en cuál vas?”
(‘which one are you on?’) in line 32 is explicitly directed at Miguel and is in
Spanish, as almost all of Antonio’s comments to Miguel are. Later in this conver-
sation, Miguel is forced to admit he does not know how to do problem 18, and
Antonio races on to finish the assignment ahead of him. Antonio then announces
“yo acabé (‘I’m finished’). I’m finished.” Significantly, he uses both languages,
changing the utterance from something directed at his peers (or Miguel in particu-
lar) to a general announcement, perhaps directed at the researcher, who has been
helping the children with their assignment. He then proceeds to shout across the
classroom to the Spanish teacher, “maestra, ya acabé la lección” (‘Teacher, I already
finished the assignment’). In each case, his code choices reflect an awareness of the
language preferences of his addressees and position him as a savvy user of both
languages.
This strategic use of code-switching for his announcement that he has finished the
assignment is illustrative of another way in which Antonio uses code-switching: to
draw attention to his own turns or accomplishment. I have suggested that desire for
academic achievement may promote use of English for the girls, but that this is not
the case for Miguel; rather, Miguel will adhere to the language of instruction,
whether English or Spanish, as part of his construction of himself as a good student.
For Antonio, language choice is linked to student role in yet another way: strategic
alternation can be used for emphasis. Such use of sequentially contrastive code-
switching has also been analyzed by Auer (1984, 1995) and Wei (1998) as a common
means of making one’s turn salient.
Antonio’s performance in example (5), above, illustrates this aspect of his use of
English. During the interaction from which example (5) is taken, all four fourth
graders are sitting at a table with me doing their math assignment at their own pace,
so there is much vying for help with different problems. Although Antonio’s success
in getting my attention is a product of other strategies in addition to language choice
(e.g., his use of repetition in lines 1 and 9–10, and his relatively loud volume), mak-
ing the request in English also distinguishes it from talk between peers, which (for
the boys at least) is mostly in Spanish.
In examining Antonio’s English use in conversations X412, we see similar strate-
gic usage: in (6), above, we see that Antonio uses English to make his answer more
salient. In this example, although Lucia and Dora have both responded to KS’s
(Spanish) question in English, their responses are not answers but displays of lack of
awareness about what is going on. Antonio’s answer in line 4 is the first attempt to
answer the question, and his use of English—a switch from KS’s language choice—
can be seen as a mechanism of emphasis.
The recurrence of this pattern is shown in (7) as well. Here, Antonio is not the first
to answer the question, but again produces an English answer to a Spanish question,
a strategy which can serve to emphasize his answer.
(7) KS = the teacher/researcher; M = Miguel; A = Antonio
1 KS: Quién me puede decir “Who can tell me
2 que quiere decir (1) ‘flora’? (1) “what (1) ‘flora’ means? (1)”
3 Qué quiere decir ‘flora’? “What does ‘flora’ mean?”
4 M: Flora, un nombre. “Flora, a name.”
5 A: It’s the name of a state.
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 125
6 KS: No:. Mira. “No:. Look

7 {reading} ‘que la belleza “{reading}‘as the beauty’ ”
8 de la flora y la fauna.’ “ ‘of the flora and the fauna’.”
[X412:661–667]
Antonio’s answer in line 5 may be seen as building on Miguel’s answer; although

it seems likely that Miguel is referring to the name Flores, the family name of a child
in the classroom, Antonio picks up on the “name” aspect of his answer and further
specifies that it is the name of a state. However, he does not acknowledge Miguel’s
answer as the catalyst for his own—he could have, for instance, prefaced his turn
with “yeah” or “yes,” a common means of indicating agreement in collaborative
speech. Further, his emphasis on the word “state” suggests he may view his answer
as a correction of, rather than expansion of, Miguel’s contribution. However, as
stated above, the most salient feature of Antonio’s contribution is the fact that it is in
English, the lone English utterance in this exchange. Although Antonio is not
rewarded by being told he is correct, he does receive a response from KS, indicating
that his answer has indeed been heard and focused on by the teacher/researcher.
If we return to example (5), another feature of Antonio’s identity construction can
be seen that similarly stresses his own abilities. Antonio fluently switches from
English to speak to me and back to Spanish to speak to Miguel, maximizing com-
prehension because he is speaking to everyone in their dominant language. This
positions him as something of a linguistic expert, in that it constructs others as hav-
ing a clear language preference, but himself as proficient in both languages. While
Dora and Lucia also generally switch to English to address me, they also (as can be
seen in the figures in Table 2) frequently address their peers in English too, indicat-
ing that their choice of English is linked to something other than the performance of
a linguistic virtuoso. I argue that for Antonio, this is exactly what use of English is:
an opportunity for him to establish his credentials as a bilingual, and enhance his
reputation as a smart student.
Unlike with Dora and Lucia, Antonio’s bilingualism does not construct a hybrid
identity. Evidence for this can be found in his lack of code-switching with his peers (see
Tables 1 and 2); he consistently indexes their common Mexican identity with his use of
Spanish. His language choices in conversation X412 (and, I argue, in general) cannot
be seen as merely addressee-oriented, because of the patterns of code-switching he
uses with KS (and, in other conversations, with me). Language choice for Antonio is a
tool he uses, with some finesse, to create and display his standing in the classroom.
Conclusion
These data show a complex pattern of language choices made by these nine- and
ten-year-old bilinguals that illustrate different ways in which code-switching can be
used to negotiate identity. Constructing identity is not a simple formula of using
Spanish to index a Mexican identity and English to index an American or Mexican-
American one; each code has multiple meanings which may vary according to the
speaker and social context.
For Dora and Lucia, frequent use of English with each other helps to construct
their identity as best girlfriends. This bond is gendered insofar as the prototype of
female relationships is the “best friends” dyad; they draw on this cultural construct
with their own use of this term in repeated displays of solidarity. Dora and Lucia’s
use of English also aligns them with the benefits of majority language fluency and
allows them to present competent personas in the classroom. Despite relatively inat-
tentive behavior during instruction, they do not enact identities which scorn aca-
demic achievement. Their use of English, the prestige code in their school, helps to
present them as viable candidates for academic advancement.
At the same time, these girls’ use of Spanish–English inter- and intra-sentential
code-switching contributes to the construction of a bilingual identity, coupling their
participation in U.S. mainstream culture with a Mexican heritage they have no desire
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 126
to deny. For these two speakers, the boundary between Mexican language and cus-
toms and mainstream U.S. lifestyle is one that they repeatedly cross and bridge.
Although this analysis has focused on their use of code-switching in creating a bilin-
gual, bicultural identity for themselves within their friendship dyads, it is important to
remember that they also use a great deal of Spanish in casual interactions with peers,
especially those with low English proficiency. The line between Mexican and U.S.
worlds is not always blurred; sometimes they are quite distinct and these young girls
use linguistic resources to move back and forth between the two. In this sense, they are
aware of these as pre-existent categories, but also create their own hybrid culture.
For Miguel, frequent use of Spanish constructs a strong Mexican identity, but is
mitigated by his adherence to the language norms of classroom tasks. Miguel works
to combine and balance pre-existing, and sometimes conflicting, identity categories.
His desire to construct himself as a good student in a U.S. classroom could be under-
mined by his determination to construct himself as Mexican. However, he balances
these two strands of identity by shifting his language choice according to speech
event and interlocutor, using English in English lessons but switching to Spanish for
embedded peer interactions. He concurrently constructs these two strands of iden-
tity to position himself in terms of ethnic identity and student role.
Antonio’s identity, like the girls, is a bilingual one; but in his case it is less a reflec-
tion of his social networks than a performance of his linguistic virtuosity and role as
a good student. Unlike all three of the other children, his language choices seem
steered by contrasts which bring emphasis to his utterances. Further, although all
interlocutors vary their code choices according to addressee, Antonio appears to be
the speaker most guided by this principle. With strategic use of language choices he
positions himself as a proficient bilingual and other interlocutors, such as Miguel
and the author, as Spanish-dominant and English-dominant, respectively. While his
code choices make sense in terms of the proficiency and preferences of these
addressees, they also contribute to his own identity construction as an able bilingual
which, in this classroom, translates into high academic achievement.
All of these children use both languages in their everyday interactions, but the
quantity of their English or Spanish use, and the functions they fulfill with each lan-
guage, are linked to their positioning of themselves as social beings. Although the
link between language choice and ethnic/national identity may be most salient from
an external perspective, these children are not merely members of ethnic groups;
they are also boys and girls, friends and competitors, students, bilinguals, and pre-
teens. While language choice does not do all of the work in performing these multi-
faceted roles, in this bilingual setting each language takes on multiple meanings and
functions, allowing for dynamic and variable construction of identity.
Notes
Acknowledgments. I would like to acknowledge the invaluable help of Kevan Self in this
research, as well as the helpful comments of two anonymous reviewers on earlier drafts of this
article.
1. At no time did I ever hear the words “Latino,” “Latina,” “Hispanic,” or “Mexican-
American” used by the children, and only once, in the second year of my research, did I wit-
ness use of the term “Chicana,” which one girl wrote on a picture she drew to put on the
outside of her locker. Thus, I adopt the terminology of the children and will continue to dis-
cuss identity in terms of being Mexican and American.
2. As this study was carried out solely in the bilingual classrooms, the interesting question
of how the Mexican-American children in the mainstream classrooms perceived and con-
structed their identities cannot be addressed.
3. Beginning in the fall of 2003, some effort was made to try to overcome this obstacle by
having the children attend Music, Physical Education, Computers, and Life Skills classes with
the children from a monolingual classroom in their same grade. My observations of the chil-
dren in this context were limited, but there was no evidence that friendship ties—or even
much casual interaction—emerged from this attempt at integration.
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 127
References Cited
Ardington, Angela M.
2003 Alliance-Building in Girls’ Talk: A Conversational Accomplishment of Playful
Negotiation. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 26(1):38–54.
Auer, Peter
1984 Bilingual Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
1995 The Pragmatics of Code-Switching. In One Speaker, Two Languages: Cross Disciplinary
Perspectives on Code-Switching. Lesley Milroy and Pieter Muysken, eds. Pp. 115–135.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bailey, Benjamin
2001 The Language of Multiple Identity among Dominican Americans. Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology 10(2):190–223.
Baxter, Judith
2002 Competing Discourses in the Classroom: A Post-Structuralist Discourse Analysis of
Girls’ and Boys’ Speech in Public Contexts. Discourse and Society 13(6):827–842.
Blackledge, Adrian, and Aneta Pavlenko
2001 Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. International Journal of Bilingualism
5(3):243–257.
Bucholtz, Mary
1999 You da Man: Narrating the Racial Other in the Production of White Masculinity. Journal
of Sociolinguistics 3(4):443–460.
2001 Gender. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9(1–2):80–83.
Cameron, Deborah
1997 Performing Gender Identity: Young Men’s Talk and the Construction of Heterosexual
Masculinity. In Language and Masculinity. Sally Johnson and Ulrike H. Meinhof, eds.
Pp. 47–64. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Cammarota, Julio
2004 The Gendered and Racialized Pathways of Latino and Latina Youth: Different Struggles,
Different Resistances in the Urban Context. Anthropology and Education Quarterly
35(1):53–74.
Cheshire, Jennifer, and Penelope Gardner-Chloros
1998 Code-Switching and the Sociolinguistic Gender Pattern. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language 129:5–34.
Cook-Gumperz, Jenny, and Margaret Szymanski
2001 Classroom ‘Families’: Cooperating or Competing—Girls’ and Boys’ Interactional Styles
in a Bilingual Classroom. Research on Language and Social Interaction 34(1):107–130.
Davies, Julie
2003 Expressions of Gender: An Analysis of Pupils’ Gender Discourse Styles in Small Group
Classroom Discussions. Discourse and Society 14(2):115–132.
Eckert, Penelope
1989 Jocks and Burnouts: Social Categories and Identity in the High School. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Eckert, Penelope, and Sally McConnell-Ginet
2003 Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Elías-Olivares, Lucia Ernestina
1976 Ways of Speaking in a Chicano Community: A Sociolinguistic Approach. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin.
Evaldsson, Ann-Carita
2002 Boys’ Gossip Telling: Staging Identities and Indexing (Unacceptable) Masculine
Behavior. Text 22(2):199–225.
Fleck, Catherine L.
2004 Bilingualism and Identity: A Sociolinguistic Study of Native Spanish-Speaking Children
in an Agricultural Community in California. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Spanish
Applied Linguistics, Michigan State University.
Fuller, Janet, Minta Elsman and Kevan Self
Forthcoming Addressing Peers in a Spanish–English Bilingual Classroom. In Proceedings from
the 20th Conference of Spanish in the US and the 5th Conference of Spanish in Contact with
Other Languages. Kim Potowski and Richard Cameron, eds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gal, Susan
1978 Peasant Men Can’t Get Wives: Language Change and Sex Roles in a Bilingual
Community. Language in Society 7(1):1–16.
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 128
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness

2002 Building Power in Asymmetries in Girls’ Interaction. Discourse and Society 13(6):715–730.
Kiesling, Scott
2001 “Now I Gotta Watch What I Say”: Shifting Constructions of Masculinity in Discourse.
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(2):250–273.
Kroskrity, Paul V.
2000a Identity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9(1–2):111–114.
2000b Language Ideologies in the Expression and Representation of Arizona Tewa Ethnic
Identity. In Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Paul V. Kroskrity, ed.
Pp. 329–359. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
LePage, R. B., and Andrée Tabouret-Keller
1985 Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mendoza-Denton, Norma
2002 Language and Identity. In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, J. K.
Chambers, Peter Trudgill and Natalie Schilling-Estes, eds. Pp. 475–499. Oxford: Blackwell.
Myers-Scotton, Carol
1993 Social Motivations for Codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Nagata , Judith A.
1974 What is Malay? Situational Selection of Ethnic Identity in a Plural Society. American
Ethnology 1(2):331–350.
Nayar, Bhaskaran
2002 Ideological Binarism in the Identities of Native and Non-Native English Speakers. In
Us and Others: Social Identities across Language, Discourses and Cultures. Anna Duszak,
ed. Pp. 464–479. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nero, Shondel J.
2005 Language, Identities, and ESL Pedagogy. Language and Education 9(3):194–211.
Potowski, Kim
2004 Student Spanish Use and Investment in a Dual Immersion Classroom: Implications for
Second Language Acquisition and Heritage Language Maintenance. The Modern Language
Journal 88(1):75–101.
Quiroz, Pamela Anne
2001 The Silencing of Latino Student “Voice”: Puerto Rican and Mexican Narratives in
Eighth Grade and High School. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 32(3):326–349.
Self, Kevan
2005 Talk and Identity in the Bilingual Classroom. Paper presented at the 5th International
Symposium on Bilingualism, Barcelona, March 20–23.
Swann, Joan, and David Graddol
1988 Gender Inequalities in Classroom Talk. English in Education 22(1):48–65.
Thorne, Barrie
1993 Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Wei, Li
1998 The “Why” and “How” Questions in the Analysis of Conversation Code-Switching. In
Code-Switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity. Peter Auer, ed.
Pp. 156–179. New York: Routledge.
Young, Josephine Peyton
2004 Cultural Models and Discourses of Masculinity: Being a Boy in a Literacy Classroom.
In An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education. Rebecca Rogers, ed.
Pp. 147–172. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Department of Anthropology, MC 4502

Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901
jmfuller@siu.edu
JLIN1701_06.qxd 4/19/07 12:51 PM Page 129
Appendix A: Transcription Convention Key

All examples are labeled with the name of the recording (e.g., F402, M406) and the
line numbers from the transcript. Speakers are listed in the heading for each exam-
ple; the first initial of each speaker’s name is used to identify speakers within the
transcript.
regular font Spanish utterances; English translations are provided

in quotation marks on the right side of the page.
bold type English utterances
/words inside slashes / overlapping utterances
/words inside slashes/
xxx unintelligible word or syllable
(word) unclear word; indicates transcriber uncertainty
underlining emphasis
{reading},{whispers} description of the utterance
[words in square brackets] words which were not uttered, but are inserted into
the translation to make it intelligible
(.) pause of less than one full second
(1), (2), (3), etc. pause of 1, 2, 3, etc. seconds long
co:lan elongated sound
exclamation point! animated utterance
↑↓ rising and falling intonation within a word
. falling intonation at the end of a sentence
? rising intonation
= latching; no time lapse between utterances
View publication stats

Joflinguisticanthropology 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Joflinguisticanthropology 2007

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

Joflinguisticanthropology 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Language Choice as a Means of Shaping Identity

Article in Journal of Linguistic Anthropology · June 2008

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Language Choice as a Means

Language Choice and Code-switching

106 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Language and Identity

Language Choice as a Means of Shaping Identity 107

Ethnicity and Nationality

108 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Language Choice as a Means of Shaping Identity 109

110 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

In addition, enactment of a student identity is particularly important in the dis-

Language Choice as a Means of Shaping Identity 111

Research Setting and Data Collection

112 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

The Fourth Graders: A Quantitative Overview

Language Choice as a Means of Shaping Identity 113

Peer-Directed: Peer-Directed: Adult-Directed: Adult-Directed:

To Antonio To Dora To Lucia To Miguel To All Peers

114 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

The Girls: Bilingual Best Friends

Language Choice as a Means of Shaping Identity 115

little importance on their children’s schooling, which was reportedly reflected in

(1) D = Dora; L = Lucia; R = Raquel

116 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

(2) L = Lucia; D = Dora

Language Choice as a Means of Shaping Identity 117

12 L: /I wanna / stay there.

118 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

(3) A = Antonio; D = Dora; KS = teacher/researcher; M = Miguel; L = Lucia

Language Choice as a Means of Shaping Identity 119

120 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Differing types of identities formed out of different constellations of English, Spanish

Miguel: “Yo soy Mexicano”

Language Choice as a Means of Shaping Identity 121

122 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

19. A: A hundred sixty-one. That’s what I get.

Language Choice as a Means of Shaping Identity 123

We will return to this example in the following discussion of Antonio’s identity

Antonio: Strategic Code-switching

124 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Language Choice as a Means of Shaping Identity 125

6 KS: No:. Mira. “No:. Look

Antonio’s answer in line 5 may be seen as building on Miguel’s answer; although

126 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Language Choice as a Means of Shaping Identity 127

128 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Goodwin, Marjorie Harness

Department of Anthropology, MC 4502

Language Choice as a Means of Shaping Identity 129

Appendix A: Transcription Convention Key

regular font Spanish utterances; English translations are provided

View publication stats

You might also like