I Had a Stereotype That American Were Fat: Becoming a Speaker of Culture in a Second Language

HANH THI NGUYEN Hawaii Pacic University Department of International Studies MP 441, 1188 Fort Street Mall Honolulu, HI 96813 Email: hnguyen@hpu.edu GUY KELLOGG Kapiolani Community College Languages, Linguistics, and Literature Kalia 101, 4303 Diamond Head Road Honolulu, HI 96816 Email: gkellogg@hawaii.edu

This article examines how adult learners were socialized by one another in the context of content materials in conjunction with the teachers participation. Based on the premise that second language learning is experiential and emergent and using discourse analysis of students asynchronous electronic postings and writing assignments together with ethnographic observations, we traced the students evolving understandings of a culturally rich word, stereotype, over the course of one semester. We rst looked at how the students understood the meaning of stereotype in early discussions, then at how these initial understandings changed as the students engaged in social activities in which their stances and identities became relevant, and nally at how these changes were exhibited in later discussions and written essays. Our analysis demonstrates concretely that learning a second language involves the acquisition not only of linguistic forms but also ways of thinking and behaving in new communities of practice.

THE FIELD OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (SLA) has made signicant strides by taking a social approach to language and language learning. The realization that the process of acquiring a language is part of a much larger process of becoming a person in society (Ochs, 2002, p. 106), originally applied only to rst language learning, has become fundamental for research on SLA. As observed repeatedly (e.g., Firth & Wagner, 1997; Hall, 1997; Stoller, 2006: van Lier, 2000, 2002), classroom exercises that are decontextualized and detached from real-life concerns, activities, and sense of self fail to help students learn to use the target language. We are compelled, together with Hall and Verplaetse (2000), Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000), and Young and Miller (2004), among others, to reconceptualize second language (L2) learning as participation; that is, when a person learns an L2, she or he not only learns new ways of expressing ideas but also
The Modern Language Journal, 94, i, (2010) 0026-7902/10/5673 $1.50/0 C 2010 The Modern Language Journal

new ways of thinking, behaving, and being in new communities (cf. Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). In this sense, a crucial part of becoming a competent participant in a new social group, or becoming a speaker of culture (Ochs, 2002, p. 99), in an L2 is the process of associating particular linguistic forms with their situational meanings (i.e., meanings in social contexts; Ochs, 1996). Our goal in this article, therefore, is to understand how learning of meanings in an L2 is enabled by participation in social activities in which actions, stances, and identities are made relevant. EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING, SITUATED LEARNING, AND LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION According to van Lier (2002), language emerges from semiotic activities in which the learner actively engages with affordances in the environment and interacts with other people. As explained by van Lier (2000), the word affordance was rst used by the perceptual

Hanh thi Nguyen and Guy Kellogg psychologist James Gibson to describe a reciprocal relationship between an organism and a particular feature of its environment (p. 252). For second language learners (SLLs), this ecological approach involves making active use of language and other semiotic systems to achieve social actions that t their needs. From this perspective, van Lier (2002, 2007) argued that an emergent approach to language teaching and learning calls for a shift toward experiential learning (cf. Dewey, 1938/1997), in which language activities are connected to the students everyday experiences and expertise, as well as for a shift toward contextualized or situated language learning, in which language forms are embedded in social activities (where these forms obtain their meanings). To understand how SLLs construct, negotiate, and learn the meanings of specic linguistic forms, it is useful to draw on two learning theories: situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and language socialization (Ochs, 1993, 2002; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2001; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986a, 1986b, 1996). Keeping with the previously mentioned perspectives, both theories posit that learning is a social, holistic, and emergent process in which the goal is to become a member of a social group rather than merely to master abstract knowledge removed from the context of use. From the perspective of situated learning theory, learning is the acquisition of knowledge and skills through participation and involves actual cases of interaction, and emergent processes which cannot be reduced to generalized structure (Hanks, 1991, p. 14). What we nd to be particularly useful in this theory is the notion that what is learned and learning itself need to be situated in context. With a more explicit focus on the learning of language, language socialization theory shares this premise with situated learning theory and species that language learning is socialization through language and socialization to use language (Ochs, 1986, p. 2, emphasis in original). This is in line with the ecological approach to language learning mentioned earlier (van Lier, 2002, 2007), as it asserts that language use in contextualized social activities is both the means for and the purpose of learning language and culture. Similar to situated learning theory, it suggests that what the learner develops in this process is not static knowledge of a system of linguistic forms but social competence, which involves the ability to recognize and interpret the social activity in which one participates, construct the role relationships of the people involved, and interact accordingly. In this view, the process of acquiring language

57 must be understood as the process of integrating code knowledge with sociocultural knowledge (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2001, p. 289, emphasis added). It is this emphasis on the simultaneous learning of both linguistic forms and their social functions in context that makes language socialization theory a viable framework for our examination of SLA as experiential learning. Language socialization as well as situated learning theories, however, have been applied largely to situations in which there is a clear expert novice dynamic, such as in child language acquisition (e.g., Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986b) and apprenticeship (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Little research has been conducted on how language socialization and situated learning take place outside of the noviceexpert interactional domain.1 However, the few studies that focus on learning without the control of an expert reveal that peer-to-peer situated learning and peer-to-peer socialization, whether in language learning or in professional training, are highly valuable and effective. For example, Sawchuk (2003) examined informal learning in a computer-mediatedcommunication environment and showed how two novices enabled each other to learn. He observed that in such situated learning between peers, neither participant has sole control, as each of them contributes to the formation of the conditions for the others knowledge production process (p. 299). He compared the power of peer learning to two people build[ing] a scaffold, communicating and working together to form a structure on which they both climb to new heights (p. 299). In another study, Rock (2005) investigated how police ofcers developed the repertoire of their community of practice regarding the delivery of the Caution2 to suspects during interviews and found that whereas the ofcers tried to conform to institutional requirements, they also learned a great deal from seeing how their peers perform these interviews. These studies draw our attention to peer interaction in learning as well as possible constraints in the learning context. Our article aims to examine peer learning in the environment of the classroom, where the students were also inuenced by the teacher, the course materials, and the course structure. A second aspect of the existing research on adult L2 socialization is the focus on the learning of specic linguistic forms as part of language socialization. On one hand, studies on rst language socialization have informed us a great deal about how children learn new lexical items or grammatical structures as they acquire both the linguistic

58 forms and these forms pragmatic and cultural meanings (e.g., Ochs & Schieffelin, 1995; Platt, 1986). On the other hand, studies on adult L2 socialization, which are few to begin with (Zuengler & Cole, 2004), tend to pay attention to issues of identity (e.g., Atkinson, 2003; Duff, 2002; Gordon, 2004; Lam, 2004; Morita, 2000, 2004; Nguyen & Kellogg, 2005) and the learning of pragmatic and interactional routines (e.g., Li, 2000; Matsumura, 2001; Noji, 2003; Ohta, 1999; Poole, 1992; Rymes, 1997), but few have investigated the learning of specic language forms as a part of language socialization. When the learning of specic lexical items is examined, researchers have not focused on the micro level of social interaction in order to show how the learners understandings about these linguistic items change longitudinally and contextually through meaning negotiation in discourse. In a recent article on the acquisition of French tu versus vous and German du versus Sie, Kinginger and Belz (2005) relied on interviews, students emails in online exchanges with native speakers, and pretests and posttests to trace students pragmatic development. They found that learners developed pragmatic awareness and the ability to use the pronouns appropriately in context due to various factors, including native speakers explicit input during interaction, the learners own noticing (Schmidt, 1993), and social encounters in diverse settings during a study abroad program. Although offering detailed descriptions of the learners progress over time, Kinginger and Belzs study focused more on the product of learning than the meaning negotiation that takes place at the micro level of social interaction that may lead to language learning. In another recent study, Lessard-Clouston (2006) compared native and nonnative English speakers acquisition of technical vocabulary as they became members in a graduate program in theology. However, vocabulary learning was measured by test scores and usage in term papers; thus, the focus also lay heavily on the product rather than the process of learning. In contrast to these studies, we aim to examine how students understandings of the meaning of the word stereotype were modied and negotiated through discourse with peers in an L2. In keeping with the spirit of the learning theories reviewed, we do not limit our inquiry to the students mastery of this words form; rather, we are interested in seeing how the students changed in their ways of thinking and behaving regarding the use of this lexical item as they interacted with one another over a period of time. Our focus is thus on the contextualized emergence of language.

The Modern Language Journal 94 (2010) METHOD Data The language class under study was a sustained content-based class, organized around content areas, including the history of segregation in the southern states and the civil rights movements of the past two centuries, such as womens rights, native peoples rights, and gay rights in the United States. The goal of the class was to prepare and transition students for college-level classes. In addition to class readings, students also visited Web sites, watched videos, and participated in guest lectures in order to obtain information from multiple sources with different viewpoints. They also prepared and performed class presentations, carried out group essay writings, and participated in online discussions to better relate to the materials introduced in the course. Through these content areas and activities, the students considered concepts such as prejudices and stereotypes in various situations and discussed how to situate, deconstruct, and confront such concepts with intellectual reasoning. This teaching approach thus does not aim to teach the content per se but some form of the discourse of that content, such as ways to analyze and discuss that content so that the students can become acculturated (Eskey, 1997, pp. 139140) into the discourse community of college students in the United States with respect to the practice of academic discussions.3 The class was located in Honolulu, Hawaii and consisted of 19 international students of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) in their twenties and early thirties from Japan, Korea, and Macau, most of whom were recent arrivals to the United States. The average TOEFL score of the students was 463.35 (paper-based scale). The class met every day for 22 hours per week over a 16-week period. Two of these 22 hours were spent in a computer lab where the students could, for a portion of the total class time, participate in online discussions.4 The rest of the online discussions took place outside of class. The online discussions started during the second week of instruction and continued until the end of the semester. Our data consist of 387 asynchronous electronic postings using WebCT message posting forums (by the students and teacher and covering the entire semester). Consistent with studies of this type, our secondary source of data includes the teacher/researchers ethnographic observations as well as student essays and assignments throughout the semester (cf. Duff, 2002).5 In the online discussions, the teacher started off a discussion thread by posting a question that

Hanh thi Nguyen and Guy Kellogg either related the materials being covered in class to the students own lives (e.g., Have you ever been stereotyped? What are your personal experiences?) or elicited the students reactions to the course materials (e.g., Review the content in the African-American Module. Study Aboard a Slave Ship and Map: Slave Trade. What are your reactions? Is this new information to you? Where did most of the slaves come from? Where did they end up?). These questions were designed to guide the students critical thinking and intellectual reasoning. The students not only responded to these questions, but they also actively responded to one anothers comments.6 The teacher occasionally responded to the students postings, where he shared his personal experiences, praised a student, or agreed with a student (the teacher posted 23 messages in our data, 7 of which were course management messages, 2 were clarication requests, 8 were questions for discussion, and only 6 were responses to students postings). The teachers implicit position in the course was to promote freedom, open access, equality, diversity, and individual identities in society, which is in alignment with the stated values of the school. The students peer-to-peer interaction thus occurred in the context of the teachers and the schools values, expressed covertly and locally in the teachers questions and responses to students messages, as well as in his discussions in class.7 Given the core concepts in the course, in the rst weeks the teacher introduced the word stereotype as a way to start the students thinking about the sources of prejudices in society (see subsequent analysis). This lexical item became central to the students discussions throughout the semester, and as the students encountered more information and engaged in more discussion, their understanding of the meaning of the word stereotype seemed to change over time. Taking this linguistic form as our focus, we asked: How did this change take place as the discussions evolved, and how was this change retained in later activities? Analytical Procedure We applied Ochss (2002) conceptualization of the four dimensions of social context in our analysis of the students use of the word stereotype. We focused on how the students understanding of the word was embedded in the social actions they performed, the affective and epistemic stances they established, the social identity they constructed, and the social activities in which they engaged. Ochs dened social action as a socially recognized

59 goal-directed behavior such as responding to a question; affective stance as a persons mood, attitude, feeling, or disposition as well as degrees of emotional intensity; epistemic stance as a persons knowledge or belief, including sources of knowledge and degree of commitment to truth and certainty of propositions; social identity as a range of social personae, including, for example, social roles, statuses, and relationships, as well as community, institutional, ethnic, socioeconomic, gender, and other group identities; and, nally, social activity as at least two co-ordinated, situated actions and/or stance displays by one or multiple persons (p. 109). To investigate these dimensions, we analyzed the discourse of the discussions by using Goffmans (1981) notion of participation frameworks. We followed Goffmans insight that utterances are not xed linguistic structures, but rather, they index certain footings (or stances) for the speaker and the recipients. We further relied on ethnographic observations and the students writings in the class in order to illuminate our discourse analysis.8 FINDINGS We will rst report on the students initial understanding of the meaning of stereotype, then how their understandings changed during the course of the online discussions, and, nally, how these changes were reected in subsequent discussions and written essays during the same semester. Students Initial Understandings of the Meaning of Stereotype As a preliminary taskone designed to later facilitate the conceptual understanding of stereotypesthe teacher asked the students if they had ever been the target of a stereotype: MESSAGE NO. 1 Guy, September 1, 3:52 p.m. Subject: Personal Experience denition of stereotype from dictionary.com n: a conventional or formulaic conception or image; regional stereotypes have been part of America since its founding v: treat or classify according to a mental stereotype; I was stereotyped as a lazy Southern European syn: pigeonhole Have you ever been stereotyped? What are your personal experiences? It is important to note that the dictionary denition contains several words and expressions that needed to be unpacked for the students at this

60 level. In addition, the teachers question used the verbal form of the word, which is less common and thus may have presented some confusion for the students. Indeed, as evidenced by the students responses, many of them were confused and interpreted the question to mean whether they held any stereotypes toward the target culture. Through their responses, however, it is possible to see what they understood stereotype to mean. At this early stage in the class, many students believed that certain stereotypes were true, or, more precisely, they could not distinguish between facts and stereotypes in certain situations. Their initial responses to the teachers question exemplify this:9 MESSAGE NO. 2 Kimiko,10 September 2, 2:01 p.m. Subject: Stereotypes (1)11 I felt stereotypes of nerd (2) when I stay home, (3) no make up on me, (4) wear glasses on me, (5) and doing my homework. MESSAGE NO. 4 (BRANCH FROM NO. 1) Dong-Ook, September 2, 10:55 p.m. Subject: Personal Experience (1) When I came to america, (2) everyone eat rice with coke. (3) I think it looks like stupid. (4) However nowadays I usually eat rice with coke like common people in america. MESSAGE NO. 6 Yen-ru, September 4, 10:21 a.m. Subject: Yen-rus experience (1) When i came to Hawaii, (2) i saw many people had their own car, (3) they eat a lot. (4) I have unforgettable experience in Hawaii. (5) When i went to food court to have my lunch, (6) i saw many food are very big dishes (7) and also the drinks are very big too. (8) I was so surpirse (9) but i think this is stereotype of American. Kimikos posting was perhaps the closest to answering the question posted by the teacher: She described how she was stereotyped, but not by other people as the question implicitly asked for; rather, it was something she felt about herself. In the beginning of the message, Kimiko expressed her affective stance: She felt that she t the stereotype of a nerd (1) and then gave detailed descriptions of her habits (25) to support this statement. Being a nerd was generally considered not cool for the students in this class; thus, Kimikos self-description could be treated as a way to construct her social identity as being modest.

The Modern Language Journal 94 (2010) Regarding her epistemic stance toward the meaning of stereotype, her description also revealed her understanding of what the stereotype of nerds entailed (i.e., that nerds wear glasses, do homework, and do not wear makeup), and that she believed that this stereotype was true. This epistemic stance toward stereotypes can also be seen in Message No. 4 by Dong-Ook, in which he expressed his belief that every American ate rice with soda. This belief was interestingly presented in the context of cultural opposition, followed by cultural assimilation with some sense of self-effacement. Dong-Ook began his posting by providing the background (1), highlighting I and America, thus setting up a dichotomy between me versus them or the Self versus the Other. He then made an absolute generalization about the Other with the use of everyone (2) and proceeded to insert his (negative) viewpoint on the Other with the use of I think (3). With the use of the contrastive conjunctive however and the use of the time adverb nowadays, he then indicated a shift of viewpoint and a change of habit from the past to the present (4), which could be seen as a part of his cultural assimilation to the practice he had just deemed stupid. In this last sentence, however, he reasserted his belief that the stereotype was true without exception, via the use of common people to refer to the Other as a whole. Similar to Dong-Ook, in message No. 6 Yen-ru also constructed stereotypes that she believed to be true in the context of cultural opposition. Yenru opened her message in the same way as DongOok (1), thus also contrasting between herself and the local place, Hawaii. Further, like DongOok and the other students not reported on here, Yen-ru conveyed her epistemic stance by claiming that certain stereotypes were true with no exception, as seen in the general expression many people (2). In addition, these students supported their beliefs by concrete, personal experiences (in Yen-rus message, she recounted her experience at a local food court [47]) or by attempts at logical reasoning, thus implying that they believed these stereotypes to be unquestionable. Three observations can be made about these students initial epistemic stances toward stereotypes. First, the students indicated through discourse that they believed stereotypes to be true without exception. Second, their construction of these stereotypes as unchallenged was a part of the social action of talking about cultural oppositions between the host country/state and their countries of origin. Third, the students understanding

Hanh thi Nguyen and Guy Kellogg of the meaning of stereotype was also a part of their social identity construction (e.g., as a nerd, as a Korean, as a foreigner, as an East Asian rice consumer who then changed to be more American). Thus, the students understandings of the meaning of stereotype was not merely a cognitive state but also a reection of being deeply situated in their social actions, as well as their social identity construction vis-` -vis the target culture and the a other participants in the class. These initial postings, however, were only a part of the larger social activity of group discussion, in which the students responded to one anothers messages and collaboratively strived for a more informed understanding of the key concepts related to the word stereotype as they encountered more information and participated in face-to-face discussions with the teacher and guest speakers. In the following sections, we will focus on how the students understanding of the meaning of this word evolved in the discussions (i.e., how they reconrmed or deconstructed stereotypes). Changes in the Students Understanding of the Meanings of Stereotype After the stereotypes were presented in the initial postings, they were then either reinforced or deconstructed in multiple simultaneous discussion threads. Most signicantly, we found that it was at the convergence of stance displays and identity construction that stereotypes were conrmed or challenged. In the paragraphs that follow, we will rst look at how the students reconrmed existing stereotypes and then at how they deconstructed them. Reconrming Existing Stereotypes. We found a few instances (three postings) of stereotype reconrmation, thus indicating that the students involved believed that the original stereotypes stated by their peers were true. These conrmations were typically embedded in the social action of agreement and with affective stance display, as can be seen in the following thread contributed by Hana, Saori, and Asuka: MESSAGE NO. 8 Hana, September 6, 3:19 p.m. Subject: The stereotpe of Japanese Ofce Girl (1) When I was an ofce worker in Japan, (2) I was one of the stereotype Japanese ofce worker (3) who like shopping, drinking, traveling. (4) I spent a lot of my salary for purchasing big-name brand products, purchasing lots of

61 clothes, shoes, etc. (5) I think it is a stereotype Japanese ofce girl!!! MESSAGE NO. 43 (BRANCH FROM NO. 8) Saori, September 9, 8:53 a.m. Subject: Re: The stereotpe of Japanese ofce girl (1) i had an experience same as you! (2) i always spent my money everything for shopping and drinking. (3) i was stereotype ofce worker. MESSAGE NO. 58 (BRANCH FROM NO. 8) Asuka, September 9, 9:03 a.m. Subject: Me, too. (1) When I worked in Japan, (2) I was typical Japanese worker like you. (3) I liked shopping and traveling and eating out. (4) Now I changed my mind (5) however occasionally Id like to go to shopping like before. In Hanas message, she claimed to t the stereotype of a Japanese ofce girl (12) and then gave details to support this statement (34), which indicated her understanding of what this stereotype involved and that it was true.12 Further, by using the past tense to describe the context and her habits (14), she also indexed her identity as a former ofce girl. In Saoris message, she immediately afliated with Hana by using the expression same as you and an exclamation point (1). She also recycled two of the details that Hana used to support her statement, thus further afliating herself with Hana. Finally, her identity alignment with Hana as former ofce girls can also be seen in the use of the past tense, which was employed by Hana earlier. These strategies were also used by Asuka, who changed the subject to Me, too and used the expression like you (2), thus signaling strong agreement and afliation. Asuka also recycled the detail about shopping (3) mentioned by the other two students, but she also added eating out to describe the stereotype. Her construction of herself as a former ofce girl was achieved via the use of past tense, plus the explicit mentioning of a change (45). Thus, these students collaboratively constructed a stereotype that they were a part of and that they all believed to be true. It is important to note that around this time, a critical approach to stereotypes had been introduced in the classs face-to-face meetings, and yet these students still believed in and noncritically constructed certain stereotypes. We would like to suggest that the students understanding and treatment of the concept of stereotype in this case was deeply embedded in and inuenced by the social activity of agreement, the affective stance

62 display of afliation, and the identity construction as former ofce girls in Japan. Deconstructing Existing Stereotypes. For most of the online discussion and as the semester progressed into the next few weeks, however, stereotypes were questioned and challenged.13 We will now show how the students deconstructed the existing stereotypes by citing evidence against the stereotypes, shifting perspectives that pointed out the inconsistency among the elements of the stereotypes, and referring to the dictionary to understand the meaning of stereotype. Citing Evidence Against the Stereotypes. The students began to deconstruct stereotypes by pointing out that the stereotypes did not always hold, thus questioning their truth value. This is demonstrated in the following thread developed in 12 messages by different students (only representative postings will be quoted here): MESSAGE NO. 9 Asuka, September 6, 8:29 p.m. Subject: My Experience about stereotypes, Asuka. (1) I was stereotype when I came to Hawaii at rst. (2) My image of Hawaiian was kind of streotype. (3) For example, every Hawaiian is so kind and sunny. (4) Also they has a dark skin and big eyes (5) and they have massive body. (6) However I realized the images were just stereotype (7) when Ive lived here since last year. (8) There are so many kind of Hawaiian in Hawaii. (9) Sometimes It is difcult to notice what stereotype is. (10) So I think I should care about it. MESSAGE NO. 25 (BRANCH FROM NO. 9) Yen-ru, September 9, 8:35 a.m. Subject: Re: My Experience about stereotypes, Asuka. (1) I think so (2) because when i get off bus, (3) i forget to see the car. (4) The bus driver scolded me. (5) I am so surprise (6) and i am very upset. (7) Many people said that Hawaiians are very kind. (8) But in that time i dont think so. MESSAGE NO. 67 (BRANCH FROM NO. 9) Ryo, September 12, 11:24 a.m. Subject: Re: My Experience about stereotypes, Asuka. (1) I totally agree with your opinion. (2) Stereotypes are just our image about something. (3) In my case, I had a stereotype that American were fat. (4) You know your teacher Guy, dont you? (5) He is from New York. (6) He lives in

The Modern Language Journal 94 (2010) Hawaii now. (7) Is he fat? (8) I also have to care about that. In message No. 9, Asuka rst described a stereotype she had had in the past about Hawaiians. By using the past tense (12) and by using the expression at rst (1), she conveyed that her stereotype was an initial understanding that would be changed later. In (6), she used the contrastive conjunctive however and the verb realized to indicate a shift of understanding. In this context, her use of just to modify stereotype (6) implied her epistemic stance toward stereotypes: They were false. She then supported this view by citing her length of residence in Hawaii (7) and her observation about Hawaiians (8). Based on these, she concluded that stereotypes were elusive (9), thus implying that they were not always true. This conclusion was presented as a general fact with the use of the dummy it, but it is interesting that she further weakened it by the use of sometimes. This hedging may be due to the fact that Asuka was putting forth a new point of view after many students had displayed their beliefs in stereotypes, and thus she might have wanted to remain tentative before she learned what others believed. In response to Asukas message, Yen-ru agreed (1) and described a personal experience to support the idea that the stereotype was not true (2 6). Direct personal experience is something that is usually not challengeable, especially in cases when only the speaker/writer has access to the experience (Pomerantz, 1984). Thus, Yen-ru displayed her direct claim to the knowledge that the stereotype was not always true. In Ryos message, he not only agreed with the other students but also generalized from Asukas example stereotype to stereotypes in general; that is, they were not true (2). He then mentioned another stereotype he had about Americans (that they were all fat, 3) and referred to the teacher, whom all the students knew to be skinny, as evidence to support his point (47). By invoking knowledge that his peers all shared (i.e., about the teacher of the class), Ryo invited his peers to align with him in his epistemic stance. They all had direct claim of knowledge that stereotypes were not true. Here again, we observe that through delicate positioning (as in Asukas rst message in the thread) and alignment (as in the follow-up messages), the students came to the collaborative understanding that stereotypes in general were not true. We further observed that around the second week of online discussion, many students in the class, like Asuka, reported how direct

Hanh thi Nguyen and Guy Kellogg personal experiences had caused them to reject certain stereotypes. This sharing of learning experiences helped these students to align with one another and gravitate toward a common understanding that stereotypes were not always true. It was perhaps due to this sharing of past changes by some students (in both this online discussion and in face-to-face discussions in class) that triggered new changes by some other students, who initially believed that certain stereotypes were true. For example, we found that the students who had made the stereotype about Americans excessive consumption of food now began to point out that there were Americans who ate healthily. Among these students was Yen-ru, whose initial message was Message No. 6 cited above. This is her posting about a week later: MESSAGE NO. 30 (BRANCH FROM NO. 15) Yen-ru, September 9, 8:40 a.m. Subject: Re: food (1) I also think stereotype of American is that they eat many food. (2) Now i changed. (3) When i was in cafeteria to have my lunch, (4) I saw many people eat less and eat very healthy. (5) Therefore, my mind is completely changed Yen-ru rst referred to her previous belief in the rst sentence of the posting (1) and then she explicitly stated that she had changed her mind, using the time adverb now to highlight the immediacy of the change (2). She then cited her direct observation outside of the classroom to show that the stereotype did not hold (34) and indicated that it was this experience that led her to change, via the use of therefore to convey a causeeffect relationship (5). Her emphasis on this change with the use of the modier completely (5) served to strongly align her with the other students who believed that stereotypes were not always true. Data such as these suggest that the students changes in understanding about the meanings of stereotype were born out of the social interaction in the discussions in which they aligned with one another. When they displayed a change in understanding, they simultaneously performed the social action of afliation with the other students. This is vivid evidence that knowledge development cannot be teased apart from social interaction. Shifting Perspectives. Another common way in which the students deconstructed stereotypes was to shift perspectives (i.e., to switch the target of the stereotype to different social groups,

63 particularly to their own native culture). Through this, they came to the realization that stereotypes could not be true. As a rst example, let us examine Message No. 35, a follow-up posting by Mariko to Dong-Ooks message about eating rice with soda previously cited. Up to this point, the students had mostly mentioned their own stereotypes about the target culture in the United States. This was the rst time a student applied an existing stereotype to her own culture. MESSAGE NO. 35 (BRANCH FROM NO. 5) Mariko, September 9, 8:43 a.m. Subject: Hello, this is Mariko Wanatabe (1) Do you like eat rice with coke? (2) I do not like it. (3) No reason. . . (4) so do not ask me, please. (5) But I agree that is stereotype. (6) In Japan, many people eat rice with tea or water. (7) Is this stereotype, too? Here, Mariko rst oriented to the interpersonal aspect of the communication by sharing her personal dislike of the eating habit (14). Then, she agreed with the stereotype (5) and proceeded to mention a different practice related to the consumption of rice with drinks in her culture of origin (6). In the context of this cultural contrast, she raised the question of whether the practice in her own culture could also be considered a stereotype (7). First, the adverb too in this context indicated that if a stereotype could be made about the Other, an equivalent one could be made about the Self. Second, by posing this point as a question, she showed her uncertainty about what counted as a stereotype. Taken together, we suggest that Mariko was displaying her grappling with the concept that what made a stereotype might depend on ones cultural standpoint. If Mariko was still struggling to grasp what stereotypes might stand for, in a later posting in the thread on Hawaiians previously discussed, Rika further extended this shift of viewpoint, coming to the conclusion that stereotypes were not truths. MESSAGE NO. 40 (BRANCH FROM NO. 9) Rika, September 9, 8:48 a.m. Subject: Re: My Experience about stereotypes, Asuka. (1) I like your opinion, (2) cause you said It is difcult to notice what stereotype is. So I think I should care abouy it. (3) It is really important thing to communicate with foreigh [foreign] people. (4) For example If all American think, Japanese always wear Kimono. (5) thats not good. (6) We shouldnt see each

64 person not as japans, American, Hawaiian and so on. (7) We should see each person as a person. Rika rst cited a particular part of Asukas message to align herself with Asuka and to set a starting point for her posting (12). She then supported this point by reversing the standpoint of the observer and the target of the stereotype. Whereas most students had made stereotypes about the target culture from the standpoint of their own culture, Rika cited a possible stereotype that the Other (Americans) might have about the Self (Japanese) (4) and stated clearly that such a stereotype would not be true (5). By shifting the viewpoint, Rika was able to argue that stereotypes were elusive. She went further to make the point that stereotypes about any groups should be rejected (67). This crucial shift of viewpoint also took place in several other students postings, and it was particularly when the students turned their attention to stereotypes that the Other made about the Self, especially those that were unfair, that they realized that stereotypes were not the same as truths.14 MESSAGE NO. 11 Naoko, September 8, 1:05 p.m. Subject: my experience (. . .) (1) then i wanna write about my own experience when i was in Australia. (2) i went there 2 years ago as a international student. (3) In my class there were many people who came from all over the world. (4) One day teacher said us (5) lets do group work (6) so that please make your group. (7) Then, i asked my classmate to work with (8) but he said, (9) I dont want to work with japanese, (10) because i heard they are quiet, too serious (11) I was so upset at that time. (12) it was just his stereotype of japanese. (13) he didnt know me, (14) even didnt talk to me, (15) but he believes his stereotype. (16) so my image of stereotype is not good. . . MESSAGE NO. 36 (BRANCH FROM NO. 11) Junko, September 9, 8:45 a.m. Subject: Re: Naoko (1) Im really interested in your experience. (2) When I was high school student, (3) two students came from our sister school in LA. (4) The guy said that he was surprised that Japanese women is not ladylike and graceful. (5) And he said (6) Its different in my image. (7) It is his stereotypes about Japanese women. (8) He had much dream and it was broken. (9) I dont think Japanese women is

The Modern Language Journal 94 (2010) not ladylike (10) but there are few people who would be t to be called. (11) But I also think Japanese people is too quiet, (12) however we, in this class, is not quiet. Naoko shared her personal experience about how she was stereotyped in a previous language class. By presenting what another student had said to her in direct speech (910), she made the voice of the Other authentic, alive, and real, which might serve to arouse her peers reaction. Naoko then expressed her affective stance toward the event (11) and pointed out how the stereotype was not based on any facts (1314) and was a false belief (12, 15). With the word so (16) to indicate the upshot of her story (Schiffrin, 1987), she concluded that stereotypes were not good. In response to Naoko, Junko recounted a similar experience in which a stereotype about Japanese women was falsely applied to her. However, Junko seemed to take a neutral position regarding stereotypes. She admitted that the stereotypes could be true for some people (9, 11) but also pointed out that they did not t everyone (10, 12). By referring to herself together with the other Japanese students in the class as her evidence that the stereotype was not true (12), she was also relying on her peers direct access to this evidence to prompt them to agree with her. It is important to note that the way Junkos message was related to Naokos was very similar to the way ordinary conversations in English work: The recipient of a story will tend to tell another story that relates to the upshot of the rst story as a way to show both understanding and alignment (Jefferson, 1978). Thus, it was in the social activity of sharing stories that the students co-constructed the understanding that stereotypes were not necessarily true. In addition to shifting a stereotype from being about the target culture to being about their own culture, the students might also shift the perspective to a third culture, or a different time, thus pitching a stereotype against different norms and pointing out that stereotypes were not truths. Below are two messages in a thread about mens and womens roles: MESSAGE NO. 17 Sachiko, September 8, 9:07 p.m. Subject: a stereo type (1) I was a kind of a stereotype person (2) even though I did not believe it. (3) When I went to Canada to study for 2 months, (4) I lived in home stay. (5) In the family, the host mother worked, (6) and the father did housework, such as cooking, cleaning. (7) I could not believe

Hanh thi Nguyen and Guy Kellogg that situation rst due to Japanese stereotype thinking that a husband work and a wife do housework. (8) I got used to it little by little, tough. MESSAGE NO. 34 (BRANCH FROM NO. 17) Dong-Ook, September 9, 8:42 a.m. Subject: Re: a stereo type (1) I leared about some people. (2) maybe they exist nowadays. (3) I some area woan catch animals for food (4) and man take care housework. (5) and woman choose man. (6) this is opposite custom from us. (7) but it exist. (8) And young people are chaging to share their housework. (9) so several years later, Its going to be not astereo type. In Sachikos message, she rst admitted that she had a stereotype but also wrote that she did not believe it (1), thus taking a tentative epistemic stance toward the stereotype that she was going to report. Unlike the other students, she rst recounted a personal experience (36) and then stated a stereotype from her own culture that she had applied to another culture (7). Preceded and contrasted by the personal experience, the stereotype became false. However, in this message, Sachiko did not go beyond her own belief about this particular stereotype. It was Dong-Ook and Mariko, in their follow-up messages, who extended the argument further. First, Dong-Ook pitched the stereotype against a third culture that was neither his own nor that of the target culture (17) to show that an opposite stereotype may be made, and thus the existing stereotype was only relative. He also introduced the notion of social change (8) and reasoned (with the use of so) that a stereotypes truth value might also change. The previous examples show that by shifting perspectives, the students were able to evaluate stereotypes in a more informed way and come to the conclusion that they were untrue. What we wish to highlight here is that this shift of perspectives did not take place individually in isolated postings, but it was often the collaborated effort of more than one student in the course of the discussion. In other words, new understandings of word meaning emerged out of social interaction. Pointing Out the Inconsistency Among Elements of a Stereotype. Another way the students deconstructed a stereotype was to point out that there was inconsistency among its components. An ex-

65 ample is the follow-up to Kimikos Message No. 2 discussed earlier, posted by Junko: MESSAGE NO. 64 (BRANCH FROM NO. 2) Junko, September 9, 9:16 a.m. Subject: Re: Stereotypes from Junko (1) Why you think you are nerd? (2) I dont think so. (3) If you think youre hard warker of study, (4) it might be true though. (5) But it is steretypes for nerd. (6) You should think you are smart girl. (7) Because, I dont make me up everuday (8) and I wear glasses at night. (9) So do you think am I nerd (10) though I didnt study hard. (11) Or I am other meanings nerd? In this message, Junko rst questioned Kimikos claim to be a nerd (1) and then disagreed with it (2). As mentioned earlier, admitting to be a nerd might be self-effacing for Kimiko. Thus, Junkos disagreement with Kimiko was actually an afliation action. Evidence for this is that in the next sentences (34), Junko referred to a positive quality that Kimiko cited about herself (hardworking) and in (6) she complimented Kimiko on this quality. She then described two of her own habits that t Kimikos original denition of nerd (78) and a third one that did not t (10). With this, she challenged Kimikos notion of nerd with the use of a question (9), and in (11) she posed the possibility that there might be some other meaning of nerd. Thus, even though Junko did not fully question the truth value of the existing stereotype (as evidenced in [5]), she managed to problematize Kimikos original stereotype. Signicantly, this challenge to the original stereotype was embedded in the action of afliation between these two students. Citing or Devising Denitions of Stereotype. Finally, in their efforts to understand the meaning of the target word, some students also invoked the dictionary as an expert source to dene the word, whereas some others attempted to come up with denitions themselves. The denitions were often followed by the students own examples, which demonstrated their efforts to grasp the meaning of the word, as seen in Messages No. 11 and No. 16 below. MESSAGE NO. 11 Naoko, September 8, 1:05 p.m. Subject: my experience (1) my dictionary say stereotype mean to decide, usually unfairly, that some people have particular qualities or abilities because thet belong to

66 a particular race, sez, or social class, (2) then i wanna write about my own experience when i was in Australia. [The rest of this message was already cited.] MESSAGE NO. 16 Asada, September 8, 7:50 p.m. Subject: Stereotypes? (1) Stereotypes. When people have similar beliefs and patterns of behavior we use this word. (2) American people believe that one kind of Japanese stereotype, is Japanese man who discreminate against all women. (3) Japanese people believe that one exsample of American stereotype, is a man who is fat (4) because he eats fatty foods like hambergers, pizza and french fries. (5) Another American stereotype is the American women who only lives to shop and talk on a phone. (6) But streotypes are only generalities. (7) In all cultures, there are many different people, with different ideas. (8) Education and travel tend to make all people more open minded. In Message No. 11, Naoko explicitly cited the dictionarys denition of stereotype. It is interesting that she chose to quote the verb form of the word and that her recounting of her experience exemplied this particular meaning. This choice was perhaps inuenced by the teachers question in Message No. 1, in which he used the verb form. Whereas Naoko cited the dictionary, Asada seemed to try to dene stereotype in her own words (1). She then gave three examples of stereotypes to support her denition (25). This presentation of a collection of mutual stereotypes between the Other (Americans) and the Self (Japanese) functioned in the same way as the shift in perspectives discussed: It enabled Asada to come to the general conclusion that stereotypes were not truths (6). In this sentence, she used only to modify generalities, thus weakening the truth value of stereotypes. She further developed this idea by pointing out the diversity within each culture (7). Her epistemic stance toward this statement (which was fundamental to the deconstruction of stereotypes) was quite strong, expressed in her use of all cultures, implying that the statement admitted no exception. In (8), she continued this epistemic stance (via the use of all people) and even suggested people could do away with stereotypes in practice (i.e., through education and travel). Asadas success in deconstructing stereotypes was ratied by another student, who responded in agreement, Thank you for explaining about your opinion for me. i like your idea

The Modern Language Journal 94 (2010) (Kanta, Message No. 42 [Branch from No. 16], September 9, 8:52 a.m.). It is interesting to note that the teacher had already started the discussion with a dictionary denition of the key lexical item, stereotype, but the students still found the need to cite other definitions. Although there is no evidence that the students were able to relate to the denitions provided by the teacher, we do have evidence that they could successfully relate to the denitions that they themselves introduced (either cited from the dictionary or worded in their own way). Additionally, unlike the teacher, who used the denition as background to a question, the students employed their own denitions as a means to deconstruct stereotypes, thus demonstrating their understanding of the word beyond what was contained in these denitions. This vividly illustrates that learning is experiential. If learning were transmission of knowledge, then the students should have comprehended the meaning of stereotype right in the beginning when the teacher provided the dictionary denition of the word. However, what we observed here is that denitions became an affordance only when they were used as a resource relevantly invoked by the students as a part of their ongoing negotiation of meanings. In sum, we have analyzed the specic ways that the students shifted their understandings of the meaning of the word stereotype. Their collective understanding by the end of this content module was reected and reinforced in the following message written by Kimiko, who was assigned to summarize this discussion topic for the whole class (the summary was written at the end of this module, but it was posted almost 3 weeks later; thus, several new modules had begun by this time): MESSAGE NO. 171 Kimiko, September 27, 12:43 p.m. Subject: The summary of Stereotype Stereotype Thinking Kimiko Wanatada (1) I agree with everything that everybody said. (2) Stereotype that means an idea of what a particular group of people is like that many people have, especially one that is wrong or unfair. (3) I think most people make stereotype (4) when they do not have enough knowledge about something. (5) Therefore, most people in the class, including me, have some kind of stereotype about people in Hawaii. (6) Nobody really knew that is another country exactly except their own country. (7) One such case is Asukas stereotype. (8) I had same image as her. (9) Hawaiian people are nice, friendly, has

Hanh thi Nguyen and Guy Kellogg dark skins, and big eyes. (10) However once I lived in here, (11) I realized that images were just stereotypes. (12) Im not talking about Hawaii and Hawaiians, but also any little things. (13) I guess we do a lot of stereotype thinking. (14) Even though it is difcult to notice what a stereotype is, (15) we should still not make stereotype about people, culture, and country. (16) We should be open-minded and see person with individual. Notably, Kimiko dened what stereotype meant (2), attributed the source of stereotypes to lack of knowledge (36), gave an example of a stereotype that some students, including herself, had held (79), pointed out that it was false (1011), nally generalized to all stereotype thinking (12) and recommended against making stereotypes (14 16). In Kimikos summary, she aligned herself with the rest of the class by expressing agreement with everybody (1), including herself explicitly with most people in the class (5), linking her thinking with another student (78), and, nally, referring to all students in the class as we when she gave the recommendations against making stereotypes (1516). This demonstrates both her legitimate participation in the class as a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and the communitys common voice, at least as expressed by Kimiko. Taking this as the recognized consensus among the students regarding their understanding of the meaning of stereotype, we will next examine how these changes in understanding were exhibited in later online discussions and group essays as a continuation of their language socialization. Changes in the Students Understanding of the Meaning of Stereotype as Displayed in Later Activities Changes in the students understanding of stereotypes were exhibited in various ways in later discussions and group essays, and we will report on these changes in turn. Changed Understandings About Stereotype as Exhibited in Subsequent Discussions. First, the changes in the students understanding of the meaning of stereotype were expressed in how they recognized their own stereotypes in the later parts of the discussions. After agreeing that stereotypes were not truths, the students still had to mention stereotypes as part of their discussions, but when they did so, they consistently added that these were only their own stereotypes. For example:

67 MESSAGE NO. 183 (BRANCH FROM NO. 15) Asada, September 28, 5:16 p.m. Subject: Re: food (. . .) (2) So I understand Many American people like junk food. (. . .) (5) They eat sweet sweet Ice Cream after dinner, (6) and then they go for a jog every morning. (7) Their method of the diet is wrong. (8) But my images also streotype. MESSAGE NO. 266 (BRANCH FROM NO. 244) Ari, October 21, 8:52 a.m. Subject: Aris opinion (1) I think gay people act like a women, always holing their hands and smiling each other. (2) This is my stereotype thought to gay people. (. . .) (4) When I was in Japan, (5) I never seen gay people. (6) So i do not know well about gay peoples behavior. (7) So my stereotype thought to gay people is just image. In Asadas message, she rst made some stereotypes about Americans and their diet (2, 5, 7). In (8), with the use of but to contradict her previous statement, she acknowledged that what she thought was only a stereotype. Ari also reported a stereotype that she had about gay people (12), but she also showed awareness that she lacked knowledge and experience about gay people (46) and reasoned (via the use of so) that her stereotype was just an image (i.e., not true). As another student put it, I have streotypes about gay people because I never met gay people (Junko, October 21, 8:42 a.m.). Second, we also observed that in the later parts of the discussion, the students were able to present a balanced view15 when they needed to make generalizations about a group of people and that they were aware of their own biases. For instance, when Dong-Ook expressed his negative opinion about gay people, I think homosexuality is not normal, he also included a fair statement in the next sentence: But we need to protect their rigths (October 21, 9:02 a.m.). A third way that the students showed their changed understanding of the meaning of stereotype was by avoiding judging others by their own standards and realizing that the Self may be judged by the Other as well. In the following discussion, the students had viewed a historical photograph of a boy dressed in feminine-looking clothes. As they tried to explain the unusual photograph, they revealed their implicit understandings about stereotypes: MESSAGE NO. 168 (BRANCH FROM NO. 89) Asuka, September 23, 9:09 a.m. Subject: Re: Explore hidden history

68 (. . .) (2) It seems the boy looks like a girl. (3) Its little bit strange. (4) A fashion that people wore long time ago was strange (5) when we see it now. (6) however it was common fashion at the time. (7) After I read this article (8) Im interesting about old fashion. MESSAGE NO. 178 (BRANCH FROM NO. 89) Dong-Ook, September 28, 12:02 a.m. Subject: Re: Explore hidden history (1) I agree. (2) the boy looks like a girl. (3) the trend is changing. (4) sometimes Im worried about that . (5) when i take a picture, (6) it will be strange after 100 years later In Asukas message, she described the photo (1) and expressed her reaction to it (2). The tentative expressions in these sentences (it seems and its a little bit) show her epistemic stance: She marked the description and reaction as only supercial. She then explained her reaction to the photo by pointing to changes in fashion over time (46). What she indicated to be her reaction to the photo was not a stereotype about the boy in the photo (e.g., that he was strange) but an interest about past fashions (78). This message implicitly shows that Asuka avoided assigning her own values to the Other and provided an explanation for the difference between her norms and the Others. For Dong-Ook, he avoided making a stereotype about the boy in the photo by shifting perspectives: He considered how the Other would perceive himself at a different point in time (46). This shift of perspective enabled him (and the other students) to see the relativity of norms; that is, even though it was true that the person in the photo did not t current norms (2), no judgment should be made. The students understanding that stereotypes were not truths can also be seen in their desire to establish the truth behind the stereotype, thus showing a change from believing in stereotypes to evaluating them. The following thread among several students on existing stereotypes about gay people is an example (only two postings will be highlighted here). MESSAGE NO. 234 (BRANCH FROM NO. 229) Yoko, October 21, 8:23 a.m. Subject: Gay stereo types (1) Hi! (2) i heard (3) if people have sex between men to men (4) they gonna be infected with AIDS. (5) i think that not true (6) however many people believe that. (7) so that is a kind of stereo type!!

The Modern Language Journal 94 (2010) MESSAGE NO. 279 (BRANCH FROM NO. 234) Junko, October 21, 9:00 a.m. Subject: Re: Gay stereo types (1) I also have heard of that (2) and Im not sure about that. (3) But how can we make sure? (4) Id like to know the truth. In her posting, Yoko distanced herself from the negative stereotype via the use of the reported speech formulation I heard (1), thus claiming only indirect access to the information in her epistemic stance toward what she was reporting. In Goffmans (1981) terms, she was shifting the responsibility of the messages author to someone else. She then stated that she believed that this was not true (5). With the use of I think, she further indicated a lack of direct access to this information. This weak rejection of the stereotype was picked up by Junko, who shared the same epistemic stance toward the stereotype but explicitly indicated that she did not know if it was true in the statement about her lack of knowledge (2), a question (3), and an expression of her desire to know the truth (4). Another student responded similarly: We need to know correct information (Kanta, October 23, 3:04 p.m.). These students desire to know the truth behind the stereotype16 showed that even when they did not have enough information, they were aware of it and did not simply embrace an existing stereotype. In other words, they learned to take a critical view based on their new understanding that stereotypes were not necessarily true. Another interesting way that the students showed their shifted understandings about the meaning of stereotype can be seen in their reformulation of others viewpoints when stereotypes were tacitly made. In the following message, Ryo, in his strong reaction against a photograph of a sign that said We serve whites only, made some implicit stereotypes about whites. MESSAGE NO. 134 Ryo, September 21, 4:57 p.m. Subject: We serve Whites only (1) Whites feared change. (2) They didnt want to be equal with other racial people. (3) They always wanted be above other racial people. (4) I think their mind were very narrow, and stereotyped. (5) They should have respected other culture, religion, and people who have different skins. It is interesting to note that although Ryo was speaking in the interest of the African Americans

Hanh thi Nguyen and Guy Kellogg who were segregated by white people in U.S. history, he made several negative stereotypes about white people (14). His message contained a double layer of meaning. Particularly, in the sentence I think their mind were very narrow, and stereotyped (4), he expressed, on the one hand, his disapproval of discrimination, and yet, on the other hand, he was making a stereotype about white people himself. In their responses, other students agreed with Ryos disapproval of discrimination, but they also reformulated the position in ways that avoided making stereotypes: MESSAGE NO. 161 (BRANCH FROM NO. 134) Junko, September 22, 9:11 p.m. Subject: from Junko (1) I understand what Ryo said, (2) but I also think that human want to be above than others. (. . .) (7) It depend on us. To continue the discrimination or respect others and make good society. MESSAGE NO. 317 (BRANCH FROM NO. 134) Kanta, October 23, 1:56 p.m. Subject: Kanta to Ryo (1) You have good opinion. (2) Yes, we have to respect each culture, religion and people as individually. (3) In addition, we should recognize our differences (4) because we are different, (5) we cant avoid this fact. (6) Our equality based on our differences. In Junkos message, she acknowledged what Ryo said (1) and then used but to subtly disagree with him that it was not just white people, but it was human nature to want to be above others (2). By doing so, she shifted the focus from one social group and took a broader view in which no group was singled out. This view was evident in her last sentence (7) when she referred to all humans as us and called for respect for one another. Thus, Junko effectively aligned with the rst layer in Ryos message (i.e., antidiscrimination) but then revised the position to avoid making stereotypes. The same strategy was used in Kantas message. He rst agreed with Ryo (1), but throughout his message, he shifted the focus away from white people as a social group and mentioned respect for individual differences. It is worth noting that direct disagreement in followup messages might have been problematic in this case, as Ryos stereotypes about white people were made only tacitly. Reformulation thus was an effective strategy because it allowed the students to agree with the rst layer of the message and, at

69 the same time, to avoid the messages problem. This type of data shows that the students were able not only to recognize stereotypes even when they were implicit but also to employ actions appropriate to the social activity in which they were participating. In summary, the students changed understandings about stereotypes were exhibited in many ways in the later parts of the discussions, including how they recognized their own stereotypes, maintained a balanced view to avoid biases, avoided judging the Other by their own norms, sought the truth rather than accepting a stereotype, and recognized implicit stereotypes to reformulate a point of view to be stereotype-free. Changed Understandings About Stereotype as Displayed in Group Essays. As a further step to examine changes in the students understanding about stereotypes, we also looked at their group essays written around the middle of the semester (nal version submitted on November 15).17 In our analysis, we looked for evidence of the students changed perspective regarding the concept of stereotypes. The assignment was to compare and contrast womens rights in two different societies. In these essays, the students took a balanced and critical view when they made generalizations, which we consider to be consistent with their changed understanding about stereotypes in the online discussions. For example, in one group, the students considered womens rights in the United States, Samoa, and Japan. Before comparing the countries, these students considered various facts and gures from ofcial sources to generate observations. Although they concluded that women in the United States had more rights than in the other two countries, they pointed out that inequality between men and women in the United States also existed. Their understanding of stereotypes was exhibited in the way they grounded their generalizations in reliable information and not on their personal or cultural intuitions. In the essay by another group, the students changed understanding of stereotypes was evident in their awareness of when they themselves made a generalization. They wrote, We know, in general, women have weaker body than men and added immediately after this, although it is stereotype. These student essays, although not explicitly designed to check their understanding about stereotypes, nonetheless demonstrated consistency with the language socialization that had taken place in the online discussions.

70 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION We have examined how, through social actions and displays of stance, students in a sustained content-based L2 course showed changes in their understanding of the meanings of one lexical item, stereotype.18 By aligning with and, at times, questioning one another, the students invoked stereotypes known within their own cultures as well as stereotypes that people from the target culture had about them. This collaborative discourse, in which stereotypes were problematized, led the students to conclude that stereotypes were not true. Further, as more content areas were introduced in the course, they became able to recognize their own existing stereotypes and remain open toward new topics about which they had limited knowledge. Importantly, we show that these changes in the students understanding of the meaning of a key word in the course occurred as they displayed and negotiated stances toward the issues at hand, constructed and reconstructed a sense of self, and drew on an array of textual and personal sources. These changes, which were exhibited implicitly and explicitly in later online discussions and group essays, constituted strong evidence for the learning of the meanings of specic linguistic forms as part of L2 socialization. Thus, as a step beyond previous research, which has shown how social interaction may simply create language learning opportunities (e.g., Mori, 2004; Nguyen & Kellogg, 2005; cf. Allwright, 2005; Crabbe, 2003), this study shows concrete evidence of language learning outcomes stemming from such opportunities. This study also demonstrates how SLLs as a group collaboratively came to learn not only the dictionary denition of a word but also ways of acting, feeling, and knowing (Ochs, 2002, p. 106). In this sense, the data eloquently support action-based learning in which the learner is not simply a copier of behaviors, a receptive input receiver, or a rote memorizer of facts, but is an active person who seeks ways to utilize the affordances of the L2 to t their own needs and goals, and in so doing, the learner forms new identities (van Lier, 2007, p. 48; see also Swain, 2005, on languaging). The students discussions were no doubt inuenced by the content materials, the course structure, and the teachers participation; however, we have seen that rather than simply following the models of some experts, the learners actively sought ways to position themselves toward one another in co-constructed social activities surrounding the notion of stereotypes. Thus, this study conrms that socialization among peers is a powerful learning process, as Rock (2005) and

The Modern Language Journal 94 (2010) Sawchuk (2003) have demonstrated. In addition to their ndings, we show that even when the expert (teacher) was present, the learners, at times, chose to orient to one another in their interaction, and in so doing, they helped one another become speakers of a new culture.19 With its focus on learning the meaning of a word, this study also adds a fresh perspective to research on vocabulary acquisition in an L2. As ethnographers have shown us, a words conceptual meaning reaches far beyond its referential meaning and includes rich, implicit social and cultural aspects (see Kulick, 1992, or Malinowski, 1923). The data show that the learning of a words social and cultural meanings and how these meanings are related to ones own self is a complex process accomplished through social interaction (see also Churchill, 2008).20 If L2 learning means nding the suitable affordances in the target language to t ones needs and goals, then this social aspect of vocabulary learning should be emphasized. Finally, this study demonstrates that language emergence is not necessarily the same as the quantitative appearance of a form that was previously absent in the learners language repertoire, but it can also involve qualitative changes in the ways the learner uses existing language forms. In this sense, we agree with van Lier (2000), among others, that SLA research can be much more fruitful when the focus is shifted from the products of learning to its processes.

NOTES
1 Similarly, few studies have analyzed reverse socialization (i.e., the novice changing the experts behaviors), especially in adult language socialization. An exception is Li (2000). 2 This is the British equivalent of the U.S. Miranda warning. 3 For an effective model for raising students awareness about how the discourse of the content inuences the use of linguistic forms and, reexively, how the selection of linguistic forms serves to construct that discourse, see Schleppegrell (2004, 2006). 4 When the students were not communicating online, they could get up, talk to each other, seek help from the teacher, etc. 5 Permission to use the data was obtained after the semester had ended; thus the teachers and students postings were not inuenced by the presence of our research. 6 This was required and encouraged by the teacher. 7 In face-to-face class meetings, the students mainly reacted to the contents presented in texts or videos and gave presentations on topics related to these contents. The teacher posted online questions to guide the

Hanh thi Nguyen and Guy Kellogg

students reasoning and to facilitate discussions but did not state explicitly his own values. 8 The extracts presented in this paper were selected from a larger collection of all postings that either contain the word stereotype or touch on the concept of stereotype. We applied comprehensive data treatment (Mehan, 1979) to ensure that the generalizations made in the analysis are evident in the entire data set. 9 We retain all students unique use of English, punctuation, and spelling. 10 All student names are pseudonyms. 11 For ease of reference, we have numbered roughly the idea units in the postings. 12 The structure of this message is very similar to Kimikos earlier message, in which she also described how she t a stereotype. 13 The reason why most changes regarding the meaning of stereotype occurred in the rst month of the class was perhaps because the students needed to sort its meaning out rst before engaging on other topics which were built on this concept. 14 It is interesting to note that the teachers rst message asked the students to do exactly this, but it did not occur until the students themselves found the need to do so. 15 Maintaining a balanced view is, of course, in itself culturally situated: it is part of the discourse of this course and of the school. 16 Some other students joined the thread and explained that this stereotype was a mistake and reasoned that gay men were normal human. 17 The essays written after this point did not relate to the concept of stereotypes. 18 One may argue that stereotype carries much cultural meaning and thus can stimulate more perspectivetaking among the students; however, we believe that all language forms can be the affordance for positioning and thus can open up opportunities for language socialization. Seemingly mundane words such as cat, vacation, or desk are deeply connected to implicit cultural values (the American concept of cat as a pet, for example, contrasts strikingly to the Vietnamese concept of cat as a mouse eater [hence, Vietnamese generally do not give names to their cats]). Further, a functional approach to language (Halliday, 1994) holds that language (not just some words) is a set of choices for the speaker to make meaning according to his/her intention, the discourse context, the sociocultural setting, and the interpersonal relationship between the speaker and hearer. 19 Whether this is due to the online nature of the interaction or the way the tasks were set up is a question that further research may help to answer. 20 Dictionary denitions were employed by both the teacher and students as a way to understand the meaning of stereotype, but it was only one of the many affordances that they used to get a grasp of this word. REFERENCES Allwright, D. (2005). From teaching points to learning opportunities and beyond. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 931.

71
Atkinson, D. (2003). Language socialization and dyssocialization in a South Indian college. In R. Bayley & S. Schecter (Eds.), Language socialization in bilingual and multilingual societies (pp. 147162). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Churchill, E. (2008). A dynamic systems account of learning a word: From ecology to form relations. Applied Linguistics, 29, 339358. Crabbe, D. (2003). The quality of language learning opportunities. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 934. Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education. New York: Simon & Schuster. (Original work published 1938) Duff, P. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and difference: An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23, 289322. Eskey, D. E. (1997). Syllabus design in content-based instruction. In M. A. Snow & D. A. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 132141). White Plains, NY: Longman. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285 300. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Gordon, D. (2004). Im tired. You clean and cook. Shifting gender identities and second language socialization. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 437 457. Hall, J. K. (1997). A consideration of SLA as a theory of practice: A response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal, 81, 301306. Hall, J. K., & Verplaetse, L. S. (2000). The development of second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 120). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold. Hanks, W. F. (1991). Foreword. In J. Lave & E. Wenger (Eds.), Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (pp. 1324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219 248). New York: Academic Press. Kinginger, C., & Belz, J. A. (2005). Socio-cultural perspectives on pragmatic development in foreign language learning: Microgenetic case studies from telecollaboration and residence abroad. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2, 369421. Kulick, D. (1992). Language shift and cultural reproduction: Socialization, self, and syncretism in a Papua New Guinea village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lam, W. S. E. (2004). Second language socialization in a bilingual chat room: Global and local considerations. Language Leaning and Technology, 8, 4465.

72
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lessard-Clouston, M. (2006). Learning and use of specialized vocabulary among native and non-native Englishspeaking graduate students of theology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto. Li, D. (2000). The pragmatics of making requests in the L2 workplace: A case study of language socialization. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 5887. Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), Supplement 1 to The meaning of meaning (pp. 296336). New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company. Matsumura, S. (2001). Learning the rules of offering advice: A quantitative approach to second language socialization. Language Learning, 51, 635679. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mori, J. (2004). Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: A case from a Japanese language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 88, 536550. Morita, N. (2000). Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities in a TESL graduate program. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 279310. Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 573603. Nguyen, H. T., & Kellogg, G. (2005). Emergent identities in on-line discussions for second language learning. Canadian Modern Language Review, 62, 111136. Noji, T. (2003). The socialization of Japanese ESL students into oral discourse practices at a U.S. university: A qualitative description. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA. Ochs, E. (1986). Introduction. In B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures (pp. 113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. (1993). Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 287306. Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 407437). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. (2002). Becoming a speaker of culture. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives (pp. 99120). London: Continuum. Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (1995). The impact of language socialization on grammatical development. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp. 7394). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

The Modern Language Journal 94 (2010)

Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (2001). Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental stories and their implications. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Linguistic anthropology: A reader (pp. 263301). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Ohta, A. S. (1999). Interactional routines and the socialization of interactional style in adult learners of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1493 1512. Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155177). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Platt, M. (1986). Social norms and lexical acquisition: A study of deictic verbs in Samoan child language. In B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Giving a source or basis: The practice in conversation of telling how I know. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 607625. Poole, D. (1992). Language socialization in the second language classroom. Language Learning, 42, 593 616. Rock, F. (2005). Ive picked some up from a colleague: Language, sharing, and communities of practice in an institutional setting. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice: Language, power, and social context (pp. 77104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rymes, B. (1997). Second language socialization: A new approach to second language acquisition research. Journal of Intensive English Studies, 11, 143 155. Sawchuk, P. H. (2003). Informal learning as a speechexchange system: Implications for knowledge production, power and social transformation. Discourse & Society, 14, 291307. Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (1986a). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 163191. Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (Eds.). (1986b). Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (1996). The microgenesis of competence: Methodology in language socialization. In D. I. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, & G. Jiansheng (Eds.), Social interaction, social context, and language: Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp (pp. 251263). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The grammar of history: Enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 67 93. Schleppegrell, M. (2006). An integrated language and content approach for history teachers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 254268. Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206226.

Hanh thi Nguyen and Guy Kellogg

Stoller, F. (2006). Establishing a theoretical foundation for project-based learning in second and foreign language contexts. In G. H. Beckett & P. C. Miller (Eds.), Project-based second and foreign language education: Past, present, and future (pp. 1940). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Swain, M. (in press). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning . In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky. London: Continuum. van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Socialinteractive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245285). Oxford: Oxford University Press. van Lier, L. (2002). An ecological-semiotic perspec-

73
tive on language and linguistics. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives (pp. 140164). London: Continuum. van Lier, L. (2007). Action-based teaching, autonomy and identity. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 4665. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Young, R. F., & Miller, E. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. Modern Language Journal, 88, 519535. Zuengler, J., & Cole, K. (2004). Language socialization and L2 learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 301316). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.

Call for 2012 Monograph Proposals Modern Language Journal Monograph/Focus Volume Series Guidelines for Prospective Monograph Authors
The following guidelines should be used by authors submitting proposals for the 2012 MLJ monograph. The Monograph (to be under 200 pages in length) may treat any topic related to second language learning and teaching, that is, within the scope of the MLJ. Both theoretical topics and extended research studies are welcome. Preference will be given to topics concerning languages other than English, although work in ESL and EFL will be considered if it has implications for teaching other languages as well. Monograph proposals should include the following: 1. In a detailed statement of purpose (57 pages double spaced, 12 pt. font), include the following: r The objective of the proposed monograph and an explanation of the unique and signicant contribution it makes to the eld of second language acquisition or foreign language pedagogy. r The language(s) addressed or illustrated and, if applicable, additional languages to which the work would offer insights. r A comparison/contrast with monographs that have covered the same or similar topics, and an explanation of what sets your monograph apart from them. r An explanation of how the approach taken in the monograph does or does not represent a departure from, or extension of, conventional wisdom. Explain how this monograph will contribute to the discipline. r Other comments that reveal different, original, or interesting aspects of your proposed project r A sentence or two explaining why you are submitting your proposal to the MLJ monograph series. r If possible, a brief description of anticipated special production issues such as The number and type of illustrations, photographs, tables, maps, glossary, appendixes, etc. Whether they will require any special design considerations, copyright permissions, etc. 2. A separate annotated outline (table of contents), including a short narrative for each section that describes how that section contributes to the monograph. 3. If you have a sample chapter, please include it with your proposal. 4. A list of suggested readers, including those who might have already read the manuscript. Some of these readers may be contacted for review, but additional readers will also be chosen. 5. Author(s) information: Your curriculum vitae, including publications, selected talks, and ofces held in professional organizations, as well as contact information. r Electronic les containing monograph proposals are due to the Editor of the series (Barbara Lafford, blafford@asu.edu) by July 15, 2010. The Editor will inform prospective authors of publication decisions by September 30, 2010. The author(s) of the manuscript chosen will be sent more detailed guidelines and a timeline for manuscript preparation for the 2012 publication date.