An evolving identity

Norton (2000) defines identity as “how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed across time and space, and how the person understands possibilities for the future” (p. 5). In the context of study abroad, as with other forms of mobility, a person’s identity and understanding of that identity are put into

question, a situation that is at once challenging and rewarding. Kinginger (2013) suggests that identity issues are tied to the length of a study abroad experience. In other words, the longer a student spends studying abroad the greater the possibility that they will experience identity issues.

As Norton’s definition suggests, identity is not simply personal, but also relational. It is about a person’s sense of themselves and their awareness of what the outside world allows them to be. Any major change of circumstances therefore involves a reworking of identity because the world that they relate to has changed. A change in identity requires negotiation and the way in which others position a particular person and whether they accept and legitimate that person’s new identity can create tension. Working from the perspective of multilingual contexts, Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004) present three types of identities that they believe arise from the processes of negotiating and positioning:

20 1. Imposed identities – that are not negotiable because those doing the positioning do

not allow for negotiation, making these identities impervious to change at that time. An example may be Japanese study abroad students positioned as being less

academically able than local students. This identity would remain until the Japanese students were in a situation where disputing this identity was possible and they were comfortable enough to do it. At that point their identity would become negotiable.

2. Assumed identities – accepted and not negotiated, for instance, Japanese study abroad students positioned as L2 learners.

3. Negotiable identities – contested by people and groups, for example, the Japanese study abroad students not having as much right to having a voice in English as L1 speakers. A way in which a Japanese study abroad student could negotiate this identity is by being active in class, answering the teacher’s questions and demonstrating their English prowess.

This is particularly interesting when second language learners move into the target language environment. A study abroad student’s agency or lack of agency is necessarily tied to their ability to express their ideas and present themselves in the way they want. Consequently, imposed identities can be the most frustrating and difficult for students to accept because, without adequate proficiency, the students have little say to resist the way they are seen. For instance, in research on Chinese students studying English in Canada, Morgan (1997) found that international students often accept their newly disempowered, marginal identities reluctantly. At the same time, however, they felt that they could do little to change their position because it was a product of the society they chose to study in.

21 Addressing the experience of Korean study abroad participants, Lee (2016) considers identities to be based on an individual’s social contexts and relationships, and argues that language “enables, maintains, and shapes relationships” (p. 21). Lee’s research draws on Norton (2000) who identified language as the key means by which “a person negotiates a sense of self within and across different sites at different points in time” (Norton, p. 5) and makes the connection between power, language and identity. Language or lack thereof serves to gate-keep a person’s access to social networks that allow speaking opportunities through which an identity can be presented or maintained. Language should therefore not only be thought of as a communication tool, but also as a link to power or, in Bourdieuan terms, ‘capital’. For Lee’s South Korean cohort studying in the U.S., English as key to “power and privilege” was a prevalent belief (p. 43). Proficiency in the language would allow them to secure good employment in the future. It would also serve as a global linguistic access to wherever in the world they desired. Lee’s participants perceived the relationship between the Korean and English languages to be hierarchical, which also translated into the notion that America was superior, cool and advanced. From this, one could assume that learning English would also help one become cool.

Language learning motivation is another factor seemingly linked to identity formation. Dornyei (2009) proposes that students engaging in L2 study are responsive to a range of ‘selves’, such as the ‘Ideal L2 Self’ and the ‘Ought to Self’, which are important factors in decisions they make about investing in language learning. Investment in learning is thus seen as a way of enhancing future identities. Of these selves, arguably the most relevant in the study abroad context is the Ideal L2 Self because it is based on what the students would like to become, reducing the gap between an actual identity and the vision they have of

22 themselves in the future.