Ryūgaku:
Explorations in Study AbroadVol. 8 No. 2

October 2015

Contents
Letter from the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Book Review: !Social and Cultural Aspects of Language Learning in Study Abroad
Edited by Celeste Kinginger (rev. by Tim Newfields). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Study Abroad Perspectives: An interview with Celeste Kinginger by Tim Newfields. . . . . . . 7
Book Review: !Second Language Identities by David Block (rev. by Karen Yabuno). . . . . . . 13
Book Review: !Multiple Perspectives on the Self in SLA
Edited by Sarah Mercer and Marion Williams (rev. by Erina Ogawa & Tim Newfields). . 16
Textbook Review: Study Abroad! by K. Tsuji, S. Tsuji, & M. Lieb. (rev. by Tim Newfields). 19
This journal is published two or three times a year by the Study Abroad SIG of theJapan Association for Language TeachingJALT

3

http://jalt-sa.org/
For information about contributing please refer to http://jalt-sa.org/guide.htm
URL 

JALT Study Abroad Special Interest Group: 2015 Officers
26
Acting Coordinator: Paul Horness
Membership: Russell Hubert

Treasurer: Mark Donnellan
Programs: Robert Dunn

Publications/Website: Tim Newfields

Ryūgaku Editorial Advisory Board	
 Kaya Taguchi (Toyo Univ.)

Elaine Gilmour (York St. Johns Univ.)

Andy Hockersmith (Toyo Univ.)

Russell Hubert (Kyoto Sangyo Univ.)

Erina Ogawa (Toyo Univ.)

Michael Schulman (Toyo Univ.)!

R y ū g a k u : Explorations in Study Abroad, 8 (2)(October 2015)

Letter from the Editor!
As the Study Abroad SIG approaches its ninth year, we face some new opportunities as well as
new challenges. Our membership stands at 87. However, since JALT SIG membership fees haveincreased, we need to commit ourselves to offering better services to continue to attract members.
Our founding chair, Andrew Atkins, has decided to step down to focus more on his Ph.D.
studies. Andy worked hard for many years to help this SIG get established and deserves our thanks.
Paul Horness has kindly agreed to step in as acting coordinator. Also our 2015 treasurer, Mark
Donnellan, has decided to step down in order to focus more on an upcoming conference for on Task
Based Learning, which will be held on June 25th and 26th, 2016 at Ryūkoku University in Kyoto.
Moreover, as I approach my sixth year in this office, I feel it would also be best for the SIG to havesome fresh blood. Our SIG's Annual Business Meeting will be held on Sunday, November 22 from
12:45 to 1:30 in Room 901. If you are interested in becoming a SIG officer or in understanding how
this SIG works, please do join that meeting.
This issue of Ryū gaku: Explorations in Study Abroad features three book reviews and one
interview and one classroom text review. Hopefully, one more issue of this journal will come out
before this year is over. I would like to invite all persons interested in study abroad to submit
articles, book or classroom text reviews, opinion pieces, interviews, or classroom activities to our
publication. Publication proposals can be send to studyabroadsig@gmail.com and our detailed
publication guidelines are online at http://jalt-sa.org/guide.htm
Respectfully,!
Tim!Newfields!

9
87 

	
 
JALT SIG
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
2016

6

2015
6
26

	
 
25

	
 
5
SIG

	
 
11

22

12:45

1:30

901

	
  SIG

	
 
	
 


1

	
 

1
	
 


	
 

	
 
!studyabroadsig@gmail.com 
http://jalt-sa.org/guide.htm   
!

!

!



2!

R y ū g a k u : Explorations in Study Abroad, 8 (2) 3 - 6.

(October 2015)

Book Review

Social and Cultural Aspects of Language Learningin Study Abroad
Edited by Celeste Kinginger[Language Learning & Language Teaching Series #37]
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins (2013)
ISBN: 9789027213150 (Hrdbk.), 9789027213167 (Pbk.), 9789027271839 (Ebook)As you might guess, this volume focuses on the social andcultural aspects of study abroad (SA). One of its goals is to explain
the wide variation in study abroad results from poststructuralist
perspectives; another is to showcase some of the ways SA outcomescan be studied. Hence this text is valuable to those seeking tounderstand how SA impacts identity construction, cross-cultural awareness, and linguistic skills. It
is also potentially useful to those undertaking SA research. This 344-page book consists of twelve
essays by a dozen authors covering four overlapping themes: identity issues, language learning,
culture, and SA program designs. Let us take a brief look at each.
Identity Issues
James Coleman's essay sets a tone for much of this volume. He cautions against stereotyping
SA and stresses that overseas sojourners need to be regarded as whole people rather than mere
linguistic processors or translation machines. Instead of attempting to develop taxonomicalclassifications for SA, Coleman favors an "environmental approach" (van Lier, 2003) similar toLarsen-Freeman and Cameron's (2008) notion of complex dynamic systems. The experience of 47
British university students learning French in Senegal is then briefly highlighted. Based on email
questionnaire responses and a small number of in-depth interviews, some ways that gender shapes
SA experiences are outlined. Also, the importance of intimate contact in identity shaping is hinted.
Timothy Wolcott also considers identity issues in depth while describing a young American
woman who spent a semester in Paris in an insulated "island" or "enclave" SA program (Goodwin& Nacht, 1988). Because this person's biological father was French, she had a powerful desire toreclaim an imagined "French" identity that became lost when her parents divorced soon after herbirth and she moved to the United States. Wolcott points out how subjective myth is often asignificant driving force in language learning, and myths are closely linked to imagined identities.
Janet Jackson also shares some insights into identity development. She describes theexperiences of a student from Hong Kong who spent a year in Canada, followed by a semesterlength post-return program. The student's narrative reveals how constructive engagement can foster
the development of more cosmopolitan,! global! identities.! The! changes! this! informant!
underwent! are! interpreted! in! the! light! of! Bennett's! (1993)! Developmental! Model! of!
Intercultural! Sensitivity! and! Mezirow's! (1994,! 2000)! transformational! learning! theory.! The!
challenges! of! dealing! with! culture! shock,! homesickness,! and! L2! interactions! are! clearly!
outlined,!and!Jackson!mentions!how!some!SA!students!retreat!into!insulated!communities!to!
shield! themselves! from! culture! shock.! Commenting! on! the! frequently! wide! gap! between!
students'! idealized! and! actual! selves,! the! need! for! guided,! critical! reflection! to! foster! crossO
cultural!awareness!is!underscored.!!
Language Learning!

3!

Four studies in this volume focus on pragmatic issues. Pragmatic humor is described by Maria
Shardakoova, who asserts that L2 humor is a means of identity construction. An interesting facet ofher study was how it highlighted the gap between L2 sojourners' "intended identities" (the ways
they wish to be perceived) and their "received identities" (the ways that L1 speakers positionedthem). Shardakoova echoes Culpeper (2005) in affirming the close connection between humor andidentity, suggesting that humor is actually a means of fostering both personal and group identity.
Based on the email responses by 184 American university students of Russian to a series ofdifferent pragmatic prompts, native and non-native Russian users "constructed imagined identitiesof the emails' authors" (p. 219) in quite different ways. Whereas Russian speakers tended to valueinterpersonal skills, Americans focused on personal attributes. Though interpreting identity in termsof simple binary criteria is problematic, this study posits SA may help sojourners acquire better
humor in a target language.
Pragmatic hedging by American JSL learners in Japan is then explored by Noriko Iwasaki,
whose study indicates SA might help JSL students hedge more naturally. One interesting insight is
how L2 learners create their own language systems based on their socio-cultural preconceptions of
how interactions should occur - not what they perceive as the norm. A similar finding was reported
by Lucien Brown, who explored the use of honorifics among four male English-speaking SA
participants learning Korean in Seoul. Using discourse completion tasks, extensive tape-recorded
conversations, and retrospective interviews, Brown observed a gap between the respondents'
knowledge of how honorifics should be used and how they actually used them. In some cases, users
consciously flaunted pragmatic norms since they felt the use of honorifics contravened their own L1
identity constructs and/or beliefs about egalitarianism.
CultureElizabeth Smolcic provides a fascinating case study of a U.S. public school teacher who
learned Spanish and Quechua in Ecuador for 3.5 weeks to better deal with her increasingly
multicultural, multilingual classrooms. Criticizing de Saussure's attempt to bifurcate language(lange) from culture (parole), Smolcic stresses the need to study "languaculture" (Agar, 1994;
Risager, 2006, 2007) - a notion that includes not only semantics and pragmatics, but also poetics
and facets pertaining to identity. Her experiences are framed in terms of Leont'ev's activity theory(1978, 1981) and Smolcic adds that "coursework and academic analysis alone are insufficient tobring about the affective and cognitive changes needed to develop intercultural competence" (p. 78).
By putting "teachers-learners in direct contact with others' different cultural, linguistic, and racial or
ethnic backgrounds" (p. 78), the hope is raised that learners "will move outside of the own culturing
frames" - a process that Bryram (1997, p. 70) refers to as decentering. As a result of this teacher's
experience, the informant came to better grasp "how vital language is" (p. 89) for learning andcommunication.
The politics of linguistic identification among students in Europe is explored in depth by Fred
Dervin. He describes the interactions among speakers with diverse linguistic heritages as an"identity game" (p. 102) in which complex code switching frequently occurs. Nearly all SA
informants Dervin surveyed reported acute feelings of deficiency regarding their L2 or L3 selves.
They were also frustrated at their inability to realize their ideal foreign language personas.
Pellegrino-Aveni's (2000, p. 55, cited on p. 119) statement, "Learner's sense of Self in social
interactions is inextricably linked with the language they use" is aptly illustrated in this chapter.
Dervin concludes by urging SA programs to teach participants about target language use before,
during, and after SA experiences to challenge their self-images and stereotypes of others as
language users.
Study Abroad Program Design!

4!

Gore's (2005, p. 32, cited on p. 129) caution that many college students study abroad, "not togain purposeful knowledge so much as to gain social standing and enjoy private pleasure" isillustrated in Wolcott's case study, which provides a cautionary tale of what can happen if amismatch between program goals and participant goals occurs. Wolcott encourages us to interpret
the SA experiences of undergraduates in terms of Levin's (2000) coming-of-age model, during
which some youthful certainties are destabilized. Wolcott adds that some SA programs can beconceptualized as a "conspicuously costly but practically superfluous" (p. 128) form of edu-tourism
or way of reinforcing one's status as a member of a "cosmopolitan elite" (Skeggs, 2004).
Mentioning how many students regard culture as a sort of commodity to be obtained by simply
going to a specific geographical point of origin without much language/cultural learning, Wolcott
nonetheless concedes that for the particular student described, the SA experience did help her
mature. His essay shows how many SA program participants may start out seeking a "hassle free"
touristic vacation and chance to earn graduation credits, but end up learning some valuable lessons.
In contrast to this, Tan and Kinginger describe the experiences of sixty American high school
students in China. Their study suggests that high school SA programs with homestay components
might have some advantages over university SA: high school students are often more flexible andwilling to accept parental guidance. Conversely, host families are also more willing to serve as inloco parentis. Two things that appear to have made this high school homestay SA program
successful were the degree of local engagement with the host communities, and the fact that it wasreciprocal: American and Chinese students stayed in each others' homes, fostering long-term
interactions.
Some Pros and ConsOne thing I particularly liked about this book was its solid grounding in theory. It introduces awide range of post-modern socio-cultural theories. As such, this text is useful for researchers
wishing to explore current social constructionist thought. Another nice feature was how it
introduces a broad variety of research frameworks and approaches. This enables readers to reflect
which framework(s) they wish to use for their own studies. Finally, I also appreciated the way thisbook pinpoints some under-researched areas in SA. Specifically, the influence of religion, sex, andsocial class on sojourns abroad need to be more documented, and there is also a need for more
corpus-based research.
This book has perhaps three weaknesses. First, for those wanting to conduct SA researchthemselves, some of the studies lacked sufficient details to make this possible. In particular, if
online appendices were added to Chapters 2, 4, 5, and 11, readers could take a better look "under
the hood" and consider how the results were generated. Second, some of the essays in this bookmight be described as "Ameri-centric." However, since three of the studies were within Asian
contexts, this criticism is not so serious. Finally, some readers might wish this book contained a
glossary. Although many of its specialized terms are not explained in detail, it is not too muchtrouble to look outside of the text to cover any obscure points. In short, the advantages of this text
far outweigh the limitations.
The Bottom Line
It is important to be clear about what this book is - and isn't. This is not an introductory bookabout study abroad or a practical guide for novice researchers seeking advice about how to do SA
research. Rather, it is smorgasbord of studies representing diverse methodological procedures andtheoretical orientations. For those with a basic grounding in social science research, at least some ofthe studies are likely to be appealing. If you enjoy comparing different ways that human behavior
can be examined and are curious about under-researched aspects of study abroad, this book will bea welcome addition to your library.
- Reviewed by Tim Newfields!

5!

Works Cited
Agar, M. (1994). Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation. New York, NY:
William Morrow.
Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity.
In R. M. Paige (Ed.) Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21-71). Yarmouth, ME:
Intercultural Press.
Bryram. M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainment in a television quiz show: 'The Weakest Link'.
Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 35-72. doi: 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35
de Saussure, F. (1983) Course in General Linguistics. [Trans. R. Harris]. La Salle, IL: Open Court.
Goodwin, C. & Nacht, M. (1988). Abroad and beyond: Patterns in American overseas expansion.
Cambridge University Press.
Gore, J. E. (2005). Dominant beliefs and alternative voices: Discourse, belief, and gender in
American study abroad. New York, NY: Routeledge.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford
University Press.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. [Trans. by M. J. Hall]. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. [Trans. by M.!Kopylova].
Moscow: Progress Press.
Levin, D. M. (2001). Language learners' social interaction in a study abroad context. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Mezirow, J. (1994). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Fransciso, CA: Jossey Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Pellegrino-Aveni, V. (2000). Study abroad and second language use. Cambridge University Press.
Risager, K. (2006). Language and culture: Global flows and local complexity. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Risager, K. (2007). Language & culture pedagogy: From national to a transnational paradigm.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Skeggs, W. (2004). Class, self, culture. London: Routeledge.
van Lier, L. (2003). A table of two computer classrooms: The ecology of project-based learning. In
J. Leather & J. van Dam (Eds.) Ecology of language acquisition (pp. 49 - 63). Dordrecht:
Kluwer.

!

6!

!

R y ū g a k u : Explorations in Study Abroad, 8 (2) 7 - 12.

(October 2015)

Study Abroad Perspectives: Celeste Kinginger
by Tim Newfields
Celeste Kinginger is a professor of applied linguistics and French at (The)
Pennsylvania State University. She obtained her Ph.D. from the University of
Illinois in 1990. In addition to writing many articles on applied linguistics,
research methodology, and cross-cultural identity, in 2009 she published
Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of research, and in
the following year Contemporary study abroad and foreign language
learning: An activist’s guidebook. In 2013 she edited Social and cultural
aspects of language learning in study abroad and since 2007 she has beenon the editorial board of The Language Learning Journal. She was a
featured plenary speaker at the 54th Annual JACET International Convention
at Kagoshima University on August 2015. This interview was conducted
electronically in May 2015.

Perhaps a good way to start off this interview would be to mention how your ideas
about study abroad have changed since first entering the field around the late 1980s.
Of course, my view of study abroad has become far more complex than it was at the beginningof my career, now that it is a focus of my research efforts. The phenomenon itself has changed aswell, with the development of social media, the relative ease of travel, and all of the consequencesof globalized economies, networking, and so forth. In the early days, when I thought about study
abroad at all, it was usually in terms of the advantages it was assumed to convey to language
learners. Like most of my colleagues, I imagined my students in life enhancing situations analogous
to my own.
My first experience of study abroad was in a summer program in Barcelona at age 15, near thevery end of the Franco era. The official program taught Spanish, but the hidden local language was
Catalan, a smattering of which I learned underground, literally, in a basement student café wheresecrets could be safely kept and Catalan secretly whispered. I also learned a great deal about what it
is like to live under totalitarian rule, and about why language is crucial to one’s sense of identity,
lessons never forgotten. Later, as a student at Antioch College, I spent an academic year and twosummers in France. During the first summer, in 1978, I worked on a family farm in the tinysouthern village of Prouilhe-par-Corniou, where I was truly immersed in the local language. There
were no Anglophones or English language materials anywhere in sight. Communications
technology consisted of one telephone located in the home of the mayor, and the older folk could beheard throughout the village yelling into its receiver because they didn’t quite believe it worked.
My French language ability grew dramatically in that setting as I learned new skills such as
harvesting vegetables, concocting a vinaigrette sauce, choosing the best market piglet, or mucking
out the goat stalls. At the end of the summer, saying goodbye, my host mother Madame Lunes
called me by the informal second person pronoun “tu” for the first and only time, then apologized!
(I am still working out what that meant, exactly.) I then went on to study at the university inMontpellier for the fall, and to Paris in the spring to join a seminar run by my advisor, Professor
Anna Otten. She was personally acquainted with many of the better-known writers and literary
critics of the time, such as Eugene Ionesco, Claude Simon, Michel Butor, Nathalie Sarraute, andRoland Barthes, and took us to visit them. The result of all of this was that by the time I returned to
the US, my repertoire in French was substantial and varied. I could talk and write about everythingfrom love and war to structuralist literary criticism to goat cheese manufacturing, and do so withconsiderable pleasure. That is what I thought study abroad would be like for my own students. We
do what we can in the classroom, and then send the students off to live with and in the language fora while, to prepare them for the study of advanced literature.
!

7!

!

R y ū g a k u : Explorations in Study Abroad, 8 (2) 7 - 12.

(October 2015)

I took up the systematic study of language education abroad well over a decade ago, under theaegis of Penn State University's Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education andResearch (CALPER). Since the center’s theme relates to advanced proficiency, I focused on thecontexts of its development. I cannot adequately convey just how surprising the extant researchturned out to be, and how few of my prior, relatively naive assumptions were confirmed. If weconsider the documented outcomes, yes, a search will yield evidence that study abroad can have abeneficial effect on every dimension of language development. Study abroad is indeed particularly
beneficial for those aspects of language use that have to do with social interaction in various
contexts with true, practical or emotional consequences. However, it is notoriously difficult to show
significant growth in grammatical competence, which is, after all, a key to communicativecompetence. Also, most researchers would agree that there is very remarkable individual variationin achievement; some students learn a great deal, others less, and it was even the case in my own
2008 empirical study that a participant returned from France ostensibly knowing less French thanshe did before leaving the US. How can a sojourn in France lead to forgetting one’s French?
Another mystery has to do with attempts to produce evidence that living arrangements make adifference. It has been quite difficult to show, for example, that homestays are superior to otherforms of housing for developing speaking proficiency. Since I can attribute my functional
proficiency in French in large part to a homestay, these findings are quite striking to me. A macrolevel view of the demographics, at least for American college students, helps explain the results:
most student sojourns are far shorter than they were in the days of the Junior Year Abroad, and the
proportion of language majors has decreased dramatically. A short-term sojourn of 3 to 6 weeks
usually does not allow enough time to develop local social ties. Even in “long-term” sojourns of afull semester, students return home just as they are beginning to overcome language-related
anxieties and understand their surroundings. Results will be further complicated by the various
motives that students bring to their study, and whether or not language learning figures prominently
among them.
The qualitative literature on language learning abroad sheds considerable light on the variationin the hopes, desires, and imagined identities of study abroad participants as well as on the range ofpossible ways in which they can be received by their host communities. The learning that can takeplace in these arrangements turns out to depend on how students position themselves and also on
whether or not they are welcomed as legitimate participants deserving of care and attention. As I
began to reflect on the design of my 2008 empirical study, I anticipated that the cohort I examined
would display variation in achievement. Moreover, surveying the research had reminded me that
there was in fact a cohort of Antioch students with me in Montpellier and Paris, and that this was acolorful group of individuals – a poet, a songwriter, a former professional clown, a future legal aid
attorney - for whom no monolithic identity category, including “language learner,” could ever apply.
My goal became to document changes in language ability using quantitative measures, and thenexplain these changes using qualitative data. It turned out that it is indeed possible to forget one’s
French, while in France, if one’s main goal is to visit the Hard Rock Café of every major European
city on regular long weekends. It is possible for a motivated, high achieving learner to show modest
gains if there is conflict and deep misunderstanding in the homestay. Fortunately, it is also possible
for a well-intentioned young person to be warmly welcomed into a host family attending carefully
to his language-related needs over elaborate ritual dinners, and for that student to enjoy bothenhanced proficiency and gains in intercultural understanding.
My concern now is with the erosion of study abroad as a language learning experience due tofactors beyond the demographics previously mentioned. I do not wish to discount demographics,
and strongly believe that more work should be done to provide equal access to study abroad for all
students, and not just the fortunate. However, other issues are also present. Global communications
networks have great potential for enhancing classroom learning, and anytime, anywhereconnectedness is now a simple fact of life for most university students. Travel is now far moreaccessible than it once was, which means that students abroad can and often do receive actual!

8!

R y ū g a k u : Explorations in Study Abroad, 8 (2) 7 - 12.
(October 2015)!
visitors – parents and friends, who see their loved one’s displacement as an opportunity for tourism,or worse, “helicopter parenting.” If there is no longer any real need to disconnect from one’s home,what is the point of changing places? I believe that the profession needs to find a way to harness thepotential of social media to enhance learning both at home and abroad.
As for parents and homestays, educators should also pay attention to the evolution of the family
as a form of social order. At Penn State, we recently heard a fascinating talk by Professor Elinor
Ochs on “How Post-Industrial Families Talk.” The findings of her research team, performing an
ethnographic study of 32 families in the Los Angeles area, show that the stress of geographicalmobility and full- or overtime work for many parents are changing family practices mainly for theworse. These families live in isolation from their local communities and extended relations.
Whereas Ochs once characterized similar families as “child-centered,” they now tend to be “childdominated,” with children receiving unlimited and unsupervised access to food, entertainment andthe services that parents can provide. The ritual of family dinner, once a pedagogical situation par
excellence, providing socialization into morality and politeness, among many other things, is now arare practice. During her talk, Ochs contrasted the case of an 8-year-old Californian boy demandingthat his father tie his shoes, because he had not yet learned to do that, with that of a 3-year-old
Samoan girl who could scramble up a tall tree and harvest papayas with a razor sharp machete. Are
these the practices that lead to deep insecurity and inappropriate “helicopter parenting?” And in thecase of homestays, what would be their value if there is no ritual family gathering, with children
eating snacks whenever they like in front of their video game consoles? A visitor to such a homewould find few opportunities to interact with local people, and children from such families will
surely have difficulty integrating into less child-dominated families.
In 2009 you criticized against the overuse of grounded theory in SA research. Could
you let us know the reasons for that?
In principle, I have no quarrel with grounded theory per se, nor with the ethnomethdologicaltradition in sociology from which it evolved. Rigorous empiricism can yield important andpotentially quite reliable results and, again in principle, there is something very appealing about thenotion that theory should emerge from the data rather than being imposed upon the data. There isalso something very democratic about the notion that the voices of research participants should beat the core of any attempt to understand their lives. It is, however, extremely difficult to approach
one’s data with no preconceived ideas in mind, or to read texts of any kind whilst ignoring one’s
own history, priorities, or understandings. This is why practitioners of grounded theory-based
analysis are expected to scrutinize and present themselves as instruments of research, and to explain
how their own identities might influence results. On the one hand, I find it difficult to set aside a
certain skepticism as to whether or not it is really possible to function as a researcher with completeor even nearly complete neutrality. On the other, accepting no responsibility toward any grander
theory than one’s own can lead to circular reasoning and to banal statements of the obvious. That iswhy, in debates about narrative or other qualitative research, I tend to favor the side that prefers to
see a broadly defined and interesting theory in place to guide the analysis and inform theinterpretation. My own work has relied heavily on Vygotskian sociocultural theory as a framework
for understanding development as an historical process at various scales, including moment-bymoment microgenesis, life histories of individuals, and the evolution of societies, all of which areboth dynamic and intimately related.
As for my critique, a particular issue has emerged from extensive reading of the qualitative
research about study abroad, and this has to do with the scope of many projects. In a nutshell, quite
a few researchers, including myself, have been committed to understanding the nature of the student
experience. They gather data from the students only, ignoring the perspectives of the hostcommunity. Study abroad participants are, by definition, newcomers to these communities who do
not understand what motivates the practices of their hosts and who tend to complain about these!

9!

R y ū g a k u : Explorations in Study Abroad, 8 (2) 7 - 12.
(October 2015)!
practices. Whether the study is framed as ethnographic, or informed by grounded theory or someother qualitative approach, this focus on students alone tends to yield uncritical listing of things thatare wrong with other cultures, as reported by novice interactants in those cultures, which is simply
ridiculous. It can be, and fortunately is sometimes the case that the researcher is well enoughinformed about the culture under attack to provide a counter-balancing explanation. But often
enough, I find that the qualitative research is marked by own its sociocultural history, to put it in
Vygotskian terms, and contributes to ethnocentric attitudes and recoil into a sense of national
superiority.
One of my favorite examples of this phenomenon is the observation by American women ofpractices labeled as “sexual harassment” throughout the world. If we read the research, we learn
that American women are harassed in France, Russia, Spain, Costa Rica, and Argentina… I do notwish to argue that sexual harassment does not exist and is not harmful, or even sometimes
devastating. But gallantry, flirtation and innocent compliments also exist, and many American
women are unprepared to recognize how these differ from “harassment” since all such behavior is
now officially banned from the public arena and the workplace in the United States. Ironically,
while women’s salaries remain on average significantly lower than those of men with comparable
jobs, many men have become afraid to hold open the door for us or to suggest in any way that weare attractive, lest they be accused of harassment. None of the researchers open the question of what
the practices we call “harassment” mean for Russian, French, or Argentine women. However, if welook at the experiences of these women when they study abroad in places where politicalcorrectness governs cross-gender relations, a very different picture emerges. In a 2007 book-length
ethnography, Marie-Claire Patron followed a group of French students in Australia, and found thatsome of them were shocked at the total absence of harassment, and felt just as threatened in theirgendered identities as American women in France, but for an entirely different reason. They
wondered if they were simply no longer attractive in this new setting. I believe this example showsthat we cannot understand cultural practices without including voices from host cultures, and this iswhy, in my current project on homestays in China, host families, teachers, and programadministrators are included as participants. It is hard to carry out multidimensional qualitative
research in study abroad settings, particularly since this research is not generously funded in mostcases. But at the very least, researchers should be mindful of discoveries that are possible when allparties are included, and wary of the risks involved in representing student perspectives only.
At the end of your 2013 book, you concur with Benson, Barkhuizen, Bodycott, andBrown's (2012) suggestion that pragmatic competence could be aptly described as"identity related proficiency." Could you tell us a little more about the reasons forthat assertion? Do you believe pragmatic skills are inseparable from L2 identity?
!
I certainly do believe that pragmatic ability is related to identity, because the pragmatic
dimensions of language ability are shaped by appropriateness, and appropriateness is, ultimately, amatter of personal interpretation. Becoming a proficient language user involves developing arepertoire of pragmalinguistic resources, that is, the actual forms that are used for specific purposesin particular contexts. At the same time, learners need sociopragmatic ability, including knowledgeof conventional uses and meanings of forms. Whether or not they decide to conform to establishedconventions is a matter of choice, to some extent, which makes teaching, testing, and researcharound pragmatic ability quite complicated. When researchers observe learners performing speechacts, let’s say, then compare this performance with a native speaker baseline, the research often
ends there with the pronouncement that the learners’ are unable to imitate the native speakers.
However, what if these learners do not want to perform like native speakers? What if they interpretthe speech act situation differently from native speakers? What if these are learners of English who
prefer to develop a repertoire in English as a lingua franca, and do not wish to be governed bynative speaking norms?
!

10!

!

R y ū g a k u : Explorations in Study Abroad, 8 (2) 7 - 12.

(October 2015)

To give a more concrete example, in my own research I have long been fascinated by thechallenges involved in learning to use formal and informal second-person singular terms of addressin European languages: the T/V (tu/ vous) system that was so perplexing when I took leave ofMadame Lunes at the end of my homestay summer. Why did Madame Lunes switch to “tu” at thatmoment, and why was this mildly embarrassing to her? I now understand that she probably meantthat I had become at least a little bit like a new member of the family, although it would still havebeen unthinkable for me to call her anything but vous. Meanwhile, it turns out that there is extensive
attention to this system both within and outside Francophone communities. Studies show thatgrowth in proficiency leads to a decrease in one’s confidence in using these forms. A well-known
French author, Raymond Jean (2000), devoted an entire volume of short stories to the problems
very expert speakers experience in choosing tu or vous. How should the faithful address God? Whatchaos would ensue if a teacher allowed his students to call him/her tu? In principle, and according
to the textbooks, tu is reserved for friends, children, and animals, and vous is used for authority
figures and persons one does not yet know. In reality, any use of the T/V system is inherently
ambiguous. Tu can point to intimacy or solidarity, but it can also point to a desired social identity –to be or wish to appear to be young, or to have liberal or progressive political leanings. Vous canpoint to hierarchical differences in status, or to deference, but can also be used to display relative
conservatism, elite class status, or respect for tradition. In brief, the T/V system is a prime exampleof the relationship between pragmatics and identity, and can only be fully understood if its identityrelated dimensions are explored. One of my former students, Rémi Adam van Compernolle (2014),
has taken up the challenge of teaching pragmatics through concepts, including identity andpresentation of self in interaction, showing that if students understand these concepts they can thensystematize their observations and make informed decisions about their own choices.
Concluding this interview, could you mention some of the projects that are on yourhorizon and things you hope to accomplish within the next five to ten years?
!
I have two main research projects in the works at the moment. One of these is a microethnographic study of mealtime interactions involving American high school students of Chinese
and their host families in Beijing. Perhaps, having read the previous comments, you can imagine
why this topic is dear to my heart and why I am eager to show the pedagogical benefits of family
dinner? For this project I am working with a team that includes two PhD students and the former
director of the Landon-in-China study abroad program. Our data show the significance of convivial
eating in the homestay for learning in a range of domains, including talking about food and manyother topics, exchanging and challenging folk beliefs about Chinese and American cultural practices,and understanding how the relationships between food and health are conceptualized. We have justpublished our first article, about the taste-related interactions in our data, in Applied Linguistics(Kinginger, Lee, Wu, and Tan, 2014). We are preparing several other publications, including apaper about authenticating practices, a paper about familial intimacy among temporary family
members, and a series of case studies contrasting the experiences of students with different initial
proficiency levels and dispositions toward language and culture learning. (In life I find that it isalways satisfying to come full circle; having attempted and very dramatically failed to become aprofessional chef before I took up graduate studies, it is delightful to be focusing once again on
food, mealtime talk, and culinary culture.)
I am pleased to say that both of the PhD students involved in this work are going on to write
dissertations about study abroad. Qian Wu will investigate the development of the ability to express
emotions in Chinese for American students during study abroad in Shanghai, and Sheng-Hsun Lee
will write longitudinal case studies of several individual American learners of Chinese acrosslearning contexts, from the classroom to study abroad, and on to professional life in China. Bothdissertations have the potential to make important contributions: Wu’s for her adaptation of theLanguage Awareness Interview to a collection of data on pragmatic ability related to emotion in!

11!

R y ū g a k u : Explorations in Study Abroad, 8 (2) 7 - 12.
(October 2015)!
Chinese, and Lee’s for the exceptional length of his data collection and true longitudinal nature ofhis study.
The other project, which is just starting this year in collaboration with Dr. Antonio Jiménez of
the University of California Channel Islands, will be the design and testing of a model study abroad
program in Spain for heritage learners of Spanish living in California. The heritage learners inquestion are typically quite proficient speakers of the language, having grown up in Spanishspeaking homes. They need assistance in developing advanced literacy skills, understanding thepragmatics of register, and conceptualizing the notion of geographical and generational language
variety. The needs of these learners are often neglected in typical study abroad programs for thegeneral population of American learners of Spanish. We are hoping to establish some guidelines forbest practices in the design of study abroad programs for heritage learners in general, based on our
attempt to create a truly useful program for this particular group.
Works Cited
Benson, P., Barkhuizen, G., Bodycott, P. & Brown, J. (2012). Study abroad and the development of
second language identities. Applied Linguistics Review, 3 (1), 173 - 193. doi: 10.1515/applirev2012-0008
Jean, R. (2000). Tutoiements. Paris: Arléa.
Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of research. New!!
York:!Palgrave!MacMillian.
Kinginger, C. (2010). Contemporary study abroad and foreign language learning: An activist’sguidebook. University!Park,!PA:!CALPER!Publications.
Kinginger, C. (Ed.) (2013). Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad.
Amsterdam:!John!Benjamins.!
!
Kinginger, C., Lee, S.-H., Wu, Q. & Tan, D. (2014). Contextualized language practices as sites forlearning: Mealtime talk in short-term Chinese homestays. Applied Linguistics.
doi:10.1093/applin/amu061
Patron, M. C. (2007). Culture and identity in study abroad contexts: After Australia, French
without France. In H. Chambers (Ed.) Culture identity studies (Vol. 4). Oxford, UK: Peter Lang.
Van Compernolle, R.A. (2014). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
!

!

12!

R y ū g a k u : Explorations in Study Abroad, 8 (2) 13 - 15. (October 2015)
Book Review

Second Language Identities
by David Block
London: Continuum (2007, 2009)
London: Bloomsbury (2014)
ISBN-13: 978-0826474063,
978-1847065711, 978-1472526045

Over the last decade an increasing amount of theresearch on study abroad has hinged upon the issue ofidentity. As people switch languages, to what extent do theyalso switch identity positions? What factors prompt bilingualand multilingual individuals to interface with their environments through different
languages and registers? In the process, how do their personal narratives change? This 230page book explores these and many other questions. Although this text is not exclusively
about study abroad, much of it is relevant to those hoping to understand the ways language
learning in overseas contexts shapes our notions of who were are, how we are perceived,
and how we interact with others.
This work is arranged in seven chapters. This review focuses on three aspects of thistext that are most relevant to readers of this journal.
(1) Post-Modern Notions of Identity
Although much of Block's writing is in a post-modern spirit, he is not adverse to
examining ways that identity tends to be categorized. Mentioning how identity is often
indexed along ethnic, racial, national, migratory, gender, social class, and linguistic lines,
Block points out that “[these] are about positioning by others and self-positioning,
ascriptions from without and affiliations from within” (p. 50). He further states that sinceidentity is co-constructed, it is “simultaneously individual and collective in nature” (p. 50).
Moreover, the author notes that while most researchers have studied one or perhaps two
identity categories, multiple identity issues generally come into play. Hence Block stresses
the need to expand our indices of identity, examining categories such as consumer identity,
religious identity, and multimodality, which includes identity with a physical location.
(2) Identity in Study Abroad Contexts
Chapter 6 of this text explores how study abroad sometimes impacts identity. The
first half focuses on sexual harassment and gender-related subject positions. Research on
sexual harassment experiences in Russia, Costa Rica, and Spain are introduced. Despite theharassment, the women in the first two countries were able to form positive relationships
with other women or their host families (p.190). The person in Spain had a generally
negative experience in large part due to racial prejudice. Commenting on the genderedsubject positions of American women in Russia, Pellegrino (2005) reports how some
informants felt that it was, “impossible to establish platonic relationships with Russian men[as] Russian men always had ‘unreasonable expectations’, wanting sex before all else” (p.
192). In their study of American students in France, Kinginger and Farrell Whitworth(2005) observe how French notions of femininity and masculinity impacted the students’!

13!

French language. One male informant was able to make far more progress than two female
informants. However, none of them achieved the communicative levels that they had
hoped for (p.198).
The second half of this chapter looks at teacher-student subject positions, enhanced
national identity, and a case study in France (all involving Americans studying overseas)
before considering the experiences of Europeans studying in other European countries andthose of Japanese women learning English abroad. Based on these studies, Block surmisesthat “the [study abroad] experience can mean an enhanced affiliation to one’s inherited
national identity as opposed to the development of greater intercultural sensitivity” (p.
207). However, Kinginger’s (2004) case study of an American woman in France showsthat the student was able to “develop deep and meaningful social contacts with [target
language] speakers” by enhancing her political awareness (p. 211). In contrast, a study by
Murphy-Lejeune (2002) on ERASMUS programme participants indicates that Europeans
seldom mention gender issues or come away with the sense of enhanced nationalism that
Americans tend to. While the ERASMUS participants in Murphy-Lejeune’s study did
appear to develop cross-cultural awareness and intercultural competence, it is unclear
whether these effects were lasting (p. 217). For Japanese women studying abroad, thestudies cited by Block indicate that the women “adopt liberated gender subject positions
linked to their sojourns away from Japan” (p. 221). The Japanese informants did notexhibit the enhanced nationalism that the American study abroad participants did, nor did
they return with the same sense of intercultural awareness as most European ERASMUS
participants.
(3) Future Research Directions
The book concludes with a final chapter suggesting five areas for future research.
These are a greater emphasis on social class, a need to move away from an L1-L2 focus toa language-additional language focus, the emergence of local lingua francas, the effect ofelectronic-mediated communication on identity, and a psychoanalytic perspective. Blocksays, “This current interest in identity [as a key construct in research] in the social sciencesin general, and applied linguistics in particular, looks likely to continue into the foreseeable
future” (p. 242). As such, there is a need for research that “problematizes contexts [by]documenting the constellations of sociohistorical and sociocultural elements that form anddefine them” and “draws on multiple sources of data: interviews, diaries, recordedinteractions and so on” (p. 243).
Some Pros and Cons
The main strength of this book is that it offers broad exposure to a variety of researchthat relates to the issues of identity in different contexts, and particularly for study abroad.
It also provides a rich background from which to view and understand student experiences.
I agree with Callahan (2009), who states, "Second Language Identities is to berecommended to graduate students and researchers who wish to acquaint themselves withseminal studies in the discipline of identity in SLL."Perhaps the main weakness of this text is that Chapter 2 and especially Chapter 3,
while interesting, cover so much material by so many researchers that it makes foroccasionally dense and difficult reading. As Adcharawan (n.d.) states, “some readers mightfind some chapters somewhat technical: Active L2 researchers will appreciate the depth of
this overview; yet other L2 professionals may not require such in-depth analysis.”
The Bottom Line!

14!

I concur with the assessments of Potowskia (2010), Broomhead (2013), and Estrada(2010) that this book is worth reading. Moreover, this book has had a significant impact on
many subsequent identity-related linguistic studies. It also portends many of the current
directions in the fields of socio-linguistics, second language learning, and psycholinguistics. Since much of this work was written nearly a decade ago, I hope some parts of
it will be updated to reflect recent research in the field of language identity, which isflourishing.
- Reviewed by Karen Yabuno

Works Cited
Adcharawan, B. (n.d.). Second Language Identities. Asian EFL Journal.
Retrieved from http://asian-efl-journal.com/second-language-identities/
Broomhead, A. (2013, April 5). Why do people learn - or not learn - languages? [A review
of Second Language Identities] Retrieved fromhttp://www.amazon.com/review/R3TI1WWQ97GRZDCallahan, L. (2009, August 3) Review: Sociolinguistics: Block (2009). Linguist List
20.26722. Retrieved from http://linguistlist.org/issues/20/20-2672.html
Estrada, R. G. (2010) Book Reviews: Second Language Identities. Journal of Language,
Identity, & Education, 9 (3) 225.228. Doi: 10.1080/15348458.2010.486279
Kinginger, C. (2004). Alice doesn’t live here anymore: Foreign language learning andidentity construction, in A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.) Negotiation of Identities
in Multilingual Contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 219-42.
Kinginger, C. & Farrell Whitworth, K. (2005). Gender and emotional investment inlanguage learning during study abroad. CALPER Working Papers, Series No. 2. The
Pennsylvania State University, Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education
and Research.
Pellegrino, V. (2005). Study Abroad and Second Language Use: Constructing the Self.
Cambridge University Press.
Potowskia, K. (2010). Book Reviews: Second Language Identities. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 32 (1) 151-153. Doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990350!

15!

R y ū g a k u : Explorations in Study Abroad, 8 (2) 16 - 18.

(October 2015)

Book Review

Multiple Perspectives on the Self in SLA
Edited by Sarah Mercer and Marion Williams (2014)
Bristol / Buffalo / Toronto: Multilingual Matters
ISBN-13: 978-1-78309-134-8 (pbk) / 978-1-78309-135-5 (hbk)This is a collection of twelve articles with contrasting perspectives on avariety of themes centering around identity and language use. Although thisbook on is not about study abroad per se, it sheds light on ways that study abroad might impact
identity. It also offers insights about social positioning, attribution theory, motivation, agency, goal
setting, and language learning. The editors make it clear that this book does not offer a single
ideological viewpoint. In fact, they encourage us to explore multiple viewpoints and avoid
bifurcated dichotomies such as “a wholly socially-structured self” vs. “completely individually
determined self” that have straight-jacketed much research for decades.
The essays in this volume can be conceptualized in terms of a spectrum. At one extreme,
Northoff examines what might be called a “microscopic self." Utilizing brain imagining technology,he (p. 143) provides evidence that a non-verbal “minimal self” based on our embodied
physiological state exists. He describes this as “pre-linguistic and pre-conceptual” (p. 148) and it is
tempting to liken this to a computer's “protected mode operating system” which is inure to verbal
manipulation. At the other end of the spectrum, Norton and Hemmi describe what might be called a“macroscopic self” that is deeply embedded in multiple social contexts. Norton regards this “self”
as “contingent, shifting, and context-dependent” (p. 66) and often prefers the term “subject-position”
to “self” since each individual can be positioned in quite different ways, and subjects themselves
can present themselves in a variety of contrasting — even conflicting — manners (1994, p. 3).
Hemmi likewise underscores the importance of social power structures is influencing how people
are positioned, mentioning ways that bilingual or multilingual people are often portrayed. Should
bilinguals be regarded as 'mercenary relativists' who “switch principles as they switch languages” as
Sander (1934, cited by Hemmi, p. 79) suggests? Or instead should we laud their ability to navigate
across diverse cultural maps and acknowledge the positive benefits of their achievement? Although
the macroscopic and microscopic perspectives presented within these pages might seem antithetical,
the editors suggest they are in fact complimentary. They emphasize how language teachers need torecognise language learners as uniquely embodied individuals with multiple wants and needs, and at
the same time engaging in a social process of identity negotiation.
The influence of NLP is evident in many essays in this volume. Mills, for example, reiterates
Bandura's 1997 concept of self-efficacy. Moreover, Dörnyei's motivational system and concept of
past and future selves (2009) draws upon some ideas from the time line therapy model of James andWoodsmall (1988). That model, in turn, borrows extensively from Bandler and Grinder (1982).
Midway through this volume, Ryan and Irie take up Grinder and Bandler's (1981) notion of16

reframing through creative narratives. Ryan and Irie suggest that stories we tell about ourselves toourselves are manipulated to enhance self-concept, self-confidence, and self-presentation. They
describe the self as an ongoing narrative of “who we think we have been, who we think we are, who
we would like to be, and the person(s) we are afraid of becoming” (p. 110) and suggest how
narrative stories can powerfully impact our thoughts and behaviours.
This volume covers many other themes, which is perhaps its main strength as well as its
weakness: it provides a brief exposure to many intriguing ideas about complex dynamic systems,
self-regulation, investment, and imagined identities, but relatively few are discussed in depth. Those
doing research on self-confidence, self-esteem, and motivation are likely to find some stimulatingideas. And although this work is primarily theoretical, it has many teaching implications. Norton
reminds us how language teaching/learning involves identity negotiation and that language learning
is more than simply accumulating new skills and knowledge. This text advises teachers to be carefulof how they position students and avoid disempowering them. Several authors underscore theimportance of allowing learners to make mistakes without being judged or ridiculed. As Ushioda
suggests, learners also need to 'speak as themselves' and have their voices recognized, respected,
and integrated into the language curriculum.
The Bottom LineThe main strength of this work is that it provides a good theoretical background of sometheoretical concepts in about language acquisition and identity. Another nice feature is that the
annotated bibliographies at the end of each chapter make it easy for readers to choose which works
to study further.
In addition to not offering many “nuts and bolts” details about research studies, the othermain weakness of this text is that it does not provide a comprehensive overview of SLA research.
However, since other texts such those as Mackey and Gass (2005), Kalaja and Barcelos (2006), or
Ellis and Shintani (2013) already do this, this drawback is not serious: the editors have chosen tofocus mainly on identity-related issues in SLA contexts rather than the issue of SLA itself. This
book fulfills its basic objective of providing “readers with a variety of perspectives from which toview the self in second language acquisition” (p. 177). Moreover, some of the theoreticalframeworks mentioned in this 188-page volume will be useful to SA researchers. For those wishingto gain a better theoretical grounding on how identity impacts foreign language learning, it iscertainly worth reading.
- Reviewed by Erina Ogawa & Tim Newfields

Works Cited
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
17Bandler, R. & Grinder, J., (1982). Reframing: Neuro-linguistic programming and thetransformation of meaning. Boulder, CO: Real People Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.),
Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9-42). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. & Shintani, N. (2013). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition
research (Routledge Introductions to Applied Linguistics). London: Routledge.
Grinder, J. & Bandler, R. (1981). Trance-formations: Neuro-linguistic programming and thestructure of hypnosis. Moab, UT: Real People Press.
James, T. & Woodsmall, W. (1988). Time line therapy and the basis of personality. Cupertino, CA:
Meta Publicaitons.
Kalaja, P. & Barcelos, A. M. F (2006). Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches. New York,
NY: Springer.
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design (Second
Language Acquisition Research). London & New York: Routledge.
Norton, B. (1994). Language learning, social identity, and immigrant women. Paper presented atthe 28th Annual TESOL Conference in Baltimore, MD. Retrieved fromhttp://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED373582.pdf

18

R y ū g a k u : Explorations in Study Abroad, 8 (2) 19 - 22. (October 2015)
Textbook Review

Study Abroad!
by Kazushige Tsuji, Setsu Tsuji, and Margaret M. Lieb
Tokyo: Sanshusha (2009)

One thing that is fascinating to observe is how English teachers maketextbook decisions. To some degree, textbook choices are statements of pedagogical allegiance. I
have often noticed that Japanese and non-Japanese university EFL teachers tend to choose different
EFL materials. Last year I decided to conduct an experiment by selecting a textbook designed forJapanese university level EFL students and instructors. After thirty years in Japan, I felt confident
enough to read the Japanese material smoothly. This brief review describes the reactions of 28 firstyear undergraduates to an EFL study abroad text, along with my impressions.
This text consists of twelve chapters, plus two review tests and short quizzes. A word-for-word
script of the dialogs from the accompanying teacher's CD also appears at the end of this 95-page
volume. Chapters are thematically grouped around a visit to the USA by a generic Japanese student(who is sometimes depicted as male and other times female). Most of the themes parallel what iscovered in many study abroad EFL texts. Flight procedures, host family interactions, shopping, andmedical problems are sample topics.
Each chapter begins by introducing 16 - 19 English words and their supposed Japanesecognates. The vocabulary level is quite mixed: it claims to be at a 300-word level (publisher's
website). However, comparing the vocabulary to the Corpus of Contemporary American English(COCA), I found some words such as "fit" (ranked as the 6,511th most widely used word) aretaught alongside more obscure lexical items such as "counterbalance" (ranked at 31,178). Whereas
many EFL textbooks are now aligned to specific CEFR levels, this text is more laissez-faire about
vocabulary. Moreover, since it is for Japanese readers, I was perplexed to find words such as"trend" – familiar to all Japanese as hi – on a vocabulary list.
After pre-teaching vocabulary, each chapter features a 70-80 word reading passage. Most of thepassages are relevant to study abroad, though the chapter on public phones is out of date. Following
this, four open-ended reading comprehension questions appear. Many of these questions pertain to
study abroad, but some are unmistakably clunky such as, "What is the role of a campus tour?" (p.
37) "What does performance consist of?" (p. 59).
Following a fill-in-the-blanks short English dialog, students are asked to translate five Japanese
sentences into English. This is followed by some multiple-choice dialog comprehension questions
and another translation exercise. Each chapter concludes with some "practical tips" – a reading
passage on a topic somewhat related to the chapter theme.
Pros and Cons
During the final lesson of the second semester when using this text, I distributed a textbook
questionnaire to students. This Japanese language questionnaire consisted of an informed consent
statement and fourteen Likert-like items. It was similar to an earlier survey I designed to evaluate a
different study abroad textbook (Newfields, 2014). The responses by this particular group of
students appears with the survey in Appendix A. A translated version of this survey is available
online at http://jalt-sa.org/PDF/8-2-Newfields-EngApp.pdf.
The students felt the best feature of this text was how it explicitly presented vocabulary withJapanese translations. This parallels the way many Japanese learn English words in high school!

19!

(Yamada and Hristoskova, 2011, p. 14). The recorded conversations got a lukewarm rating andmost other parts were not so highly rated.
Personally, I felt this text's forte was its attempt to teach all four language skills. It also
prompted some students to think about study abroad more. The chapter about academicpresentations seemed useful for students who will need to give overseas presentations in English.
This volume has been used at Doshisha University as a component of an Australian study abroad
preparation program (Doshisha University Office of International Affairs, 2015) and it might havesome value in helping students to prepare for academic study abroad programs. However, since its
pedagogical approach is not congruent with my personal beliefs, I was less than enthusiastic about
this text.
The Bottom LineIs this text worth using? That depends foremost on your teaching philosophy. If you believe inthe extensive use of grammar-translation and discrete vocabulary teaching, then this textbook may
appeal to you. If your allegiance leans towards more communicative or constructionist teachingapproaches, this is a text you will probably not be comfortable using. Still, I believe it is valuable toperiodically examine textbooks that challenge our teaching assumptions. Reflective teachers should
consider why some pedagogical practices are widely adopted by some members of our profession
and why other practices are either marginalized or discounted altogether. Though this book is not
explicitly about "culture", it did help me understand how cultural beliefs may impact ourpedagogical practices.
- Reviewed by Tim Newfields
Toyo University

Works Cited
Davies, M. (2015). Brigham Young University Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Retrieved fromhttp://www.wordandphrase.info/frequencyList.asp
Doshisha University Office of International Affairs. (2015). Supuringu puroguramu Eigo D-1 [Spring Program, English
D-1 (University of Auckland)]. Retrieved from http://international.doshisha.ac.jp/attach/page/INTERNATIONALPAGE-JA-27/58775/file/2015_sp_program_syllabus_EnglishD.pdf
Newfields, T. (2014). Textbook Review: Travel Abroad Project. Ryūgaku: Explorations in Study Abroad, 7 (1) 39 - 42.
Sanshusha. (n.d.) Study Abroad: Kaigai gogaku kenshū no tame no eigo to chishiki. Retrieved fromhttp://www.sanshusha.co.jp/text/isbn/9784384333923/
Yamada, H. & Hristoskova, G. (2011). Teaching and learning English in Japanese senior high schools: Teachers’ andstudents’ perceptions. Fukui Ken Eigo Kenkyuu-kai. [Journal of Fukui-ken Eigo Kenkyu-kai] Vol. 69. Retrieved
from http://crf.flib.u-fukui.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10461/6851/2/Teaching%20%26%20Learning%20English%
20in%20 English%20-Ts%20%26%20Ss%20perceptions.pdf

Appendix A. Student Textbook Evaluation Form for Study Abroad!
@

i j
t

2
2


   I.     -3=        

1.!

!



@
@ y





o6
@


7         -2=     -1=        0=       1=       ?!!

20!

@ y
i j


2=     @
94
2  
j ( 0 .0 )0. . , 	       	
 3=        

-3: ∅-2: 11%(n=3) -1: 18%(n=5)

2.!

CD
-3: 43%(n=12)-3: 32%(n=9)
4 Activity
-3: ∅

?

-2: 29%(n=8) -1: 11%(n=3)

3.!          

4.!

0: 39%(n=11) +1: 21%(n=6) +2: 11%(n=3) +3: ∅ NR: ∅







0: 39%(n=11) +1: 14%(n=4) +2: ∅









-2: 25%(n=7) -1: 14%(n=4)
0: 14%(n=4) +1: 7%(n=2)
?

+2: ∅-2: 4%(n=1) -1: 4%(n=1) 0: 32%(n=9) +1: 25%(n=7) +2: 21%(n=6)

!

+3: ∅

5.!!                 2

NR:4%(n=1)
?

+3: ∅

NR:7%(n=2)+3: 11%(n=3) NR:4%(n=1)@ ?

-3: 7%(n=2) -2: 25%(n=7) -1: 29%(n=8) 0: 29%(n=8) +1: 11%(n=3) +2: ∅

+3: ∅

NR: ∅

6.!!                           ?-3: 4%(n=1) -2: 4%(n=1) -1: 32%(n=9) 0: 32%(n=9) +1: 11%(n=3) +2: 7%(n=2)+3: ∅NR:11%(n=3)

   II.           	
 !

7         
-3=

1.!

p

-2=

-1=

0=

+1=

+2=


+3=

2                    -3: 7%(n=2) -2: 7%(n=2) -1: 18%(n=5) 0: 21%(n=6) +1: 14%(n=4) +2: 11%(n=3)
2.!

2



-3: 11%(n=3) -2: 46%(n=13) -1: 21%(n=6) 0: 14%(n=4) +1: 7%(n=2) +2: ∅
3.!

!

2

!

:







NR: ∅

+3: ∅

NR: ∅



-3: 7%(n=2) -2: 18%(n=5) -1: 21%(n=6) 0: 25%(n=7) +1: 11%(n=3) +2: 14%(n=4)

5.!

+3: ∅

2

-3: 25%(n=7) -2: 36%(n=10) -1: 29%(n=8) 0: 7%(n=2) +1: 4%(n=1) +2: ∅4.!

+3: 7%(n=2) NR: 4%(n=1)

2+3: 4%(n=1) NR: ∅!!

-3: 4%(n=1) -2: 18%(n=5) -1: 32%(n=9) 0: 43%(n=12) +1: 4%(n=1)

+2: ∅

+3: ∅

NR: ∅

   III.
1.                               ? (3   )   :"Ch."1:!(n=4) !!Ch."2:! (n=3) !Ch."3:!!(n=10) Ch."4:""(n=14) "Ch."5:"""(n=8) ""Ch."6:""(n=4) !"""Review"Test"1:" (n=4) !"""Quiz"1:"""(n=2) !"""   :""Ch."7:"!∅!

Ch."8:" (n=1) Ch."9:" (n=4)

Ch."10:" (n=18) Ch."11:"" (n=3) Ch."12:" (n=2)"""""Review"Test"2:""(n=1) """""Quiz"2:"""""∅

21!

"

2.                                  ? (3   )   :"Ch."1:!(n=3) !!Ch."2:! (n=7) !Ch."3:!!(n=2) Ch."4:""(n=1) "Ch."5:"""(n=2) ""Ch."6:""(n=3) !"""Review"Test"1:" (n=8) !"""Quiz"1:"""(n=12) !"""   :""Ch."7:"!(n=11) !Ch."8:" (n=1) Ch."9:"∅Ch."10:"∅Ch."11:"" (n=4) Ch."12:" (n=4)"""""Review"Test"2:""(n=7) """""Quiz"2:""(n=16)

3.                                  ? (2   )!

:!!∅!!!!1"Expand"Your"Vocabulary!":" (n=24) 2"Elevate"Your"Knowledge!":!!!!(n=5) """"!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!3"Enhance"Your"Communication"Skills"I:!!!!(n=16) """"4"Enhance"Your"Communication"Skills"II:!!(n=7) """"!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5"Enrich"Your"Expressions!":!!!(n=10) """""""""""""""""""""""""""""6"Explore"Practical"Tips!":!!!!(n=3) """"!
9

2
:

6@
: (n=3)(n=15)



@: (n=3)




4
01!

07!

!

22!

4


4!(2014!

!

m):" (n=2) ""NR: (n=5)
2"