SELF-CONCEPT AND I DENTITY THE INTERFACE

Generally the literature on identity and self-concept provides few clues as to where and how these two notions may interrelate. In fact, they are often dealt with as separate entities, perhaps because the two concepts are associated with different disciplinary paradigms, social identity theory and psychology. Stevens' ( 1 996) approach to understanding the Self provides a possible scenario for reconciling identity and self-concept by assuming that personal as well as social identity reflect a dual dimension of the self. Through integrating how we view and express ourselves with the way others see or interpret us, different types of identity become complementary constituents of self-concept (Williams & Burden, 1 997).

3.3. 1 Labelled identity

Identity labels tend to relate to categorical entities such as nationality or ethnicity. Labels function as an outward expression of membership and/or emotional attachment, yet they may not capture the complex and changing nature of identification processes themselves. This is not to say, however, that labelled identity cannot be adapted or changed, as tends to happen when

migrants are faced with having to accommodate mUltiple affinities, as examples from some New Zealand studies illustrate.

Raza ( 1 997) found that her second-generation New Zealand Indian respondents' identification with a group or label did not necessarily correspond with the emotional involvement or sense of belonging to that grOUp. Respondents preferred ethnicity labels ranging from New Zealand Indian, Indian, Indian Kiwi, local Kiwi, Fijian Indian, Gujarati Indian, Punjabi, and Goan with varying levels or strength of affinity. Raza thus cautions against a static ethnic group approach. Similarly lancovic-Kramaric (2001 , p. 80) states that "a single ethnic score cannot capture the multidimensionality of ethnic identity". Her study found that among Croatian-background migrants in the New Zealand context the single ethnic label was the most ·popular (e.g. Croatian, Dalmatian), followed by the choice of a bicultural label (e.g. New Zealand-Croatian, Croatian New Zealander) preferred by the New Zealand-born respondents. The least preferred option was the single host label (e.g. New Zealander, Kiwi, Pakeha, European), a finding which presents a challenge to the notion of an often idealized single host membership.

Identity labels represent discrete categories, which can be indicative of the process of acculturation and participation in a new society according to Bartley (2003). His study of Asian adolescents' acculturation highlights the complexity of meanings and motivations migrants associate with their identities. Irrespective of the respondents' length of residence, the preferred means of identification was through their origin, that is via citizenship or ethno­ cultural background. Bartley draws the important conclusion that the negotiation of identity is a function of "the realm of meanings, through which they interpret this variety of experiences"

(p. 1 39). As such, ethnic identity functions as part of an overall self-concept, which helps to . make sense of and handle new or fluctuating situations:

Indeed, a strong sense of self, of one's own ethnic identity, when supported by a measure of flexibility - in the learning of the language, familiarization of dominant customs and so forth - may be an adolescent migrant's strongest asset. (Bartley, 2003, p. 1 1 8)

3.3.2 Notions of self-concept

According to Carl Rogers ( 1 95 1 ) self-concept denotes a set of ideas about the self and how we perceive ourselves in relation to others and our environment. Contemporary definitions of self­ concept and related theories abound in a variety of disciplines. Self-concept is regarded as a cognitive or psychological construct in cognitive science (i.e. as part of our personality), while neuroscience understands self-conceptualization as a physiological process and as possibly related to other aspects of the person such as self-esteem and identity. Self-concept as a global

term refers to "the amalgamation of all of our perceptions and conceptions about ourselves which give rise to our sense of personal identity" (Williams & Burden, 1 997, p. 97). The self­ concept represents a general sense of who we are (Mal in & Birch, 1 998, p. 587), including perceived self-worth (Malin & Birch, 1 998, p. 1 7). In this sense, the notion of self-concept is particularly relevant to language acquisition and bilingualism studies because sociolinguistic, cultural and other discontinuities may impact on a person's self-consistency. The continuity of the self may in fact represent an important stabilizing force in the face of post-migration fluctuations (see also 3 .5.3) as is illustrated in the following statement:

The human self is a self-organizing, interactive system of thoughts, feelings and motives that characterizes an individual. It gives rise to an enduring experience of physical and

psychological existence - a phenomenological sense of constancy and predictability. The self is reflexive and dynamic in nature: responsive yet stable. (Hoyle, 1 999, p. 2)

3.3.2. 1 The academic self-concept

In the educational context the study of self-concept has a clear focus on improving learning outcomes through enhanced self-esteem. According to the hierarchical model of self-concept devised by Song and Hattie ( 1 984) language is subsumed under the ability self-concept, which is part of an overall academic self-concept. Thus, language is clearly seen as a skill related to

academic competence (Chapman & Tunmer, 1 995; Hansford & Hattie, 1 982; Skaalvik & Hagtvet, 1 990). Interestingly, little or no reference appears to have been made to language as a discrete self-concept dimension in its own right, except where associated with sub-skills such as reading and academic achievement (e.g. Chapman & Tunmer, 1 995).

In the wake of an emerging multi cultural education philosophy, educational psychology has shown increasing recognition of learner diversity, including linguistic diversity, as a critical

aspect of the learning and teaching context (Eggen & Kauchak; 1 999, McInerney &

McInerney, 1 998). As a consequence, students' diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds have come to be recognized as potentially enriching for classrooms and more attention has been given to the important role of minority children's languages not only for their social but

also their personal and emotional development (Eggen & Kauchak, 1 999; McInerney &

McInerney, 1 998).

While this overall trend may well apply to general philosophies it is yet to translate into wider educational theory and classroom practice. For example, the recognition of heritage languages

for their key role in improving performance via facilitating self-esteem (Syed, 200 1 ) appears to have made few inroads outside the foreign language learning context. This role also provides an argument for bilingual education beyond possible cognitive benefits. Yet bilingual approaches to learning continue to conjure up resistance and controversy in many quarters and community language programs in schools are still the exception.

The assumption that self-enhancement through linguistic means contributes to the development of self-esteem may not be universally valid as notions of subj ectivity may differ cross­ culturally. Any discussion of self-concept must therefore also consider culture-specific meanings attached to it.

3.3.2.2 Conceptualization of seljhood across cultures

Different cultures offer varying legitimate ways of self-construction, which contribute to cultural continuity. The perception of self is influenced by a range of cultural meaning systems, and, as a consequence, a person "may have more than one possible conceptual representation, depending on the cultural meanings brought to bear in their interaction" (Cousins, 1 989, p.

1 25). Malin and Birch ( 1 998, p. 590) emphasize the importance of acknowledging divergence in conceptualizations of the self' in different cultural contexts where they may be defined by community or social relationships, for example, with the tribe (e.g. in African contexts) or spiritual forces such as god(s) or one's ancestors (Barih, 1 997).

Cross-cultural psychology has described cultural differences in self-perception (including self­ esteem) in terms of varying salience of either individual or collective aspects in the process of self-construal. The notion of self as autonomous, internal and stable represents a Western view

based on a Cartesian description of individuality as a unitary entity, whose existence is dependent on perception (I think, therefore I am). Individuals attain self-enhancement through their personal achievements, (Markus & Kitayama, 1 99 1 ). In contrast, in the non-Western tradition the self is understood as socially constructed, external and flexible and derives from a person's roles and interpersonal relations in social contexts. Self-construal is thus enhanced through maintaining group harmony, as illustrated in the Confucian-derived Chinese concept of the self, which is "not defined by how well it can become the center of all interaction, but how well it can orient itself toward significant others" (Mao, 1 995, p. 2 1 4).

What makes the process of selving universal across different contexts according to Markus et

al. (1 997) is its simultaneously cognitive and social nature. A person' s sense of self is socioculturally constructed in a dynamic process of engaging in cultural practices. This process is captured in Triandis' (1 989) three-dimensional model of the self, which incorporates both

individual and collective aspects based on cognitions about (a) oneself by oneself (private self),

(b) how the self is viewed by a specific reference group (collective self) or (c) perceptions by a

generalized other (public self). The social and the personal side of self-concept thus provides a

frame of reference for something inner and unique and at the same time something that relates to the real social world:

Just as our self-understanding emerges from social interactions, the evolving sense of self informs social interaction in a continuous dialectal relationship. Our experiences tell us who we are, and who we are tells us what our experiences mean. (Fivush & Buckner,

Culture provides templates for self-construal as well as the linguistic means for self­ presentation. Language reflects and articulates self-knowledge through the formal structure of language (Jopling, 1 997; Lakoff, 1 997), for example, by self-referential language devices such as personal pronouns or metaphors. Language also facilitates the implicit communication of one's self-understanding during social exchanges. However, language is believed to be more than a medium for self-presentation as it "plays a fundamental role in the actual construction of selthood [and], speakers come to construct and display ever changing subjectivities" (Budwig, 1 999, p. 3) in the way they perceive and talk about their experiences in social interaction.

Cultures appear to differ in terms of their tolerance for contradictions among dimensions of the self. For example, Bruner ( 1 997, p. 507) claims that depending on which norms and values are significant, the level of tolerance towards deviation from norms (e.g. tight vs. loose cultures as a function of cultural complexitylhomogeneity) varies. Thus, ML functions and uses which are different from a perceived standard norm may not only trigger varying attitudinal responses, but they can also vary in the way they affect self-consistency. This line of reasoning suggests that pragmatic or autonomous orientations to MLP (Chapter Two) are culture-specific manifestations of an individual's ability or willingness to reconcile with himlherself any deviations from socially sanctioned norms, including sociolinguistic ones.

Recognition of the diverse possibilities of understandings of oneself in the world is especially pertinent when dealing with culturally and linguistically diverse populations. It is beyond the objectives of this research to explore cross-cultural differences of a language-related self­ concept in depth. However, the present study does attempt to inquire into the role and

relevance o f migrants' languages i n terms o f their self-conceptualizations in situations that may be more or less fluid - socially, culturally and linguistically speaking.

A more socially grounded view of the self (see 3 .5) recognizes diversity and, crucially, integrates the social and cultural correlates of the self, which may be more salient in some cultures than others but are also universal to the extent that the self does not exist in isolation from others and the social context. This point is emphasized by Neisser (1 997) who argues that "the self that emerges from interaction is a dialectical self, defined as much by the other and the interaction as by the individual" (p. 8). Such integration of private and collective aspects of the self, while emphasized differently across cultures (Trafimow et aI., 1 99 1 ) hinges on a crucial factor; it requires language for the process to function through interaction.·

3.4 AN ECOLOGICAL/SOCIOCUL TURAL FRAMEWORK FOR A LINGUISTIC SELF-