Electronic Journal of Central European Studies in Japan, No.3 (October 2017)

Language and identity: The interaction of the students’ mother tongue withEnglish, the lingua franca of the globalized world
Michaela Slezák Polónyová
Masaryk University & Purkyne University, Czech Republic

Abstract
This contribution is a project within the sociolinguistics domain focusing on the interaction of
mother tongue with another foreign language. Particularly, it targets Czech native speakers
and their stance towards the English language as one of the most prominent symbols of the
globalized world. The aim of this paper is to contrast the data collected via an online survey
among Purkyne University students with the poststructuralist account of language and identity
and to contextualize it within the framework of second language learning motivation. The
poststructuralist account is used to explain the motivation behind learning a new language as
an investment in order to secure better access to power via the so called linguistic marketplace.
Here each language is perceived as having a certain symbolic value, convertible into
economic and social values.
Language in general and mother tongue specifically is here understood as one of the corefoundations of one’s multi-layered identity. For this reason, it can be hypothesized that as theglobal culture inherently demands English language competence, it plays a crucial role in how
young people approach their first and second languages and how these aspects in turn leave an
imprint on their identities.

Key words: identity, second language learner, investment, English, lingua franca

Bio
Michaela is a doctoral student, university lecturer and linguistics enthusiast. She teaches
linguistics courses at her alma mater, University of Jan Evangelista Purkyne (UJEP) andstudies towards a PhD degree at Masaryk University (MUNI). She specializes in phonetics
and phonology and is interested in psycholinguistics, particularly language acquisition.
After earning her bachelor’s double major degree in English language and literature & social
studies at UJEP, she went on to study English linguistics at MUNI. Her bachelor thesis

1

『中欧研究』第2号（2017年10月）

examined prosody of emotions in second language while her diploma project dealt with theissue of foreign language spoken performance anxiety.
She is working on her dissertation thesis, a cross-linguistic study on the relationship ofperception and production of second language speech sounds. Her side projects include
annotation work for language technology software. Michaela is passionate about learning(about) languages and is likewise keen on new technologies applying linguistic know how.

Electronic Journal of Central European Studies in Japan, No.3 (October 2017)

１．Introduction:
The linguistic reality of living in a globalized world and its connection
１．
to identity

Every single year, every decade and indeed every century brings new challenges forcing
us all, in numerous ways, to contribute to the momentum of an ever-turning wheel of change.
The events of both the 20th and 21st centuries (the collapse of communism and the resulting
reshaping of Europe, widespread political and economic migration, increased mobility,
constantly developing media technologies and expanding electronic discourse communities,
to give just a few examples)1 have brought about our present globalized (or globalizing) world,
characterized by immense complexity and interconnectedness on the one hand, and diversity
and fluidity on the other. Yet, another example of the many advantages of globalization is the
spread of English as the lingua franca of the globalized world. To illustrate, English is
mentioned as the 4th, 3rd or even 2nd most widely spoken language, depending on who isdoing the counting2. Roughly one out of every five people living on our planet speaks English
either as a native or as a foreign language, non-native speakers outnumbering native speakers
more than two to one.
In such a context, English language competence has become a standard requirement of thelabor market and is often perceived as a general prerequisite for a successful career. Even
before any person reaches their first employment, acquiring a certain level of a foreign
language competence is an essential part of the educational process. However, this is not the
only area where an absolute dominance of the English language has been asserted throughout
those years of globalization. The English language, via its large-scale usage and due to theadvent of new technologies, has been spread from strictly professional areas to all the otherconceivable domains. We are now living in a global village where the speed of our internet
connection is often the sole factor determining our access to information as well as thecommunication strategies (and sometimes even languages) we use. It can be hypothesized thatin order to maintain such communication swiftness and to keep harvesting the benefits of our
growing interconnectedness, we have come to realize that the most efficient communication
possible will, ideally, take the form of a single language. Similar explanation is provided by

1

E. Ushioda & Z. Dörnyei, “Motivation, Language Identities and the L2 Self: A Theoretical Overview,” in Z.
Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self, Bristol 2009, p. 1.

2“The History of English. How English went from an obscure Germanic dialect to a global language,” English
today, L. Mastin, 2011, at http://www.thehistoryofenglish.com/history_today.html, 20 September 2016.
3

『中欧研究』第2号（2017年10月）

Crystal (2003)3 who interprets the need for mutual intelligibility as a strong driving force
behind the movement for a global language, which in our current context is English.
However, is it not true that our cultural and social environment, personal and national
histories as well as identities are inextricably interwoven with our own language? Should weworry, then, that once the reign of a single world language is finalized and once its traces
infiltrate our own linguistic system; our own genuine identities together with our languages
will be lost?
To get a better understanding of what culture is, and therefore of what is at stake, one
only needs to look around and observe his or her environment. Culture is virtually anything,for instance one’s language, beliefs, values and norms, customs, dress, diet, roles, knowledge
and skills, and all the other things that people learn that make up the ‘way of life’ of any
society4. Naturally, national or regional languages are taken to embody both cultural andlinguistic identities5 and therefore very often occupy the leading positions in accounts of what
both society and its culture are. For these reasons, many are convinced that there are changes
pertaining to language and identity that can be related to the globalized economy. These can
include emerging tensions between local, national and supra-national identities and language
practices, seen as eventually leading to the commodification of language and identity6. The
concept of the global village mentioned above can be taken to foster what was called byBrowne (2008) the global culture which in his interpretation has the potential to undermine
national and local cultures, with cultural products and ways of life in different countries of
the world becoming more alike7. In his view, societies across the world are becoming more
and more interdependent with the spread of the same culture, same consumer goods andshared economic interests all over the world. Heller (2003) reports that such trends impact our
individual languages (and identities associated with them) and that the growing focus on
multilingual communication leads to the so-called McDonaldization of the linguistic
landscape8.

3

D. Crystal, English as a Global Language (2nd ed.), Cambridge 2003, pp. 21-22.

4

K. Browne, Sociology for AS AQA (3rd edition), Polity 2008, p. 31.
D. Graddol, "English in the future," in A. Burns and C. Coffin (eds.), Analysing English in a Global Context,
London and New York 2001, pp. 26-37.

5

6

M. Heller, “Globalization, the new economy and the commodification of language and identity,” Journal of
Sociolinguistics, vol. 7, no. 4 (2003), p. 473.

7

K. Browne, Sociology for AS AQA (3rd edition), Polity 2008, p. 36.
Heller, “Globalization, the new economy and the commodification of language and identity,” Journal of
Sociolinguistics, vol. 7, no. 4 (2003), p. 474.
8

Electronic Journal of Central European Studies in Japan, No.3 (October 2017)

Once again, culture, society and its individual members are all interconnected bymeans of a shared language which thus acquires a wide range of functions and the expressionof one’s identity, the self9, is necessarily one of them. Language is one of the tools individuals
use to define themselves as well as the groups they belong or want to belong to. Language is
the key instrument of socialization and therefore significantly contributes to the formation of
one’s identity. For these reasons, it is sometimes claimed that learning a new language entails
learning a new identity10.
To summarize, the current discussions of the global spread of English seems toencompass ‘identity’ as one of the two key issues (the other, in Ushioda’s view, being‘intelligibility’)11.

２．Learninga foreign language as an investment in the poststructuralist account２．

So what is the identity of a language learner and how does it connect to his or her
motivation, the driving force behind learning? The perspective on motivation taken in thispaper comes from the poststructural tradition, namely from the concept of investment definedby Norton (2000) as a socially and historically constructed relationship of learners to thetarget language, and their often ambivalent desire to learn and practice it12. Pavlenko (2002)
explains that though poststructuralism is commonly used as an umbrella term with often
blended meaning, in the area of language studies it is employed to investigate and to theorize
the role of language in construction and reproduction of social relations, and the role ofsocial dynamics in the processes of additional language learning and use13. One of the main
tenets of poststructuralism in relation to languages (and their varieties, registers etc.) is that
individual ones have their own symbolic capital which is convertible into economic and social
capital. However, not all speakers partake equally of this linguistic marketplace. A given
language (or its variety, i.e. a standard or a vernacular form) is directly related to what is9

E. Ochs, "Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective," in S. F. Kiesling & C. B.
Paulston (eds.), Intercultural Discourse and Communication, London 2008, pp. 78-91.
10e.g. P. M. Lightbown & N. Spada, How languages are learned (3rd ed.), Oxford 2006. Or A. Pavlenko & J. P.
Lantolf, "Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves,” in Sociocultural theory
and second language learning, Oxford 2000, pp. 155-177.
11
E. Ushioda, “Language Motivation in a Reconfigured Europe: Access, Identity, Autonomy,” Journal ofMultilingual and Multicultural Development, vol. 27, no. 2 (2006), p. 151.
12
B. Norton, Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity and Educational Change, Harlow 2000, p. 10.
13
A. Pavlenko, "Poststructuralist Approaches to the Study of Social Factors in Second Language Learning andUse," in V. Cook (ed.), Portraits of the L2 User, Dublin 2002, p. 282.
5

『中欧研究』第2号（2017年10月）

perceived as prestigious in a particular society relating closely to e.g. one’s education,
occupation, status or possibilities for further social mobility14.
In this view it is hypothesized that learners understand and approach learning an L2(second language) as an investment that is meant to lead to an acquisition of both material(capital goods, real estate, money) as well as symbolic (language, education, friendship)
resources and to enhance the learner’s ‘cultural capital’. This in turn shapes their conceptionof themselves (or identity) and their desires for the future15. Norton’s position on language isclearly inspired by Bourdieu’s (1991)16 concept of symbolic capital which leads us back to the
problematic notion of commodification of language mentioned by Heller (2003) and others.
Furthermore, language within the poststructuralist context can be approached as a site ofidentity construction because it mediates the discourse and supplies the terms by which
identities are expressed (identity performance) and assigns differential values to different
identities or subject positions17. For these reasons, a single act of language use, especially inthe multilingual context, can be viewed as an ‘act of identity’. Norton (2010) insists that
language be approached not only as a linguistic system with its structural layers but also as asocial practice which helps negotiate identities of the individual language users. This view onmeaning negotiation is again rooted in the work of Bordieu (1977) in which he claimed that‘the meaning of what is said by an individual can never be separated from that individual who
spoke it’18. Using language can be understood as the process of negotiation in which the
speaker wishes not only to be understood, but to be ‘believed, obeyed, respected,
distinguished’19. However, as the symbolic power of the individual varieties is not equallydistributed, some speakers will be challenged more by the task of making themselves
understood and respected due to this imbalance in power relations20. The notion of power iscrucial here as it is one of the main factors determining how languages and their varieties are
viewed and approached by society in general but more importantly how languages are taught
because as Norton (2000) suggests, language teaching is not a neutral practice but a highly

14

A. Pavlenko, "Poststructuralist Approaches to the Study of Social Factors in Second Language Learning andUse," in V. Cook (ed.), Portraits of the L2 User, Dublin 2002, p. 283.
15
B. Norton, Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity and Educational Change, Harlow 2000, p. 10.
16
P. Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power, Cambridge 1991.
17
A. Pavlenko, "Poststructuralist Approaches to the Study of Social Factors in Second Language Learning andUse," in V. Cook (ed.), Portraits of the L2 User, Dublin 2002, p. 284.
18
B. Norton, “Language and identity,” in N. Hornberger & S. Mckay (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language
education, New York 2010, pp. 349-369.
19
P. Bourdieu, "The economics of linguistic exchanges," Social Science Information, vol. 16, no. 6 (1977), p.
648.
20
B. Norton & K. Toohey, “Identity and language learning,” in R. Kaplan (ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied
linguistics, New York 2002, p. 118.

Electronic Journal of Central European Studies in Japan, No.3 (October 2017)

political one21. In heterogeneous societies, virtually anything can be used to marginalize agiven group of people, be it gender, race, class and ethnicity of second language learners.
Norton bases her position on power on the work of Foucault (1980)22 meaning that power is
not material, it cannot be possessed physically, but it is rather a relation behind social
exchange (at both macro, i.e. institutional level, as well as micro level of the everyday) whichis constantly being renegotiated as symbolic and material resources in a society change theirvalue23.
The reason Norton’s concept of investment can be found accurate when trying tounderstand our data is that, in her own words, the notion of instrumental motivation
presupposes a unitary, fixed, and ahistorical language learner who desires access to material
resources that are the privilege of target language speakers, while the concept of investment
conceives of the language learner as having a complex social history and multiple desires. As
the L2 learners are learning to use their L2, they not only exchange information with thenatives (and non-natives as well), but they need to (re-)organize a sense of who they are andhow they relate to the social world24. This way, investing into learning an L2 entails an
investment in the one’s own identity.

３．The
survey３．

The following section will present an online survey that targeted Purkyně University
students and aimed at providing some insight into how they perceive the changing linguistic
landscape in relation to their identity as well as their future career. Before the actual survey
and the collected data are introduced, it may be interesting to mention that identity in foreign
language learning contexts have been somewhat neglected as most of the attention was paid toimmigrant communities (USA, Canada, Australia)25 which is, obviously, not the case in thissurvey. This means there is still enough room for our own exploration here.

21

B. Norton, Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity and Educational Change, Harlow 2000, p. 7.
M. Foucault, “Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (C. Gordon (ed.)),” NewYork 1980.
23
B. Norton, Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity and Educational Change, Harlow 2000, p. 7.
24
Ibid., pp. 10-11.
25
F. Taylor, V. Busse, L. Gagova, E. Marsden & B. Roosken, “Identity in foreign language learning andteaching: why listening to our students’ and teachers’ voices really matters,” ELT Research Papers, vol. 13, no.
02 (2013), p. 4.
22

7

『中欧研究』第2号（2017年10月）

The multiple choice questionnaire created for the purposes of this survey was distributed
via the Purkyně University’s social media profile (Facebook) and it was also accessible via alink provided on the internal students’ administrative agenda. All of the university students
were prompted to participate, however, neither remuneration, nor any other reward wasoffered for participation, which was entirely on a voluntary basis. The questionnaire wasadministered in Czech, which was assumed to be the native language of the majority ofstudents. The 33 questions were subdivided into four areas of interest and some personal data
were collected as well. The four areas of interest were:-perception of national & cultural identities in relation to language-

English language skills (reading, writing, speaking, listening)-

language attitudes towards the presence of English in the public space and the job
market-actual language choices online

The survey was accessed by 214 students, but only 129 (97, i.e. 75.2% female and 32,
i.e. 24.8% male) participants completed it. The average age of participants was 25.02
years. Most of the students (81, i.e. 62.8%) were pursuing undergraduate degrees while 45,
i.e. 34.9% were graduate students. Half of the corpus was enrolled in education while therest of the group was aiming for degrees in fine arts, environmental science, information
technology, economics, biology, chemistry, history, mathematics etc. (No groupconstituted more than seven percent of the total number of participants.) As expected,
Czech was the mother tongue (L1) of the overwhelming majority, i.e. 93% of the group.
The remaining languages used as L1s by the participants were Russian (5 students, 3.9%),
Ukrainian and Vietnamese (2 students, i.e. 1.6% per each language), German and Kurdish(1 student, i.e. 0.8% per each language. It was further shown that the most commonly
spoken non-native language (L2) was English (112, i.e. 89%), followed by German (63,i.e. 50%) and Slovak (40, i.e. 32%).

４．Results
and discussion
４．

The focus here will be on the analysis and discussion of the collected data, particularly
pertaining to the section on language attitudes and the L2 learners’ identities in relation toElectronic Journal of Central European Studies in Japan, No.3 (October 2017)

the process of L2 learning as well as the presence of the English language in public space
and the labor market.
The obtained data show that Czech was L1 for 93% of the participants, yet it wasperceived as most representative of students’ national identity by more than 96% ofrespondents, indicating that Czech is felt to be appropriate for use even by those who do
not speak it as L1. English was selected in 3% of cases to serve this function. From theanalysis of the individual responses it is clear that this choice was made in all the
instances by Czech L1 speakers and not by those for whose native language is other thanCzech. The same question about the language most representative of one’s identity (bothnational and cultural) but with reference to the future yielded somewhat different results:
more than 23% selected English. A certain trend toward English was recorded in
responses to the question about the language most suitable for the expression of one’s
cultural identity. In this case, almost 20% of students are currently attracted to English
rather than Czech (84.6%, i.e. 107 students). The only two other languages selected forthis role were Spanish and French, each favored by a single student. So this is what thesituation looks like when students are given a choice. What would their preferences be ifthey simply had to choose a single language for their future communication? English wasselected by 49.2% (63 students) of participants, closely followed by Czech with 45.3%, i.e.
58 students. These results contrast with which language students perceived to be most
comfortable and convenient for the expression of one’s national and cultural identities infuture in which case English was selected by 23% and Czech by 85% of the participants.
The students also expressed their opinions about which language(s) they think would be
best for their children to learn; only 2.3% selected Czech in isolation while the mostcommon combination was either Czech and English (42%) or Czech, English plus one
more language (47%). Only 1.5% would want their children to speak English only.
In relation to how students experience the presence of English in the public arena, nomore than 12% of students claim to be irritated by English content, depending on theactivity selected. The participants were troubled the least by English in the film industry(2.4%); 7.2% found English inappropriate for television broadcasting (sports, serials,
evening news); for 11.5% the presence of English in the printed media was most
upsetting; one out of ten students were not ready to tolerate English or English loan words
in the media. On the other hand, on average only 2.8% of students claim that English
should be the only language of these activities – films being shown in the original, i.e.
English language only was supported by 8.9%. The results indicate that the biggest group9

『中欧研究』第2号（2017年10月）

of students, 43.6% would actually appreciate English in the public space but only giventhat there was a choice between Czech and English. This shows that there are four times
more students who prefer having a choice between Czech and English than those who
favor an English-only environment. It can be suggested that the students themselves are
increasingly more prepared to accept English in the public space but selecting it as a solelanguage would probably still be too drastic a change.
The focus now will be turned towards the demands of the job market and students’future career objectives. Participants were asked to rate languages depending on theirsignificance or their perceived role for future careers. If we observe the first two positions,
Czech was voted for by 106 students, closely followed by English (101 students). A closer
examination shows that Czech was rated the most important (1st position) by 83 students,
i.e. 69% (the second most important selected by 23, i.e. 19%) while English is chosen as
the most crucial language for future careers by 35, i.e. 28.7% and second most relevant by
66, i.e. 54% of the participants. The third most commonly selected language was German(perceived as the third most important language by 62%). These numbers indicate whatvalue the students assign to individual languages with regard to their future employment.
The students further report that should they be asked to use English at their future work
place, 38% would certainly want to do so and 24.8% would rather do it while 20.9%
would rather not do it. One out of ten respondents was indifferent and thus supposedly
would not mind. Altogether, it seems that 72.9% would be, to varying degrees, prepared
and willing to use English as their L2 at their workplaces while 6.2% claimed that theywould not use English at all. The participants’ motivation to use English in the work
setting would seem to be related to the fact that overall 75% believe that English native
speakers enjoy an advantage in the job market solely because of their native level ofEnglish proficiency. The vast majority, 96.9%, also believe that solid English language
competency is a significant advantage for non-native speaker job-seekers. In line withthese findings, more than 84% reported that they worried that insufficient English
language skills could act as a barrier to a promising career; only 2.3% did not find thisskill to be in any way important.
If English language competency is so crucial, are students prepared to be challenged
by this requirement? When assessing their own language skills, in total 80.6% reported
that they anticipated their future employer would stress the importance of English
proficiency of prospective employees while 19% claimed the very opposite. So what istheir level of proficiency in the four core areas of listening, writing, reading and speaking?

Electronic Journal of Central European Studies in Japan, No.3 (October 2017)

Almost one half (47%) of the participants report B1 or B2 level (following the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages26), one fifth (21%) self-evaluate theirlanguage skills to be at A1 or A2 level and one third (32%) report C1 or C2 level.
Examination of the individual skills shows that students feel most comfortable reading
and least proficient speaking. Indeed, these findings are confirmed indirectly by responses
to a subsequent question in which students evaluate their skills to be sufficient andsatisfactory to express their ideas and opinions, particularly in reading (63.3%) andwriting (61%). On the other hand, the participants were not satisfied with their speaking
abilities (24.8%). In general, students claim to be ambitious and intend to improve (orcarry on honing) individual skills, paying most attention to speaking (83%), while 17% do
not see any reason to improve reading skills as they feel that these are already at sufficientlevels. On average, only 3.1% say they do not intend to improve at all due to lack ofmotivation.

５．Conclusion
５．

I would like to approach the data considering what Taylor et al. (2013)27 mention
about identity display (although in their case it is in the classroom context, I believe it can beextended to our scenario as well), i.e. that it is strategic and it seems to me that the data canbe interpreted as showing such strategic identity display. The students are clearly aware of thenecessity to acquire a good command of English and do so expecting to have an advantage on
the job market and possibly elsewhere, too.
The currently collected data show that the majority of students participating in thesurvey are prepared to learn and use English as their L2 to comply with the requirements ofthe globalized job market in order to secure a promising future career. In relation to English
being present in the public space, they do show tolerance or even preference for the English
language but only in specific domains (cinema). In another article, Language and identity:
English as a part of students’ language identity construction (to be published), I observed thatthe same participants showed greater preference to use English in the world of online
26“Common European Framework of Reference for Languages,” Wikipedia, at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages, 26 April 2017.
27
F. Taylor, V. Busse, L. Gagova, E. Marsden & B. Roosken, “Identity in foreign language learning andteaching: why listening to our students’ and teachers’ voices really matters,” ELT Research Papers, vol. 13, no.
02 (2013), p. 4.
11

『中欧研究』第2号（2017年10月）

communication, in social media. I assumed that as the English language is associated with theglobalized world and global culture in general, preference for English or its actual use can beinterpreted as a marker of the changing linguistic identity – of who we are but also of who wewant to be.
This brings me to the last concept that I would like to mention – the notion ofimagined communities as introduced in the context of second language learning by Pavlenko& Norton (2007)28 in order to better describe the relationship between L2 learning andidentity. They argue that each language learner participates in actual as well as desired
imagined communities and the nature of their membership impacts their learning trajectories,
motivation and investment in (or resistance to) the process of L2 learning. Their concept ofimagined communities is rooted in Anderson’s (1991)29 interpretation of nation-states as an
accurate example of an imagined community. The community such as a nation-state isnecessarily imagined as, quite plainly, the members of even the smallest nation will neverknow most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet, in the minds of each
lives the image of their communion30. Is it not the same for the current generation ofuniversity students? Would one of their imagined and desired communities be the global
community? I believe such a suggestion can be inferred from the collected data. Using
English on social media and being willing to use it in the working environment can beinterpreted as a signal of their desire to acquire global citizenship. It can be argued, following
Lamb (2004), that English loses its association with particular Anglophone cultures andbecomes identified with the powerful forces of globalization31. In a self-conducted survey
among Indonesian school students learning English, it was likewise concluded that theirmotivation may be partly determined by the pursuit of bicultural identity, i.e. including the
global or world citizen identity.
Pavlenko & Norton (2007) observed that the relationship of many countries towards
English can be perceived as ambivalent as they often aim to promote English as a means of28

A. Pavlenko & B. Norton, “Imagined Communities, Identity, and English Language Learning,” in J. Cummins& Ch. Davison (eds.), International Handbook of English Language Teaching, New York 2007, p. 589.
29
B. Anderson, “Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism (Rev. ed.),”London 1991.
30

Ibid., p. 6.

31

M. Lamb, “Integrative motivation in a globalizing world,” System, vol. 32, p. 3.

Electronic Journal of Central European Studies in Japan, No.3 (October 2017)aligning with the Western powers and gaining an entry into the global market32 and theyspecifically mention the trends seen in Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Empire(although they do focus on Hungary, not the Czech Republic). The ambivalence is manifested
in that these countries need to promote learning English as the language of the globalized
world but yet they fear it may also result in contamination of their national languages byEnglish or worse, their complete displacement. Though I understand the root of theseconcerns and admit that further discussion is needed, I still think that it should be rememberedthat in both language and culture there have been dramatic changes in the past, too, and somemust of these changes have been difficult to accept. However, the only inevitable fact here isthat change is bound to take place; it is happening right now and it is unstoppable. All wemight be able to do is to strive to set the best direction possible bearing in mind the fact that
language, following Wardhaugh (2006), is a profound indicator of identity, more potent by far
than cultural artifacts such as dress, food choices, and table manners33.
The collected data can be possibly interpreted differently, but to me it seems that it can be
the demands of the globalized labor market or the desire to become consumers of global
culture that motivates students to invest in learning English. It is my hypothesis that students
try or feel the need to balance the requirements of the globalized labor market and at the sametime experience the necessity to express their cultural and national identities which are still
attached to their L1.
These are, however, only small pieces in the big puzzle of whether we should really fearlosing our national and cultural identity embodied in our Czech language. The analysis anddiscussion have to be taken with caution as further observation of the current trends will benecessary.

32
A. Pavlenko & B. Norton, “Imagined Communities, Identity, and English Language Learning,” in J. Cummins& Ch. Davison (eds.), International Handbook of English Language Teaching, New York 2007, p. 593.
33
R. Wardhaugh, “An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (5th ed.),” Oxford 2006, p. 6.

13

『中欧研究』第2号（2017年10月）

Bibliography
B. Anderson, “Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism(Rev. ed.),” London 1991.
P. Bourdieu, “The economics of linguistic exchanges,” Social Science Information, vol. 16,
no. 6 (1977), pp. 645-668
P. Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power, Cambridge 1991.
K. Browne, Sociology for AS AQA (3rd edition), Polity 2008, pp. 31-39.
“Common European Framework of Reference for Languages,” Wikipedia, at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages,
26 April 2017.
D. Crystal, English as a Global Language (2nd ed.), Cambridge 2003, pp. 21-22.
M. Foucault, “Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (C.
Gordon (ed.)),” New York 1980.
D. Graddol, “English in the future,” in A. Burns and C. Coffin (eds.), Analysing English in a
Global Context, London and New York 2001, pp. 26-37.
M. Heller, “Globalization, the new economy and the commodification of language andidentity,” Journal of Sociolinguistics, vol. 7, no. 4 (2003), pp. 473-492.
P. M. Lightbown & N. Spada, How languages are learned (3rd ed.), Oxford 2006.
M. Lamb, “Integrative motivation in a globalizing world,” System, vol. 32, pp. 3-19.
B. Norton, “Language and identity,” in N. Hornberger & S. Mckay (eds.), Sociolinguistics
and language education, New York 2010, pp. 349-369.
B. Norton, Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity and Educational Change,
Harlow 2000, pp. 4-10.
B. Norton & K. Toohey, “Identity and language learning,” in R. Kaplan (ed.), The Oxford
handbook of applied linguistics, New York 2002, pp. 115-123.

Electronic Journal of Central European Studies in Japan, No.3 (October 2017)

E. Ochs, “Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective,” in S. F.
Kiesling & C. B. Paulston (eds.), Intercultural Discourse and Communication, London 2008,
pp. 78-91.
A. Pavlenko & B. Norton, “Imagined Communities, Identity, and English Language
Learning,” in J. Cummins & Ch. Davison (eds.), International Handbook of English
Language Teaching, New York 2007, pp. 589-600.
A. Pavlenko & J. P. Lantolf, “Second language learning as participation and the(re)construction of selves,” in Sociocultural theory and second language learning, Oxford
2000, pp. 155-177.
A. Pavlenko, “Poststructuralist Approaches to the Study of Social Factors in Second
Language Learning and Use,” in V. Cook (ed.), Portraits of the L2 User, Dublin 2002, pp.
277-302.
F. Taylor, V. Busse, L. Gagova, E. Marsden & B. Roosken, “Identity in foreign language
learning and teaching: why listening to our students’ and teachers’ voices really matters,” ELT
Research Papers, vol. 13, no. 02 (2013), p. 4.
“The History of English. How English went from an obscure Germanic dialect to a global
language,” English today, L. Mastin, 2011, at
http://www.thehistoryofenglish.com/history_today.html, 20 September 2016.
E. Ushioda, “Language Motivation in a Reconfigured Europe: Access, Identity, Autonomy,”
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, vol. 27, no. 2 (2006), pp. 148-161.
E. Ushioda & Z. Dörnyei, “Motivation, Language Identities and the L2 Self: A Theoretical
Overview,” in Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self,
Bristol 2009, pp. 1-8.
R. Wardhaugh, “An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (5th ed.),” Oxford 2006.

15