Linguistics and Education 61 (2021) 100901

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Linguistics and Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/linged

A comparative analysis of cultural representations in collegiate world

language textbooks (Arabic, French, and German)
Baburhan Uzum a, Bedrettin Yazan b,∗, Samar Zahrawi a, Siham Bouamer a, Ervin Malakaj c
a
Sam Houston State University, United States
b
University of Texas at San Antonio, United States
c
University of British Columbia, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In world language learning contexts, where learners may have infrequent contact with the target lan-
Received 11 March 2020 guage speakers, learners are primarily exposed to these speakers and their cultures through textbooks.
Revised 12 December 2020
Therefore, the representation of the target language communities and their cultures in textbooks greatly
Accepted 17 December 2020
influences language learners’ understanding of these communities. Drawing upon the concepts of imag-
Available online 6 January 2021
ined communities and identities (Kanno & Norton, 2003) and conducting a multimodal critical discourse
Keywords: analysis (Machin & Mayr, 2012), we analyzed three introductory level world language textbooks (Arabic,
Representation French, and German) used at a U.S. university. We examined how the texts imagine language learners and
Language textbooks target language communities. Our findings indicate that nation-state ideologies and tourism discourse
Imagined communities and identities prevail in how the textbooks imagine language learners and communities, and they fail to represent the
Multimodal critical discourse analysis complex identities and cultures of language users and learners. We found that these textbooks construct
language learners as uncritical and apolitical, and represent language communities as homogeneous and
essentialized in which minoritized groups are tokenized or erased. This study contributes to the schol-
arship in textbook analysis with the critical examination of three collegiate world language textbooks
through a comparative analysis of the similarities and differences amongst these textbooks. Based on the
findings, our paper presents implications for teaching, including class activities that the authors use to
counter the problematic discursive construction in these textbooks.
© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction communities and cultures (perspectives, persons, practices, and

Although technological advances offer novel tools for language
learning, textbooks are still the primary means through which
world language learners are introduced to a target language and
culture. Textbooks hold an “enduring centrality in classrooms
around the world” (Gray, 2013, p. 2). Often viewed as the all-
knowing and all-encompassing reference for language teachers and
learners, textbooks function as “socializing agents” in learners’
journey of language development (Curdt-Christiansen, 2008). This
is especially true for many U.S. higher education institutions in
which learners may not have contact with the target language
speakers in their daily life, and their exposure is limited to their
instructors and rare encounters with international students on
campus. How language textbooks represent the target language
products) influences the image that language learners construct of
these communities and how learners develop their cultural and
intercultural understanding (Risager, 2018). Therefore, in the cur-
rent study, we investigated the ways target language communities
are represented in three selected world language textbooks (Arabic,
French, and German) used in our context; a regional state univer-
sity in the U.S. More specifically, we analyzed textual and visual
content to explore how language learners and the target language
communities are imagined in three selected textbooks currently in
our curriculum: Al-Kitaab, Vis-à-Vis, Deutsch: Na Klar!. This study
contributes to the scholarship in textbook analysis with the critical
examination of three collegiate world language textbooks through
a comparative analysis that focused on the similarities and differ-
ences amongst these textbooks.

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: uzum@shsu.edu (B. Uzum), bedrettin.yazan@utsa.edu
(B. Yazan), sxz015@shsu.edu (S. Zahrawi), sxb081@shsu.edu (S. Bouamer),
ervin.malakaj@ubc.ca (E. Malakaj).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2020.100901
0898-5898/© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
B. Uzum, B. Yazan, S. Zahrawi et al.
Literature Review
Culture in language education
Earlier research suggests moving beyond the traditional under-
standing of culture pedagogy which usually involved the presen-
tation of uppercase ‘C’ culture and small ‘c’ culture of the target
language as “external to and separate from” learners’ first lan-
guage and culture (Scarino, 2010, p. 324). Scholars view culture
as non-normative, heterogeneous, dynamic and variably experi-
enced by individuals with fluid, unstable, and contradictory iden-
tities (Atkinson, 1999; Kramsch, 1998). From this viewpoint, cul-
ture learning occurs at the intersection of the cultures that learn-
ers experience through their first and additional languages in var-
ious contexts, and language learners agentively and subjectively
envision and construct a personal, unique “third place” culture
(Kramsch, 1998). Language learners experientially and discursively
reconstruct culture through their participation in real and virtual
social spaces, which involves autonomy and dependence concur-
rently.
Additionally, when conceptualizing culture in an ever-
globalizing world, Kumaravadivelu (2008) and Risager (2007) sug-
gest considering the flow of cultures and languages through
the porous borders of nation-states and propose a transnational
understanding of culture. Risager proposes that, demonstrative of
nation-state ideologies, “national paradigm of culture” constructs
and maintains a “standard” language and “mainstream” culture,
connects language and culture to a nation, and portrays this
connection as natural (Risager, 2007). This paradigm reduces the
complex, diverse cultural and linguistic landscape to one dominant
language and culture through vast generalizations about “com-
mon” beliefs, values, and practices assumed to be true across the
nation. Such simplified, homogeneous, and essentialist abstraction
of “national” culture and language marginalizes the minority
communities, cultures, and languages. However, the “transna-
tional paradigm” attends to cultural and linguistic complexity,
heterogeneity, and blurred boundaries within and across commu-
nities. It relies on the “awareness that ‘language,’ ‘culture’ and
‘the nation’ are historically constructed ideas each with its own
conceptual history and its societal significance in the building of
nation-states in recent centuries” (Risager, 2007, p. 216). Locating
language teaching in the global context, this paradigm foregrounds
the fluidity of discourses, ideologies, practices, and experiences
across national borders and aims for language learners’ “global
cultural consciousness” and cultural identity transformation
(Kumaravadivelu, 2008, p. 180). Such consciousness requires lan-
guage learners to critique these discourses and grasp their impact
on experiences of language learning and developing intercultural
understanding (Trentman & Diao, 2017).
Language textbooks and cultural representations
Predominantly affecting classroom instruction, textbooks estab-
lish “the basis for the syllabus, the springboard for other activ-
ities and discussions, guidance for new teachers, and socializa-
tion into the practice of language teaching and learning for stu-
dents” (Chapelle, 2016, p. 2). This makes textbooks powerful ve-
hicles through which language learners are introduced to the tar-
get language communities and cultures. The process of language
textbook production involves complex political and ideological de-
cisions made by the authors and publishers (Curdt-Christiansen &
Weninger, 2015; Gray, 2010, 2013). As “a culturally coded educa-
tional construct,” a textbook “represents the way the author and
publisher conceive of language, culture, and learning, and the way
they construe an integrated world” of target language communities
and cultures (Kramsch, 1988, p. 65). Therefore, textbooks are cul-
2
Linguistics and Education 61 (2021) 100901
turally value-laden and construct meanings about the target lan-
guage, its uses, users and varieties, and imaginable ways of be-
ing affiliated with the target language (Gray, 2013). Also, being an
ideological artifact, textbooks can construct meanings that validate
and perpetuate the prevailing power relations in terms of class,
ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, and language ownership
(e.g., being a “native” vs. “non-native” speaker) (Curdt-Christiansen
& Weninger, 2015; Gray, 2013). Constituting the “hidden curricu-
lum” (Auerbach & Burgess, 1985), these cultural and ideological
meanings undergird decisions regarding the selective representa-
tion of the target language communities and cultures in textbooks
(Keles & Yazan, 2020). The questions of “who and what is included
in this representation” and “how and to what extent are they rep-
resented” make textbooks problematic.
Two main problems with representation in textbooks, as
Gray (2013) contends, are “politics of erasure and misrecognition”
(p. 6). Erasure occurs when “certain groups or identity positions”
are systematically left out of “officially endorsed versions of so-
cial reality” (e.g., policies, textbooks) which denies these groups
recognition (p. 6). Misrecognition denotes representing groups or
identities of people in a belittling or stereotypical manner, which
denies them agency, such as, “the sexist representation of women,
or the representation of colonized or indigenous peoples in his-
tory or geography books as subservient, feckless, lazy” (p. 6). In the
same vein, Azimova and Johnston (2012) use hooks’ (1992) con-
cept of “violent erasure” to explain the discourses of the powerful
in shaping visual and written representation in textbooks. When
authors and publishers address such critiques, they do not go be-
yond “mentioning” (Apple & Christian-Smith, 1991; Gray, 2013).
This mentioning often happens to be “tokenistic,” that is, “the pre-
viously erased group gets a name check but the issues surround-
ing its erasure or its members’ struggle for recognition on their
own terms is not explored” (Gray, 2013, p. 7). Thereby, explicit cul-
tural stereotypes and biases have been removed from textbooks,
but implicit cultural, political, and ideological ones have yet to be
addressed (Reagan, 2002).
The earlier studies explored the representations in various lan-
guage textbooks that convey cultural and ideological meanings
about certain communities, the target language use, and the cor-
responding identities. One of the main themes in previous liter-
ature was diverse representation in the worlds discursively con-
structed in textbooks, i.e., manifesting the inherent variety, dif-
ference, and hybridity that characterize communities, as well as
their members, practices, and perspectives (Kubota, 2003). For ex-
ample, in their critical analysis of two Russian textbooks designed
for American students, Shardakova and Pavlenko (2004) examined
the repertoire of identities imagined for Russian language learn-
ers and their potential interlocutors. These textbooks represented
learners of Russian as “invariably able-bodied White middle-class
educated young people, members of the international elite” (p.
31). Foregrounding white middle-class speakers of standard Rus-
sian, both texts failed to portray the diversity of Russian speak-
ers in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, social
class, occupation, and age. Inspired by Shardakova and Pavlenko’s
study, Azimova and Johnston (2012) investigated this diversity (or
lack thereof) in nine Russian language textbooks, using theoreti-
cal constructs of “representation” (Barthes, 1977) and “ownership
of language” (Widdowson, 1994). The representation of the tar-
get language speakers in these texts did not include the speak-
ers of Russian who do not conform to the dominant image of
“white, middle-class, Orthodox Christian ethnic Russians living in
the Russian Federation, most commonly in large cities such as
Moscow and Petersburg” (p. 346). The authors contend that this
removal reinforced the “exclusionary identities” which are associ-
ated with ethnic Russian nationalism in the Russian Federation (p.
347). In another critical textbook analysis, Thompson (2013) stud-
B. Uzum, B. Yazan, S. Zahrawi et al.
ied five introductory Swahili language textbooks using Kubota’s
(2003) framework of critical multiculturalism, as opposed to con-
servative and liberal multiculturalism. She found that the text-
books presented a homogeneous abstract East African culture, de-
tached from its communities, and a Swahili language delinked
from its diverse speech communities.
In a mixed-method study with a multimodal approach,
Chapelle (2016) used social-semiotic theory of meaning to analyze
the cultural political narratives in 65 French textbooks (1960–2010)
that she had previously examined for representation of Canadian
culture in French textbooks (2009). Chapelle’s analysis of the tex-
tual and visual content revealed that despite being “a principally
political one” (p. 222), Québec’s cultural narrative was consider-
ably stripped of its political aspects in the textbooks. Chapelle con-
tends that these textbooks with an “apolitical approach” (p. 223)
present “little if any prompting to develop interest in the politi-
cal aspects of” the learning, teaching, and use of French, and no
“basis for making sense of current events in Canada and Quebec”
(p. 223). More recently, Risager (2018) conducted critical discourse
analysis on selected Danish, English, Esperanto, French, German,
and Spanish language textbooks used in Denmark. Examining these
textbooks as pairs, she used one of the five theoretical approaches
(i.e., national studies, citizenship education studies, cultural stud-
ies, postcolonial studies, and transnational studies) to analyze each
pair. Her overarching goal was to explore: “positioning and repre-
sentation of the actors, representation of culture, society and the
world, approach to intercultural learning, [and] the textbook in so-
ciety” (p. 13). She argued that these textbooks offer students op-
portunities to develop their knowledge of the target language com-
munities, but the representations in the textbooks were problem-
atic in terms of homogenization, hierarchization, and erasure of
languages and communities, with a limited focus on intercultural
competence.
Lastly, building on Gray’s (2013) critical work on language text-
books, Bori (2018) introduced Marxist philosophy to textbook anal-
ysis and suggested researching textbooks as products of the ide-
ologies of the current global political economy, i.e. neoliberalism.
Bori frames this proposal as part of the “political economic turn”
in applied linguistics called for by Block et al. (2012) in order to
add a new dimension (i.e. class) to the growing identity research
and question the global neoliberal hegemony (Bori, 2018, p. 16).
He proposed a textbook analysis model informed by political econ-
omy perspective and analyzed seven Catalan language textbooks at
beginning, elementary, and intermediate levels published between
2005–2015 and used by adult language learners in Catalonia. Com-
bining quantitative (i.e. quantifying the content based on 14 topical
categories) and qualitative (i.e. multimodal critical analysis) anal-
yses, he explored the extent to which “the socioeconomic condi-
tions of contemporary capitalism shape the content of language
textbooks” (p. 82). His findings demonstrate and discuss “the ideo-
logical underpinnings of neoliberalism” (p. 162) in the ways Cata-
lan language textbooks construct three major political economic
realms of society, i.e., social class, the world of work, and the world
of housing.
Imagined worlds in textbooks
Scholars introduced the notion of imagination to language
studies by relying on two complementary theoretical lenses:
Anderson’s (1991) conception of nation-states as imagined com-
munities and Wenger’s (1998) notion of imagination as a way
of engaging with communities of practice (Kanno, 2003; Kanno
& Norton, 2003; Pavlenko & Norton, 2007). When studying and
using a language, learners envision becoming part of a com-
munity, which informs their motivation in the practices of lan-
guage learning and use. Although they may not interact directly
3
Linguistics and Education 61 (2021) 100901
with the members of this community, their imagination affords
them the opportunities to “appropriate new meanings and create
new identities” (Pavlenko & Norton, 2007, p. 670). Orienting their
learning trajectories, learners’ imagined communities and identi-
ties influence their subjectivities, intentionality, motivation, and
agency in their (non)participation in linguistic and cultural prac-
tices (Kanno, 2003).
As learners are agents of their own learning and identity for-
mation, they can negotiate their imagined communities and iden-
tities. Through policies, curricula, and ‘best’ methods, authorita-
tive discourses of language education portray communities and
corresponding identities that are possible for language learners
(and teachers). This portrayal is ideological and political because
it shapes the images of communities so that only the imagina-
tion of certain identities, beliefs, values, experiences, and prac-
tices is made available and possible (Blackledge, 2003). In in-
structional settings, language learners’ experiences with the tar-
get language and culture involve an interaction between what
communities are imagined for and by the learners. Such compli-
cated interaction involves ongoing interplay between authoritative
discourses and individual learners’ aspirations. Considering text-
books are critical and prevalent instruments of authoritative dis-
courses, we addressed the following research questions in this
study:
(1) How are language learners and language communities represented
in each of the selected collegiate world language textbooks?
(2) How are these representations similar, and how are they different
across the three textbooks?
Methodology
Research context
The research was conducted at a regional state university lo-
cated in the South-Central U.S. The university (referred to as SCU)
offers language and culture courses in Arabic/Middle Eastern Stud-
ies, American Sign Language (ASL), French and Francophone stud-
ies, German, Latin American and Latinx studies, and Spanish. SCU
has several study-abroad initiatives, but they can be costly, mak-
ing them inaccessible to some students. Therefore, students study-
ing languages other than Spanish, such as Arabic, French, and
German, may have limited opportunities to interact with people
who speak these languages. The instructors teaching these courses
(researchers/authors) often serve as the cultural representatives
and mediate the complex relationships across textbook knowledge,
course objectives, and their own cultural experiences. Their subjec-
tivities are important to discuss since they use the textbook knowl-
edge in the classes with their own cultural and pedagogical lenses.
Researcher subjectivities
Three of the authors served as primary analysts, and they were
also full-time instructors (with PhDs and professional preparation
in their field) teaching the Arabic, French, and German courses at
SCU. The Arabic instructor was born in Syria and moved to the U.S.
in her adulthood, leaving a university position in Syria due to the
civil unrest in the country. The French instructor of Moroccan her-
itage was born in France and moved to the U.S. for her graduate
studies. The German instructor was born in the former Yugoslavia,
moved to Germany with his family at the age of eight, and im-
migrated to the U.S. when he was sixteen. All three language in-
structors identify themselves as being multilingual and multicul-
tural. Diversity, inclusion, criticality, and systematic questioning are
central to their instructor and researcher identities. The instructors
wanted to help their students develop global consciousness and a
B. Uzum, B. Yazan, S. Zahrawi et al. Linguistics and Education 61 (2021) 100901

Table 1
The selected textbooks.

Content and context of the selected textbooks

Educational Context Cultural content (as advertised) Multimedia

Al-Kitaab, 2011 USA, Higher Ed. Everyday life situations of Arabs living in the US and the Audios; Videos featuring famous Egyptian and Syrian
Arab world actors
Vis-à-Vis, 2014 USA, Higher Ed. Contemporary culture throughout the Francophone World Videos around the life of four bloggers (from Paris,
Québec, Martinique, and Morocco) living in Paris
Deutsch: Na klar!, 2015 USA, Higher Ed. Cultural and multicultural practices in German-speaking Online workbook and an adaptive learning software
countries.

critical interpretive lens to make sense of current events around Data analysis
the world. It was important for the instructors that students en-
gaged with target languages and cultures in a critical manner so Our analysis was guided by a multimodal critical discourse
that they could understand the socio-political and historical di- analysis (MCDA) approach (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Machin &
mensions of the language and continue studying it in the advanced Mayr, 2012) which attends to the power relations discursively con-
levels (Chapelle, 2016). structed through modes of text, image, audio, and video. From
The other two authors are originally from Turkey, where they this approach, discourse defines and is defined by social prac-
began learning English in high school and then taught the language tices, broader socio-political and ideological structures, and power
at post-secondary levels in Turkey for about five years. In a dom- relations (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997) and it strategically “con-
inant Turkish-speaking environment, textbooks played a signifi- ceals and legitimizes, or reveals and even subverts social bound-
cant role in their language learning and teaching experience. Be- aries, inequality, and political or commercial agendas” (Djonov &
fore moving to the U.S. to pursue doctoral studies, textbooks were Zhao, 2014, p. 1). Discourse in language textbooks is constructed
the authors’ major source of exposure to the cultures of English- as authors make meaning by using “linguistic and visual strate-
speaking communities and were instrumental in shaping their En- gies that appear normal or neutral on the surface, but which may
glish curriculum and teaching methods. Both now work as faculty in fact be ideological and seek to shape the representation of
at universities in the southwest U.S. events and persons for particular ends” (Machin & Mayr, 2012,
p. 9). Therefore, examining multimodal content in language text-
books, we sought to “‘denaturalise’ representations” in all modali-
ties to “reveal the kinds of ideas, absences, and taken-for-granted
The selected textbooks
assumptions,” thereby, “the kinds of [ideologies and] power inter-
ests buried” in these modalities (pp. 9–10). This denaturalization
The data for the study come from three introductory level
allowed us to address how discourses in language textbooks re-
world language textbooks (i.e., Al-Kitaab, Vis-à-vis, Deutsch: Na
late to “other dominant discourses” in the larger social context
Klar!) used by students (from beginning to intermediate levels) at
(Kramsch & Vinall, 2015, p. 14).
SCU. We selected these textbooks for three reasons. First, despite
These textbooks serve as representative curriculum artifacts
the presence of Arabic, German, and French speaking communities
which are socio-culturally, ideologically, and commercially situ-
in the U.S. context, learners of these languages in our institution
ated (Apple & Christian-Smith, 1991; Gray, 2013; Risager, 2018;
rarely have access to speakers in their daily life, which makes text-
Weninger, 2020). We conducted a three-phase analysis to reveal
books and accompanying materials a critical component in their
the embedded ideologies and power relations in the selected text-
learning. Second, most of the previous studies examined textbooks
books. First, we coded the multimodal data (assigned codes to text,
of one language that were used in different contexts and were
image, audio, video, and activities) into the categories: imagined
predominantly English (Risager, 2018, p. 6), whereas our study of-
language learner and imagined language communities. Examples of
fers a comparative analysis of the textbooks of three different lan-
units of data include an image accompanied by a list of vocabulary,
guages used in the same educational context. This comparative ap-
a paragraph along with an image, an activity requiring students’
proach helped us analyze the similarities and differences across the
responses, an audio as part of an activity, and a video introduc-
three textbooks in terms of how they represent language learn-
tion of a character. In many cases, we coded a unit of data into
ers and communities. Third, we used introductory level textbooks
more than one category, and in some cases, we cluster-coded ex-
since these courses are often students’ entry point to a language
amples of different modalities into one category because they com-
and culture, and their experience in this level often determines if
plemented each other in representation (Machin & Mayr, 2012). In
they are going to continue studying the language in the next level.
phase one, three of the authors, who used these textbooks as in-
Our experience in these courses and enrollment numbers show
structors, acted as primary analysts, while the other two coordi-
us the importance of introductory courses to make an impact on
nated the coding process and analysis meetings. The three primary
students so that they can continue investing their time and en-
analysts translated materials as needed to facilitate discussion, and
ergy learning the target language and culture. Languages such as
all authors reviewed and discussed the codes to ensure reliability.
Arabic require extended learning periods for first-language English
Any analytical disagreements were resolved through deliberation,
speaking students. According to the enrollment data of the Modern
and majority rule.
Language Association, there were significant differences between
In the second phase, we focused the coded data into themes
introductory and advanced enrollments nationwide. In 2016, the
to (1) describe the representation of language learner and tar-
number of students studying introductory Arabic was 26,888 com-
get language community in the selected textbooks, and (2) exam-
pared to 4114 at the advanced level. The same trend was observed
ine how existing power relations and inequities were maintained
in French with 142,648 introductory and 30,258 advanced enroll-
and legitimized in representation, through erasure and misrecog-
ments, and in German with 65,103 at introductory and 13,856 ad-
nition (Gray, 2013; Risager, 2018). More specifically, we looked
vanced enrollments (Modern Language Association, 2019, p. 50).
for instances in the textbooks when “certain groups and iden-
Table 1 summarizes the selected textbooks in terms of educational
tity positions are left out” of the imagined world of the lan-
context, cultural content (as advertised), and multimedia.

4
B. Uzum, B. Yazan, S. Zahrawi et al.
Table 2
Representation of cultural diversity in the three textbooks.
Monolithic Multilingual/Multicultural
Al-Kitaab 437 (70%) 183 (30%)
Vis-à-Vis 131 (66%) 66 (34%)
Deutsch: Na klar! 153 (60%) 101 (40%)
TOTAL (N= 1071) 721 350
guage or portrayed in a trivializing, denigrating, or stereotypical
manner (Gray, 2013, p. 6). In this round of analysis, we assigned
codes to the data based on our critical interpretation and pre-
vious critical studies of language and culture in textbooks (e.g.,
Chapelle, 2016; Gray, 2013; Kubota, 2003; Risager, 2018). To il-
lustrate, we identified that the textbooks conceived of language
learners as “white,” “Christian,” “able-bodied,” “college student,”
“(un)engaged,” “(un)critical,” “potential tourist,” and “job seeker
in global market”; and the language communities as “mono-
cultural,” “monolingual,” “multicultural,” “multilingual,” “diverse,”
“middle/working class,” “formally-educated,” and “young”; for rep-
resentation of communities “stereotypical,” “diverse,” “complex,”
“(a)historical,” and “(de)contextualized. We then brought these
codes together to make up the final coding map that was used
across the three textbooks (N=1071 total codes: Al-Kitaab= 620,
Vis-à-vis= 197, Deutsch: Na Klar!= 254). In the final coding, we
focused on the most prominent shared categories such as “criti-
cal” and “uncritical” for the representation of language learners,
“monolithic” and “multicultural” for the representation of societies,
and “complex identities,” “culturally diverse,” “stereotypical,” and
“tokenistic” for the representation of language communities and
community members (see Appendix for the final coding map).
When assigning these codes and creating broader themes, we con-
sidered complementary, confirmatory, and contradictory relation-
ships between different modalities of data. As in the first phase,
we held frequent analysis meetings to ensure coding reliability.
Findings
We found that the selected language textbooks attempt to
represent diversity, particularly in the representation of language
communities. To a degree, they demonstrate instances that defy
one-nation, one-language, and one-culture representations. That is,
the Arabic textbook introduces the idea of dialectal and cultural di-
versity within Arabic speaking communities; the French textbook
acknowledges the global existence of Francophonie; the German
textbook describes German speaking contexts as a mosaic of dif-
ferent ethnicities and nationalities.
The textbooks suggest that these languages do not belong
to particular nations and their “ownership” is now shared and
claimed by many communities across the world whose cultural use
of language diverges (Widdowson, 1994). We recognize this as an
important preliminary step taken by the textbook authors to bet-
ter represent the target language and its communities, which con-
tributes to the “seemingly benign discourses” in intercultural un-
derstanding (Trentman & Diao, 2017, p. 198). However, from a crit-
ical perspective, such representation often maintains nation-state
ideology through country-based descriptions and construction of
hierarchized “stable” categories (e.g., native vs. immigrant). Table 2
shows the distribution of monolithic versus multicultural depic-
tions throughout the textbooks.
As illustrated in Table 2, the three textbooks had similar results
in the representation of cultural diversity. All three textbooks over-
whelmingly created a monolithic society creating one-nation rep-
resentations. Compared to Al-Kitaab and Vis-à-vis, Deutsch: Na Klar!
had the highest percentage (40%) of content for portraying a multi-
cultural society in the imagination of the German speaking world.
5
Linguistics and Education 61 (2021) 100901
Table 3
Representation of occasions when learners imagined
(un)critical (i.e., political/apolitical).
Imagination of language learners
Critical Uncritical
Al-Kitaab 0 (0%) 620 (100%)
Vis-à-Vis 42 (21%) 155 (79%)
Deutsch: Na klar! 22 (9%) 232 (91%)
TOTAL (N= 1071) 64 1007
For the smaller percentages of the representations of multicultur-
alism, the textbooks opt to foreground certain linguistic and cul-
tural components, while erasing others, and tend to offer tokenistic
representations of “peripheral” dialects and cultures. Moreover, the
dominant tourism discourse in the textbooks strategically utilizes
this tokenistic diversity as a way to conceal difference, and such
treatment of difference precludes deep engagement with diversity
(Kramsch & Vinall, 2015; Thurlow & Jaworski, 2010). That is, the
textbooks are designed as tourist guidebooks, providing the list of
key experiences that include visiting places of attraction and try-
ing the food with superficial and brief interaction with the “hosts”
to receive the needed services (Kramsch & Vinall, 2015). Thereby,
the textbooks “restrict the range of discursive situations to service
encounters, … operate within predetermined power relations and
expectations, [and] … flatten the tourist gaze to the here-and-now
itemizable information” (p. 23). In Al-Kitaab, this is done by pre-
senting an Arabic speaking community, limited to an elite class
that is highly educated, holds high-paying jobs or prospects, and
travels internationally. In Vis-à-vis, possible travel destinations are
used in examples, and students are encouraged to visit those des-
tinations. For example, it describes, Paris, as “the city of light”
and “picture-perfect” (p. 5). When other French-speaking coun-
tries are mentioned, they are not presented as places to visit. In
the chapter on Morocco, learners are invited to visit “Africa” not
physically, but with a culinary tour (p. 187). In Deutsch: Na Klar!,
learners are presented with brief insights into “life in Germany”
without a discussion of its complex history. For example, a cul-
ture journal section which is included in English, mentions immi-
grants in Germany, but does not discuss how people with migrant
background are embedded within the social networks of Germany,
and ends up casting immigrants as perpetual others. Lastly, the
selected textbooks rarely invite learners to question why this di-
versity exists within languages and their communities, neglecting
their historicity (e.g., colonialism, racism, displaced populations).
When such invitations do occur, we interpreted them as “learners
being imagined as political/critical.” Table 3 shows the distribution
of codes in which learners were conceived of as “critical” or “un-
critical.”
As illustrated in Table 3, there were some differences across the
three textbooks in terms of their approach to engaging learners in
critical and political discussions. In Al-Kitaab, there were no occa-
sions for such representation. We interpreted this as Al-Kitaab’s ex-
plicit emphasis on creating a “favorable” learning environment for
the imagined students whose beliefs about Arabic-speaking world
have been shaped by the dominant post-9/11 discourses (imbued
with xenophobic and racist ideologies) in the US. As such, Al-Kitaab
chooses to avoid debated critical topics which would supposedly
discourage these imagined students from learning Arabic, espe-
cially at the elementary levels. In Vis-à-vis and Deutsch: Na Klar!,
we found some instances (21% and 9% respectively) in which stu-
dents are invited to discuss global and political issues from a crit-
ical perspective, but these attempts are still miniscule, given that
the greater portions of the two books do not prioritize criticality
as an instructional goal. Below, we unpack these issues with rep-
resentative examples from each textbook and present our findings
B. Uzum, B. Yazan, S. Zahrawi et al.
from the three textbooks side-by-side under each theme, in line
with our comparative analysis.
Imagined language learners
Al-Kitaab
The texts and activities in Al-Kitaab address U.S. learners who
are expected to seek jobs related to the Middle East, particularly
in the military, diplomacy, academia, and business. The learners
are imagined to be job seekers in related fields, and language use
is imagined to be predominantly for professional purposes, such
as government or business transactions. The situations and vocab-
ulary introduced to beginners seem to address them according to
such imagination. For example, the United Nations is introduced
as early as lesson one in the elementary level. Terminology con-
nected with the military (pp. 40, 45), university colleges and de-
partments (pp. 35, 58) and government and statesmen (pp. 152,
154, 155) abound in the text and take precedence over clothing,
housing, or daily routine expected as necessary for elementary and
intermediate language classes. In the texts and videos, the learn-
ers are imagined to be white, monocultural, mostly young, college-
level students, with the presentation of parallel characters and
contexts. The majority of the situations depict students and their
professors, and it seems to assume that rapport will be achieved
if the community presented in the book has comparable qualities
with the learners. This could also stem from the fact that Al-Kitaab
is published by a university publishing house, unlike the German
and French textbooks whose publishers are independent publish-
ing companies. The day-to-day situations in Al-Kitaab depict mem-
bers of an extended Arab family who are well-established immi-
grants in the U.S., living and working in major cities like New York
and Chicago, or affiliated with the United Nations. Other characters
live in prominent Arabic-dominant cities like Damascus and Cairo.
Thus, the settings of the stories are divided equally between both
worlds: U.S. and Arab countries, creating transnational connections.
Within the U.S. sociohistorical context, the public perception of,
or “the American gaze” towards (Trentman & Diao, 2017) Arabs,
Muslims, and Arabic language after 9/11 dipped into lower es-
teem (Hagopian, 2004), which Al-Kitaab indirectly addresses. By
creating families and a net of friends spanning the gap between
the Arab World and the U.S., Al-Kitaab is in line with the objec-
tives of the National Security Language Initiative started by George
Bush in the post 9/11 world, which encourages reform and pro-
motes intercultural understanding. It may be for this reason that
differences are minimized between both cultures, and a shared hu-
manity is emphasized in Al-Kitaab. This approach, while portray-
ing Arab communities as relatable to U.S. communities, is in fact
ineffective in promoting understanding and intercultural compe-
tence. Focusing on the discursive construction of “the American
gaze,” Trentman and Diao (2017) discuss the influence of U.S. me-
dia and policy in shaping the attitude of language learners. The
authors pinpoint a colonial and orientalist discourse and empha-
size the need to critique such discourses that carry implicit mean-
ings of U.S. political and economic dominance, in order to improve
language and intercultural learning. Al-Kitaab is indirectly influ-
enced by such discourse and tries to promote an understanding
of Arabic-speaking communities by creating a cast of “prestigious”
characters: UN translators, university professors and students, and
emerging businessmen who share many traits with their coun-
terparts in U.S. institutions. For example, Tarek is a teaching as-
sistant in the Department of Business pursuing an MBA (pp. 118,
120, 185); Rosana is a young mother who is successful in both so-
cial and academic life (p. 131); Ghassan is initially seeking a more
stimulating job (p. 132), and later in the book, he establishes his
own online company (p. 222). The Arab characters that reside in
the U.S. are leaders in their fields. For example, Maha, a recur-
6
Linguistics and Education 61 (2021) 100901
rent female character across the book, introduces learners to Arabic
speakers, communities, and cultures in all videos. The videos on
pp. 27, 37 feature characters, such as Maha’s father and Khouloud
working as UN interpreters; other characters in videos are univer-
sity professors or medical doctors (pp. 60, 61, 62, 281). With these
carefully constructed characters, Al-Kitaab presents Arabic speak-
ers with whom the learners would want to interact in the U.S. or
travelling in the prominent Arabic speaking cities. However, it fails
to offer learners the critical space to be challenged with cultural
differences through the learning of Arabic and help learners make
sense of current events in the Arabic-speaking world through this
critical perspective.
Vis-à-vis
Vis-à-vis constructs learners’ identity through categories that
fail to capture the learners’ sociocultural diversity in a U.S. class-
room. For example, it uses the “carte nationale d’identité” (official
national French ID card) to introduce and contextualize characters
by age, sex, and birthplace and asks learners to construct them-
selves in French with the same restrictive categories. In Chapter
2, “Nous, les étudiants” (Us, the students), learners are positioned
to think about national identity within strictly defined categories
(p. 35). The activity asks learners to define eight characters and
themselves by choosing nationalities supplied in a list. However,
the list does not provide any discursive tools to identify themselves
in French through complex hyphenated identities such as Mexican-
American, Asian-American, Indian-American, although such identi-
fication is fairly common in the U.S. context. Thus, in an effort to
practice a simple model language, this activity runs the risk of be-
ing reductive in its association of residence and nationality.
Additionally, throughout the book, learners are not afforded
space to express diverse identities. The U.S. is chosen as the natu-
ral point of cross-cultural comparison to Francophone cultures. As
such, learners are perceived as literate in and observant of what
is perceived to be “mainstream” American culture. For example,
in Chapter 1, learners practice talking about the date (days and
months) in French (p. 15). One activity asks students to identify the
dates of American Holidays, prompted by illustrations of a Christ-
mas tree, a Jack-o-lantern (Halloween), a shamrock (St. Patrick’s
Day), George Washington (Presidents’ Day), and father time and
baby new year (New Year’s Eve). These dates are then used for
an activity comparing Switzerland, the United States, and France;
three countries that celebrate Western and Christian holidays. The
second question of the activity asks learners to determine which
country has the greatest number of religious holidays, implying
Christian holidays. When the only access points made available,
in terms of vocabulary, are limited to Christian or American hol-
idays, the learners from other religions and faiths are inevitably
positioned as marginal to the American culture.
Lastly, a lesson on clothing privileges access points to a limited
collection of dress codes for the imagined learner. For instance, one
piece of clothing that is left out of this non-exhaustive list (see
Fig. 1) is a scarf, which denies the possibility of having a student
who covers their head. Although there are other clothing items ex-
cluded from the list, we chose to highlight the scarf because of
the important debates surrounding national identities, Islamopho-
bia, and the hijab in contemporary France which has a sizeable
Muslim population. Not only would the word “scarf” have created
a learning experience for students about Francophone communi-
ties, but it could have facilitated a transition to a culturally critical
reflection on transnationalism and multiculturalism in France and
in the U.S. This limitation continues with a practice activity (p. 65)
in which learners are asked to describe what they would wear to
different events (i.e., a football game, a rock concert, a party, an
interview, at the university, and at the beach). With these prede-
termined events, the activity fails to construct learners as partic-
B. Uzum, B. Yazan, S. Zahrawi et al.
Fig. 1. Clothing and dress code in Vis-à-Vis.
Fig. 2. Health and fitness in Deutsch: Na Klar.
ipants in cultural and social events that differ from stereotypical
American college practices.
Deutsch: Na Klar!
The German textbook constructs language learners as mostly
uncritical, white, able-bodied, and middle-class, by presenting par-
allel characters and topics (i.e., relatable characters and topics for
imagined learners). For example, its first chapter aims to help
learners communicate about the self. It begins by introducing
building blocks, presumably leading to the chapter goal. For in-
stance, students learn to talk about themselves using the sentence
starter “Ich bin...” (I am …) (p. 29). While “Ich bin…” is gram-
matically simple, it could become culturally laden depending on
its complement. To facilitate this sentence-completion exercise, the
textbook lists 16 descriptors, such as “chaotisch” (chaotic), “fleißig”
(hardworking), “konservativ,” “progressiv” (p. 29). The accompany-
ing glossary translates the words to English, without explaining
what these complex markers mean in German-speaking cultures.
Then, learners are expected to choose from the list to identify
themselves without being able to differentiate the complexity of
identities encompassed in the German descriptors. The learners are
positioned to accept the identity descriptors they are offered as
unchangeable, much like the alphabet and numeric system intro-
duced in the same chapter.
Learners are also imagined from an ableist perspective when
discussing health and fitness. Chapter 8 introduces these topics
(see Fig. 2) to teach language learners to communicate “about
health and fitness, the human body, common illnesses and health
complaints, [and] morning routines” (p. 230). In order to introduce
the language structures required to communicate daily routines,
the text offers only a series of normative habits from which to
choose. The characters, Nadine, Philipp, and Johanna, are ostensibly
white, able-bodied, German, and are presented as overtly health-
conscious. As the first theme in this chapter, the “fit und gesund”
7
Linguistics and Education 61 (2021) 100901
(fit and healthy) theme inserts learners into the ableist and thus
reductionist framework imagined for the target language and cul-
ture. The follow-up exercises in this theme also prevent learners
from communicating daily routines outside this ableist framework.
For example, the exercise, “Meine Fittnessroutine” (my fitness rou-
tine), asks “Wie bleiben Sie fit und gesund?” (How do you stay fit
and healthy?) and provides learners with possible answers such
as: “joggen” (to jog), “ins Fitnesscenter gehen” (go to the gym), “veg-
etarisch essen” (eat vegetarian), “meditieren” (meditate) (pp. 232–
233). Ableism seems to be used as an entry point for learners, who
are imagined as able-bodied and represented within the rhetoric
parameters of the exercise. Anyone outside of these parameters is
not represented, which constitutes an erasure of other ways of be-
ing, conceiving, and experiencing activities related to health and
fitness.
Imagined language communities
The representation of language communities in these textbooks
is important for language learners since such representation shapes
their imagination of future interlocutors to a large extent. Target
language communities are sometimes represented as complex and
diverse, but often with stereotypical examples, and minorities are
only integrated through “tokenistic mentioning” and receiving a
name check (Gray, 2013, p. 7). Table 4 shows the distribution of
the codes indicating the representation of language communities
throughout the three textbooks.
As Table 4 illustrates, there are some differences in the ways
the three textbooks represent language communities. Complex
identities are more prevalent in Al-Kitaab (48%), while Vis-à-vis and
Deutsch: Na Klar! have only 2% and 1% respectively. This category
of coding represents speakers and communities that have complex
and detailed personal qualities compared to flat characters. For ex-
ample, Al-Kitaab includes a variety of identity representations (e.g.,
housewife, secular, educated, elite) and learners have access to not
only their daily practices, but also to their perspectives, strug-
gles, and aspirations. Unlike Al-Kitaab, Vis-à-vis and Deutsch: Na
Klar! include more stereotypical depictions of French and German
language speakers and communities with 68% and 70% respec-
tively. In these representations, the characters and their practices
are aligned with the well-established characteristics (e.g., young,
able-bodied college students who enjoy travelling) with which the
imagined learners are expected to be familiar and to which they
are expected to relate. We interpreted this difference as potential
positive implications of French and German stereotypes for lan-
guage learning, as these would be an invitation and access point
(though uncritical) to a “so-called” French and German experience.
The stereotypes about Arabic-speaking communities, in turn, of-
ten have negative implications in the U.S., which is why Al-Kitaab
puts a lot of effort into creating characters with story lines abun-
dantly distanced from stereotypical ones. Conversely, Vis-à-vis and
Deutsch: Na Klar! tend to strategically capitalize on the stereotyp-
ical constructions of French and German speaking communities to
their advantage, i.e. to appeal to students interested in these com-
munities.
Another salient difference across the three textbooks is in the
category of tokenism. While Vis-à-vis and Deutsch: Na Klar! have
28% and 20% of instances in which minoritized language commu-
nities are represented in a tokenistic manner, Al-Kitaab only has
5% of such instances. We interpreted this difference with the re-
spective historical backgrounds of these languages. For example,
Deutsch: Na Klar! and Vis-à-vis make tokenistic references to the
linguistic minorities in French and German speaking communities
such as their immigrant populations and former colonies, whereas
Al-Kitaab does not make such references to the ethnic minorities
in Arabic speaking communities (e.g., Kurds, Armenians, Turkmen
B. Uzum, B. Yazan, S. Zahrawi et al.
Table 4
Representation of language communities and community members.
Language Communities
Complex Identities
Al-Kitaab 300 (48%)
Vis-à-Vis 3 (2%)
Deutsch: Na Klar! 1 (1%)
TOTAL (N= 1071) 304
in the Levant and Africans) and completely avoids any references
to the plethora of historical and political conflicts around minori-
ties. Instead, Al-Kitaab makes some references to different Arabic
dialects, thereby representing ethnolinguistically diverse communi-
ties (14%) within Arabic speaking countries in a limited manner. In
the next section, we present specific examples from each textbook
with our interpretations.
Al-Kitaab
In Al-Kitaab, erasure occurs in an effort to represent Arabic-
speaking communities as specifically relatable to learners in the
U.S., possibly in an effort to counteract the stereotypes about
Muslims and the Arabic-speaking world, but at the expense of
representing cultural diversity within these communities. With
varying political status in various diglossic communities, Arabic
is an official language in approximately 30 countries and has
five main dialect groups: Maghrebi, Egyptian, Levantine, Gulf, and
Iraqi (Albirini, 2016). This breakdown is further divided into many
more varieties. Like most textbooks, Al-Kitaab starts with Modern
Standard Arabic (MSA) and provides a limited variety of spoken
Arabic. It teaches MSA alongside two other vernaculars, namely
Egyptian and Syrian (a sub-category of Levantine). It draws an
agreeable and relatable image of Syrian and Egyptian cultures,
and presents imagined interlocutors who systematically counter-
act common stereotypes connected to Muslims and Middle Eastern
communities.
Al-Kitaab presents Arabic-speaking communities as homoge-
neously secular. It demonstrates people’s use of religious language
as optimistic, benevolent, and grateful. Although the name of Allah,
which is an integral part of Arabic, is present in the textbook and
related videos, Al-Kitaab underrepresents the culturally-ingrained
importance of Islam in daily social language use. While the use of
the various names of God is entrenched in cultural practice, and
a signifier of the people’s beliefs, the textbook reflects this mini-
mally and superficially. In the span of one semester, covering the
first four lessons, learners will encounter the name of Allah once
in the text (p. 2) and ten times in the supplementary video and au-
dio material. For example, the video conversations (p. 17) use the
interjection “ ” “Wallah?” to mean “really?” The same name ex-
presses admiration like in “ ” (Ma Sha’a Allah - This is what
God willed) and wishing well “ ” (Allah Yekhaleehun - May
God keep them safe) (p. 61). In Lesson 5, two expressions are used;
“ ” (Al-hamdulillah ala alsalama - Thank God for your
safe arrival) and “ ” (Allahma’ak - God be with you) (p. 110).
Despite the extensive use of Allah in real life, the textbook spar-
ingly represents it as part of the Arabic speakers’ language prac-
tices.
The community is family-oriented and enjoys compassionate
relations. However, the text also portrays the main character Maha,
a blue eyed blonde young woman who is an only child, used
to being by herself, and does not exemplify Arabic social inter-
dependence. In other words, she represents a trait of individu-
alism that is more associated with the imagined learner’s cul-
ture. Many videos feature monologues in which one single char-
acter comments on oneself or one’s loneliness (e.g., pp. 13, 24, 54).
Linguistics and Education 61 (2021) 100901
Culturally Diverse Stereotypical Tokenistic
84 (14%) 206 (%33) 30 (5%)
3 (2%) 135 (68%) 56 (28%)
23 (9%) 178 (70%) 52 (20%)
110 519 138
The individuals represented in the text and videos, whether living
in the U.S. or in the Arabic-speaking countries, belong to a nar-
row spectrum of elite, highly educated people. Men are PhD hold-
ers, professors, businessmen, UN translators, corporate employees,
freelance entrepreneurs, teaching assistants, and students. Women
are almost equally well-accomplished, and are depicted as medi-
cal doctors, professors, teaching assistants, students, university em-
ployees, and bank accountants. Clothing-wise, they are mostly un-
veiled. When women are housewives, they are part of an affluent
family and have access to resources. For example, Marwan’s wife,
Rana, (p. 36) is a housewife who mainly cares about going out and
having a good time (pp. 197, 243). Her neighbor goes on expen-
sive trips to Paris (p. 110) and convinces her to travel to Europe (p.
263). In general, the Arabic community represented in Al-Kitaab is
restricted to a network of small, elite, urban families, emphasiz-
ing “universal” values that are worthy of respect and admiration,
while failing to effectively position students to examine cultural
difference or combat Islamophobia in the U.S. sociocultural context.
People are oriented towards ambition, success, affluence, and hap-
piness in familial and social life. Such representation highlights the
similarities, rather than the differences, between Arabic-speaking
and U.S. cultures.
Ethnic diversity is all but erased in Al-Kitaab, as well. For exam-
ple, Syria contains 36 ethnic and religious groups: Sunni, Shi’ite,
Ismaili, Alawite, Christian, Baha’i, Kurdish, Armenian, and Circas-
sians, to name a few. Egypt enjoys a similar diversity. Yet, in the
text, the mosaic structure of these two societies is erased. A pass-
ing reference to Sunnis and Shiites is given in the third lesson (p.
46), in the context of the family tree of the Prophet Mohammad,
without any reference to the coexistence- or the discordance- of
both ethnic sects, let alone any explanation of the ramifications
of the split on the peace prospects in the Middle East. The exis-
tence of Arab Christians is abridged to one image only (p. 208). No
representation of ethnically diverse individuals is attempted in the
supplementary videos.
Although the textbook aims to provide an affinity between the
imagined learner and the interlocutors, it does not represent the
ethnic diversity or the nature and significance of piety in the Arab
world. The simplified representation of Syrian and Egyptian soci-
eties, and the erasure of other Arabic-speaking communities, con-
tradict the intentions of the textbook, and deny learners the op-
portunities to develop critical cultural awareness during language
learning.
Vis-à-vis
Vis-à-vis represents the French-speaking world as diverse and
globally present with the words: “More than 220 million people in
the world speak French, either as their native language or as a sec-
ond language used in the workplace. French-speaking regions are
found throughout the world” (p. 4). It includes chapters and activ-
ities about Francophone countries and regions other than France,
such as Morocco, Senegal, and Québec. However, this attempt at
portraying a multicultural Francophonie context often lacks depth,
and excludes several social groups and diverse identities. In many
sections of the book, the texts, images, and activities depict a
8
B. Uzum, B. Yazan, S. Zahrawi et al. Linguistics and Education 61 (2021) 100901

simplistic and often stereotypical view of “Frenchness.” Although

the textbook mentions the historical and political reality behind
the widespread presence of French, it does not unpack this real-
ity by connecting the French language to France’s colonial history,
thereby imagining learners as uncritical. That is, it fails to address
the question of what historically led to the construction of the
Francophonie.
The erasure of the colonial past and its postcolonial implica-
tions is noticeable as early as the table of contents, in which
a division between various countries guides the general organi-
zation of the book. The 16 chapters are divided in geograph-
ical sections: “Bienvenue en Amérique du Nord” (Welcome to
North America), “Bienvenue en Afrique Francophone” (Welcome to
French-speaking Africa), “Bienvenue en Europe francophone” (Wel-
come to French-speaking Europe), “Bienvenue dans les îles franco-
phone” (Welcome to the French-speaking islands). Such represen-
tation seems to be attending to the diversity within the Fran-
cophonie, but the close examination raises issues. First, this geo-
graphical categorization remains rather superficial and erases the
cultural heterogeneity of the proposed regions. Second, the first
section only covers Québec, but leaves out Louisiana, and other
French-speaking communities across Canada. Despite the promi-
nence of French in 26 African countries, the African section fo-
cuses only on Morocco, and the section on French-speaking Islands
is limited to Martinique. Therefore, it seems that there is an at-
Fig. 3. Multicultural journal in Deutsch: Na Klar.
tempt to present French language and culture in a global and di-
verse setting, but this attempt excludes many language commu-
nities or does not go beyond simplistic inclusion and tokenistic
mentioning. Discussion

The three focal textbooks reflect a liberal approach to multicul-

Deutsch: Na Klar!
Despite some attempts at complexity and diversity in Deutsch:
Na Klar!, the representation of language community remains
stereotypical and erases minoritized communities. Topics of multi-
culturalism are present in the opening chapters; however, they are
aligned with the rhetoric of uncriticality. The chapters point toward
cultural complexity, but do not actively help learners engage crit-
ically with questions about culture. The authoritative, fact-based
mode in which the language material is introduced reinforces sim-
plified and culturally non-pluralistic material and informs the con-
struction of the target language communities. For example, the
first chapter, which introduces the “Ich bin ...” sentence-starter, also
presents a journal on multiculturalism (see Fig. 3).
The journal “Multikulturalismus in Deutschland” (Multicultural-
ism in Germany) offers an English-language overview, which seem-
ingly introduces students to the multifaceted makeup of Germany’s
population. However, the text does not discuss German-speaking
communities outside Germany, despite the fact that the paratex-
tual material (i.e., flags) represents three German-speaking nations
(i.e., Austria, Switzerland, and Germany). The cultural journal ac-
knowledges anti-immigrant sentiments, stereotypes, and outright
racism, and represents an admirable attempt to complicate the cul-
tural makeup of Germany, from the first chapter of the book on-
ward. Yet, in attempting to paint a complex picture of the cultural
realities in Germany, the text bifurcates the so-called immigrant
population from what is assumed to be a homogenized German
population. This approach denies the complexity of the interac-
tion amongst varying cultural communities across generations and
risks perpetuating the ideologies like: once Turkish, always Turk-
ish. Therefore, it is not clear what the so-called “German” identity
is comprised of and what the so-called immigrants need to do to
ever be a part of this imagined identity. As in Vis-à-vis, there is
no mention of a dual-ethnicity such as Turkish-German or Greek-
German for these minorities, which reinforces the bifurcation and
neglects transcultural identities.
turalism, which echoes earlier work on world language textbooks
(Azimova & Johnston, 2012; Chapelle, 2016; Thompson, 2013). This
approach seems to acknowledge and celebrate cultural diversity
within the target language community, yet this celebration occurs
on a superficial level, focusing on folks, flag, festivals, and food
(Kramsch, 1998; Kubota, 2004). All three textbooks treat languages,
communities, and their cultures in “decontextualized and trivial-
ized manners divorced from the everyday life of people and the
political struggle to define cultural identity” (Kubota, 2004). The
textbooks tend to construct language learners as “mere cultural
voyeurs” (Curdt-Christiansen & Weninger, 2015, p. 5) or potential
tourists who need ahistorical and apolitical cultural knowledge to
prepare for their tourist experience in the target language coun-
tries. The textbooks present culture that “‘contain[s]’ difference un-
der an earnest guise of celebration and respect” (Thurlow & Ja-
worski, 2010, p. 236), yet contributes to the essentializing tourism
discourse driven by neoliberal ideology of globalization (Keles &
Yazan, 2020; Kramsch & Vinall, 2015). Such discourse in textbooks
keeps learners from “explor[ing] deep cultural differences and di-
verging worldviews” (p. 22), truly engaging with language, culture,
and people, “tak[ing] into account non-English speakers’ memo-
ries and aspirations,” and becoming “aware of their subject posi-
tion and how they are seen by others” (p. 23).
The textbooks in this study also conceptualize culture based on
nationality, portraying language communities as homogeneous, at
the expense of their diversity, complexity, fluidity, and dynamism.
To illustrate, despite problematizing the marginalization of immi-
grants in Germany, Deutsch: Na Klar! constructs a clear-cut de-
marcation between so-called Germans and immigrants from other
countries. This essentializing construction repudiates immigrants’
unique contributions to the cultures and languages in Germany,
positioning immigrants as perpetual “others,” and denying the cul-
tural interaction and hybridization. Thereby, such essentialization
neglects the complex cultural identities of the second and third
generation immigrants.

9
B. Uzum, B. Yazan, S. Zahrawi et al.
Aligned with the liberal approach to multiculturalism and a
nation-based definition of culture, the focal textbooks either en-
tirely “erase” non-mainstream communities and cultures in the tar-
get communities or grant tokenistic mentioning to some, corrobo-
rating previous research (Azimova & Johnston, 2012; Gray, 2013;
Risager, 2018; Shardakova & Pavlenko, 2004). Such an exclusive
discourse perpetuates the dichotomy between the mainstream
and minorities, and reinforces the marginalizing and othering dis-
courses in language learning. Although erasure is prevalent in all
three textbooks, what occurs in Al-Kitaab is particularly remark-
able, because it erases ethnic and class diversity, and religiosity,
which are significant components embedded in the daily language
use and culture of Arabic-speaking communities. Regardless of the
varying degrees of language users’ religiousness, Arabic includes
many instances of the name of Allah in everyday language trans-
actions which are minimally represented in Al-Kitaab. We argue
that the erasure of such an entrenched aspect of culture and lan-
guage is an attempt to imagine relatable target language com-
munities for the U.S.-based language learners who are suppos-
edly affected by the pervasive discourses of Islamophobia. While
this attempt could be well-intended to counteract the stereotypi-
cal Arabic-speaker image, and may even reflect the textbook au-
thors’ imagination of their own communities, it leads language
learners to develop an incomplete picture of the language use
and culture in Arabic-speaking communities. Such erasure is part
of a “tourism discourse” that predominantly shapes the repre-
sentations in language textbooks, and language education in gen-
eral (Kramsch, 1988, 1998; Kubota, 2004; Thompson, 2013). To ad-
dress the prevalence of this discourse, Kubota (2003) suggests that
teachers and learners should approach cultural, practices, prod-
ucts, and perspectives with an anti-essentialist, critical perspec-
tive which is subsumed in her four D “heuristic device” (p. 75).
This perspective views culture through descriptive understandings
by focusing on diversity and hybridity within cultures, dynamic
and ever-shifting nature of cultures, and discursive constructions
that shape our cultural knowledge. Thereby, Kubota’s critical ap-
proach affords the standpoint to see “plurality of meaning as well
as power and politics behind cultural definitions” (p. 75).
Although the selected language textbooks share a similar essen-
tializing discourse in the representation of language learners and
communities, comparing how this discourse is constructed across
these textbooks yielded some nuances in that representation. The
writers of all three textbooks as well as the publishers seem to
have considered the U.S. sociocultural context of language teach-
ing and target student population who would be the purchasers
and users of these books. This consideration manifests differently
in Al-Kitaab as opposed to Vis-à-vis, and Deutsch: Na Klar!, which
is shaped by the dominant ideologies in the U.S. about the Ara-
bic, French, and German speaking communities. That is, Al-Kitaab
attempts to reverse the prevalent, xenophobic image of Arabic-
speaking individuals and communities in the U.S. by providing
well-rounded characters with skin, eye, and hair color very similar
to the racially idealized whiteness. For the most part, these charac-
ters are either graduate students or wealthy, secular professionals
with well-paying jobs (e.g., medical doctors, diplomats) who can
go on multiple vacations with no financial concerns. Such repre-
sentation introduces learners to “relatable” and “respectable” in-
dividuals in the imagined communities of Arabic and discursively
approximates Arabic speakers to the privileged groups in the U.S.,
particularly in terms of race and class. Conversely, Vis-à-vis, and
Deutsch: Na Klar! predominantly rely on the dominant stereotypical
image of French and German speaking communities which could
be aligned with or part of imagined textbook users’ motivation to
learn the language.
This comparative look draws our attention to the conceptual
complexity in the ways misrecognition and erasure might oper-
10
Linguistics and Education 61 (2021) 100901
ate together in representation of language communities in text-
books. That is, Al-Kitaab’s way of creating an antithesis of stereo-
types about Arabic speakers (perhaps to avoid misrecognition) has
concomitantly led to erasure of one significant pragmatic aspect
of Arabic language (i.e. use of Allah in daily wishes and exclama-
tions) as well as ethnic and religious minorities in Arabic-speaking
communities which we discussed earlier in this section. In that
sense, Al-Kitaab stands out as an example of deliberate discourse
construction. It exemplifies the efforts to counter the xenophobic
stereotypes intensified post-9/11 via textbook discourse which re-
sults in reducing the representation of Arabic speakers to elite, sec-
ular, wealthy individuals and erasing the complexity and diversity
in terms of social-class, religion, and ethnicity.
Moreover, textbook authors’ and publishers’ decisions can be
influenced by the commercial value of textbooks instead of strictly
their educational value (Chapelle, 2016; Gray, 2013). The publish-
ers’ intent to maximize sales might have led to the dominance of
tourism discourse, uncriticality, politically “benevolent” represen-
tation of target language communities, liberal approach to mul-
ticulturalism, and tokenistic mentioning of minorities in the se-
lected language textbooks. However, such commercial explanation
is not to eclipse the interplay between research-based knowledge
generated in the field of language education, teachers’ and learn-
ers’ agency, and teacher education practices in textbooks’ creation
and classroom use. Textbook creation is influenced by authors’
attempts to reflect in textbooks the recent professional knowl-
edge endorsed in the field, included in teacher education pro-
grams, and gained by teachers. Further, teachers’ knowledge and
ideologies about the nature, use, learning, and teaching of lan-
guage play into textbooks’ use in the classroom. Teachers hold
power to make instructional decisions and assert agency in select-
ing and using textbooks as they consider and respond to learners’
needs and investment. From Hall’s (1997) constructionist approach,
Risager (2018) maintains that although “the author constructs the
image of target language” and community, “all readers – teach-
ers, learners, analysts – construct representations for themselves”
(pp. 6–7). Highlighting the interaction between the text and read-
ers, such an approach in textbook analysis points to the need to
incorporate all the actors who directly or indirectly influence the
creation and use of textbooks.
Implications for Teaching
In line with a perspective of power and empowerment analy-
sis and to create opportunities for empowerment, our study con-
verges with the earlier critically-oriented textbook analyses that
recommend that “classroom activities should include critical read-
ing of the textbook as a political and economic construction”
(Risager, 2018, p. 32). For example, potential activities can use
texts and images “as entry points for critical discussions about stu-
dents’ cultural beliefs and stereotypes” (Weninger & Kiss, 2013, p.
711), draw comparisons across different places instead of predom-
inantly Euro-centric ones, and promote conversations that direct
students’ attention to “global interconnections, and questions of
power and injustice” (Risager, 2018, p. 48). Similarly, Kramsch and
Vinall (2015) argue for textual deconstruction and political critique
as potential classroom activities:
For example, every time the students list the information that
is not in a text, every time they speculate as to what a character
in a dialogue could have said but did not, or thought but did not
say, or said but did not mean- the textbook genre serves to foster
the students’ imagination and open up scenarios of possibility. (p.
24)
As they dissect, question, and expand upon what is presented
in the text, language learners can “denaturalize” the representa-
tions of languages, cultures, and communities in varying modali-
B. Uzum, B. Yazan, S. Zahrawi et al.
ties to reveal the ideologies underpinning the textbook (Machin &
Mayr, 2012).
World language instructors can adopt a variety of strategies in
the classroom in order to address the observed issues of imagining
learners as uncritical, creating homogeneous and monolithic lan-
guage communities, and reinforcing a normative and decontextu-
alized notion of culture. First, learners should be afforded space
to engage in critical discussions about the issues of representation
in their textbooks. Instructors can provide such spaces by having
students make personal connections with the texts and materi-
als and observe how learners can see themselves in the depicted
situations. Instructors can model questions and sentence starters
that could facilitate such conversations. For example, learners can
discuss issues of representation (erasure and misrecognition) with
questions like “who and what is included in this representation?”
and “how and to what extent are they represented”? Secondly,
learners can make connections across different texts and modali-
ties by conducting their own research and comparing their find-
ings. For example, they can look up demographics data and find
out about the minority populations living in a given place. The
same strategy can also introduce learners to the historicity of the
language communities and the significant identity-shaping topics
in these language communities such as wars, refugees, immigra-
tion, economy, social justice, racism, and colonialism.
To better illustrate the application of these strategies in the
classroom, we outline a few examples that we use in our classes.
The Arabic instructor introduces students to the daily uses of Ara-
bic and social pragmatics that are not covered in Al-Kitaab. For ex-
ample, in the context of social introductions, in novice level, she
comments on various culturally accepted ways for female-male in-
teractions. As Al-Kitaab presents a hand shake as the norm, the in-
structor presents the raising of the right hand to the left chest as
the most common non-verbal greeting in religiously conservative
spheres. She then uses a class activity where students go around
the room to introduce themselves to classmates in diverse man-
ners, other than those used in the companion textbook videos. The
French instructor provides supplementary texts and media to en-
gage students in a discussion of French colonial history and the
current diverse demographics all around the world. For example,
she discusses diverse clothing alternatives in French speaking com-
munities, using the example of hijab. She shows a commercial for
the “hijab de running,” a campaign for a line of clothing for head-
covering Muslim women in France. The German instructor coun-
teracts misrepresentation issues by providing additional texts and
media which depict the wide-spectrum of German speaking com-
munities, including variation in ability and sexual orientation to
open up possibilities for different ways of being through learning
German. For example, a short excerpt from the popular Turkish-
German film Almanya: Willkommen in Deutschland (Almanya: Wel-
come to Germany, 2011) by Yasemin Samdereli serves to high-
light the complex negotiations of hybrid identities among Turkish-
German populations and their descendants. We recommend that
world language instructors use such approaches to facilitate learn-
ers’ engagement in critical discussions that bring in complexity in
the representation of target language communities. Because ide-
ologies are conveyed and perpetuated or questioned and subverted
through language and individuals construct their identities through
language, learners should know that textbooks, as significant com-
ponents of language education, are political in selecting to repre-
sent certain ideologies and identity positions.
Limitations and Future Directions
The study was not without its limitations. First, we analyzed
only three textbooks currently used in our context, therefore our
findings should be interpreted to explore the Al-Kitaab way, the
11
Linguistics and Education 61 (2021) 100901
Vis-à-vis way, and the Deutsch: Na Klar! way, and not the Arab(ic)
way, the French way, and the German way. Therefore, our method-
ology can inform future studies in the area of language textbook
analysis, but our findings should be interpreted within the scope
of the selected textbooks. Second, the issues raised in this pa-
per reflect the researcher/instructors’ subjective lenses and are not
guaranteed to explain the motivation of their students or whether
students would find these points relevant to their language learn-
ing goals. Future studies can collect information from students
and other relevant stakeholders as well (e.g., administrators). Our
study explored the similarities and differences in how the three
textbooks represented learners and communities as revealed in
the coding process, but future research can also explore how one
shared language topic is discussed across different language text-
books. Our findings also showed that the three textbooks are sim-
ilar in some ways and different in others. These differences can
show variation under different disciplinary and market conditions.
As these textbooks evolve with time, their content and discourse
would reflect these changes. Future studies can explore how text-
books evolve throughout different editions and respond to the
changing circumstances in disciplinary discourse and broader so-
ciety in general.
Lastly, future research can explore the interaction between lan-
guage textbooks and the actors who are closely or remotely con-
cerned with the processes of textbook design, writing, and use,
namely, textbook authors, researchers, teacher educators, teachers,
and learners. Particularly from the constructionist lens (Hall, 1997),
inquiring into these actors’ beliefs and experiences with text-
books could offer insights into the images of culture, society and
the world(s) to which textbooks expose language learners. More
specifically, complementing “critique of representation” with “cri-
tique of pedagogy” (Weninger, 2020), future studies could examine
“how the textbook guides learners to engage and interact with the
represented material” (p. 10) or teachers’ and students’ actual use
of textbooks within and beyond the language classes. For instance,
they can analyze the interaction and interplay between textbooks’,
teachers’, and students’ imaginations of learners, language commu-
nities, and language use as they surface or manifest in the class-
room conversations.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the Linguistics and Education’s Associate Edi-
tor Dr. Csilla Weninger and the two anonymous reviewers for their
comments and suggestions on previous iterations of this paper,
which significantly contributed to enhancing its quality. We are
also thankful to Heather Baker for her suggestions about the lan-
guage of the article.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.linged.2020.100901.
References
Albirini, A. (2016). Modern Arabic sociolinguistics: Diglossia, variation, codeswitching,
attitudes and identity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of
nationalism. New York, NY: Verso.
Apple, M. W., & Christian-Smith, L. K. (Eds.). (1991). The politics of the textbook. Lon-
don, England: Routledge.
Atkinson, D. (1999). TESOL and culture. TESOL Quarterly, 33(4), 625–654. https://doi.
org/10.2307/3587880.
B. Uzum, B. Yazan, S. Zahrawi et al.
Auerbach, E., & Burgess, D. (1985). The hidden curriculum of survival ESL. TESOL
Quarterly, 19(3), 475–495. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586274.
Azimova, N., & Johnston, B. (2012). Invisibility and ownership of language: Problems
of representation in Russian language textbooks. The Modern Language Journal,
96(3), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01356.x.
Barthes, R. (1977). Image–Music–Text. London: Fontana.
Blackledge, A. (2003). Imagining a monocultural community: Racialization of cul-
tural practice in educational discourse. Journal of Language, Identity, and Educa-
tion, 2(4), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327701JLIE0204_7.
Bori, P. (2018). Language textbooks in the era of neoliberalism. New York: Routledge.
Chapelle, C. A. (2016). Teaching culture in introductory foreign language textbooks.
London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978- 1- 137- 49599- 0.
Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2008). Reading the world through words: Cultural themes
in heritage Chinese language textbooks. Language and Education, 22(2), 95–113.
https://doi.org/10.2167/le721.0.
Curdt-Christiansen, X. L., & Weninger, C. (2015). Language, ideology and education
(p. Routledge). New York: The politics of textbooks in language education.
Djonov, E., & Zhao, S. (2014). From multimodal to critical multimodal studies
through popular discourse. In E. Djonov, & S. Zhao (Eds.), Critical multimodal
studies of popular discourse (pp. 1–16). New York: Routledge.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.),
Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258–285). London: Sage.
Gray, J. (2010). The construction of English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gray, J. (2013). Critical perspectives on language teaching materials. New York: Pal-
grave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137384263.
Hagopian, E. C. (2004). Civil rights in peril: The targeting of Arabs and Muslims.
Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Hall, S. (1997). The work of representation. In S. Hall (Ed.), Representation: Cultural
representations and signifying practices (pp. 13–64). London: Sage.
hooks, b (1992). Black looks: Race and representation. Boston: South End Press.
Kanno, Y. (2003). Imagined communities, school visions, and the education of bilin-
gual students in Japan. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2, 241–249.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327701JLIE0204_4.
Kanno, Y., & Norton, B. (2003). Imagined communities and educational possibilities:
Introduction. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2(4), 241–249. https:
//doi.org/10.1207/S15327701JLIE0204_1.
Keles, U., & Yazan, B. (2020). Representation of cultures and communities in a global
ELT textbook: A diachronic content analysis. Language Teaching Research, (Online
First). https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820976922.
Kramsch, C. (1988). The cultural discourse of foreign language textbooks. In
A. J. Singerman (Ed.), Toward an integration of language and culture (pp. 63–88).
Middlebury: The Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C., & Vinall, K. (2015). The cultural politics of language textbooks in the
era of globalization. In X. L. Curdt-Christiansen, & C. Weninger (Eds.), Lan-
guage, ideology and education: The politics of textbooks in language education
(pp. 11–28). New York: Routledge.
Kubota, R. (2003). Critical teaching of Japanese culture. Japanese Language and Liter-
ature, 37(1), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/3594876.
Kubota, R. (2004). Critical multiculturalism and second language education. In
B. Norton, & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning
(pp. 30–52). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12
Linguistics and Education 61 (2021) 100901
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008). Cultural globalization and language education. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Machin, D., & Mayr, A (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal
introduction. London: Sage.
Modern Language Association (2019). Enrollments in languages other than En-
glish in United States institutions of higher education, Summer 2016 and
Fall 2016: Final report. Retrieved from https://www.mla.org/content/download/
110154/2406932/2016- Enrollments- Final- Report.pdf
Pavlenko, A., & Norton, B. (2007). Imagined communities, identity, and English lan-
guage learning. In J. Cummins, & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of
English language teaching (pp. 669–680). Norwell, MA: Springer.
Reagan, T. (2002). Language, education, and ideology: Mapping the linguistic landscape
of U.S. schools. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Risager, K. (2007). Language and culture pedagogy: From a national to a transnational
paradigm. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Risager, K. (2018). Representations of the world in language textbooks. Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/RISAGE9559.
Scarino, A. (2010). Assessing intercultural capability in learning languages: A re-
newed understanding of language, culture, learning, and the nature of assess-
ment. The Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 324–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1540-4781.2010.01026.x.
Shardakova, M., & Pavlenko, A. (2004). Identity options in Russian textbooks. Jour-
nal of Language, Identity, and Education, 3(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327701jlie0301_2.
Thompson, K. D. (2013). Representing language, culture, and language users in text-
books: A critical approach to Swahili multiculturalism. The Modern Language
Journal, 97(4), 947–964. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12047.x.
Thurlow, C., & Jaworski, A. (2010). Tourism discourse: Language and global mobility.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Trentman, E. & Diao, W. (2017). The American gaze east: Discourses and destina-
tions of US study abroad. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisi-
tion and International Education, 2, 175–205. https://doi.org/10.1075/sar.16001.
tre.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Weninger, C. (2020). Multimodality in critical language textbook analysis. Language,
Culture and Curriculum, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2020.1797083.
Weninger, C., & Kiss, T. (2013). Culture in English as a foreign language (EFL) text-
books: A semiotic approach. TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 694–716. https://doi.org/10.
1002/tesq.87.
Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 377–
389. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587438.
Textbooks analyzed
Brustad, K. Al-Batal, M. & Al-Tonsi, A. (2011). Al-Kitaab fii Ta’allum Al-’Arabiyya: A
textbook for beginning Arabic (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.
Amon, E., Muyskens, J.A., & Omaggio Hadley, A.C. (2014). Vis-à-vis: Beginning French
(6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Di Donato, R., & Clyde, M. (2015). Deutsch: Na Klar! An Introductory German Course.
(7th ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.