CRITICAL REVIEW ASSIGNMENT

Prepared by Zaini Akmal bin Saad (S812856)

Prepared for Dr. Paramjit Kaur d/o Karpal Singh

This article entitled Identities constructed in difference: English language learners

in China was written by Michelle Mingyue Gu and published in the Journal of Pragmatics
Volume 42 in 2010. The study was aimed at exploring the construction of English language
learners identity in China. The paper also tried to examine the influences of contextual and
social pattern on identity development through in-depth interviews of four EFL learners.
Based on the early discussions in the article, the author tried to associate identity
construction of a particular individual to have existed upon the relationship with external
environment through complex and on-going interactions between the two parties (individual
and his/her social discourse). Norton (2000) coined the term identity investment to help
explain the co-existence of identity and its dynamic construction.
The author co-relate two discourse theory to accommodate her in analysing her
findings to better explain the vigorous construction of identity discourse; Laclau and
Mouffees discourse theory and Faircloughs discourse theory (cited in Gu, 2009). These
theories signify that identity discourse is applicable in specific domain and it is shaped by
social practices and structures of specific surrounding.
If we refer to the diagram below, we can get a better picture and understand
holistically the overall concept of identity construction whereby the author is trying to
assimilate in her data analysis. The author was trying to explain the whole process of identity
construction in relation to a specific fixation i.e. L2 acquisition or social interactions.

Social
Practices

Social
Structure
s

Social
Identit
y

Social
Roles

Own
Personali
ty

Figure 1: Diagram of social identity construction

Initially, the author relates identity to have a close relationship with the surrounding
environment where the individual and his or social community is interrelated. To resolve this,
Stets and Burke (2000) specify that the response to whom we interact play crucial role in
identifying the response of the self as an object. However, the author mentioned in the article
that for her discursive strategies; the use of pronouns for indexing self and positioning others
will be elaborated in the data analysis section.
Miraculously, in her data analysis; the author managed to link the usage of selfpositioning in all of her subjects by relating the usage of pronouns I and we to
differentiate the identity construction. Contrastingly, in my opinion I feel that the author only
succeeded in distinguishing a group where the respondent belongs to and not the identity
formation itself. According to Rosenberg (1979), it concerns more of a self-concept than selfesteem itself whereby self-concept was made up of collection of identities and self-esteem as
affective components of self-feelings.

In another example would be the analysis of respondent named Helena where the
disparity of her experience as a country girl and urban life had made her to shy away from her
classmates. Gecas and Burke (1995) stated that most of what we know about ourselves come
from what we derived from others and the statement did explained of what happened between
Helena and Jane whereby Jane did not feel excluded from the pack although she experienced
the same situation as Helene had.
In her analysis, the author did mentioned that Jane managed to survive the identity
conflict by establishing her own beliefs and affirm to the positive attitudes on the behaviours
of other classmates. Helena, on the other hand still maintained her negative perception
towards the others making it difficult for Helena to see a broader picture of the identity
construction which conforms to the research by Felson (1993) that individuals have clearer
picture of how groups perceived them compared to how the specific individuals see them.
Nevertheless, the author stressed on three prospective future investigation and
research; namely the influence of L2 learners in local context, the role of English language in
shaping national identity and micro level discourse of identity construction.
Thanasoulas (2001) explained that the language curriculum must reflect the culture of
the language being conveyed in classrooms as the idea will definitely help in shaping the
learners identity formation. Based on this statement, the author should know best than to
compare the outcome analysis between Jocelyn and Lisa whereby Jocelyn was extensively
exposed to English language as explained by Connolly (cited in Gu, 2009) where it may be
impossible to link a relation to the second experience of learning a language without
perplexing the experiences of L1.
Interestingly, the profile of the four respondents profile is considered as lack of
balance where Jocelyn and Lisa only share similarity in their courses major, but their origin
reflect different experience in their L1 acquisition. The author should practice screening her
3

respondents before placing them in the research to assure validity in the whole study thus
making the research indisputable.
The following argument concerns the author findings and data analysis where the
main constraint in interpreting the data would be the language usage. Some of the transcribed
data (25%) were translated into English. However, the author was being meticulous in
making sure no evidence was lost in translation. Although seemed tedious, the effort put forth
by the author should be complimented in making sure the aspect of validity is not challenged.
The author mentioned that the interview that took place had manipulated the traveler
metaphor as introduced by Kvale (cited in Gu, 2009) whereby the interviewer and the
interviewee work together to co-construct the significance of the study. The author can
exploit this interview technique to perfect her findings in making sure the psychologicalindividual perspective is ruled out.
The whole process of data analysis can be explained superiorly using this diagram:
Data characterized through evolving process of dataset, theoretical framework, coded categories
Categorizatio and research questions
n
Process

NVivo
Software

Analytical
Tool

Allowing range of possibilities to handle data

New questions generated
Cross-reference with other datas

Fairclough critical discourse analysis framework put into practice:

Modality
Deondic
Epistemic

Figure 2: Diagram of data analysis process

In discussing the findings, the author categorized her data into three main domains;
identity in a learning community, identity in local social discourses and identity on a global
stage. The first two domains were clearly explained by the author in the beginning of her

conceptual framework discussions but the third domain has a fuzzy link between the two. The
author tried to find a sense of self-positioning among all four of her respondents.
Again, in analysing the data collected, the author tries to relate the self-concept as she
used in interpreting the data collected as for the classroom community. The author succeeded
to achieve a significant link between classroom community and global community when all
four respondents stand affirm to their previous principles when associating their learning
experience in the classroom compound with their beliefs of where they positioned themselves
globally.
Finally, the author concluded that she had achieved a consistent result in what she is
studying over identity construction in dissimilarities. Norton (2000) rules out on a theory that
the concept of identity construction is based on diversity, struggle and able to change over
time. Her undivided efforts in opening paths for further researches regarding the identity
formation in the near future should be applauded.

References
Felson, M. (1993). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. Human
Ecology and Crime, 8(4), Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?
q=HUMAN

Gecas, V. & Burke, P.J. (1995). Self and identity. In K. S. Cook, G.A. Fine, & J.S. House
(Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 41-67). Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Gu, M. M. (2009). Identities constructed in difference: English language learners in China.
Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2010) 139-152 available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational change.
Harlow, England: Longman/Pearson.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books. Extracted online from
http://physed.otago.ac.nz/sosol/v4i2/v4i2Mekolichick.htm
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social
Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 63 extracted online from
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7273333/Stets-Burke-A-Sociological-Approach-to-Selfand-Identity.
Thanasoulas, D. (2001). The Importance Of Teaching Culture In The Foreign Language
Classroom. Radical Pedagogy, 3(3) extracted online from
radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/radicalpedagogy94/About_this_Journal.html