“Your mind says one thing but your emotions do another”: Language, Emotion, and

Developing Transculturality in Study Abroad

Author(s): Janice McGregor
Source: Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Fall 2014), pp. 109-120
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Association of Teachers of German
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/unteteacgerm.47.2.109
Accessed: 29-03-2018 17:16 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/unteteacgerm.47.2.109?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

American Association of Teachers of German, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German

This content downloaded from 112.134.159.237 on Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:16:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
“Your mind says one thing
but your emotions do another”:
Language, Emotion, and Developing
Transculturality in Study Abroad

Janice McGregor
Kansas State University

Tales of individual study abroad experiences are frequently brimming with positive memo-
ries as well as emotionally destabilizing encounters. This broad range of sentiments can lead so-
journing students to question who they are and how they must act in order to gain access to and
legitimately participate with peers in local host communities. It has been shown that how adult
second language (L2) learners conceptualize emotion may cause tension, internal struggle, and
emotional insecurity (Pavlenko, 2005). This has become an area of interest to scholars investi-
gating language learning in study abroad contexts, since emotion narratives appear promi-
nently in students’ decisions regarding how to act. Scholars have therefore argued for an under-
standing of emotion as discursively constructed in interaction, and research has considered
“not only languages and emotions, but also languages of emotions” (Pavlenko, 2002, p.46).
However, few studies have directly investigated emotion and language learning in study
abroad, though many scholars have investigated quantitatively L2 development in study
abroad (e.g., Brecht, Davidson & Ginsburg, 1995; Carroll, 1967; Coleman, 1996; Freed,
1990; Magnan, 1986) and qualitatively (e.g., Jackson, 2008; Kinginger, 2004, 2008;
Murphy-Lejeune, 2002; Pellegrino-Aveni, 2005; Polanyi, 1995; Siegal, 1996). Research has
shown that linguistic gains in study abroad can be quite varied, even among those who identify
primarily as language learners and intend to become more proficient in the L2 while abroad
(Kinginger, 2008). Qualitative research inquiries support the investigation of participants’ ex-
periences, including how participants interact with certain phenomena in multiple contexts and
construct multiple meanings, (Croker, 2009, p. 7). By focusing on the social world and its partic-
ipants, qualitative research has shown that the study abroad participants who desire advanced
linguistic development may not yet have an understanding of how complex and emotionally
challenging L2 use in study abroad can be (Kinginger, 2004, 2008). Sojourning students who
identify primarily as language learners often focus on linguistic shortcomings instead of suc-
cesses and are often unable to see themselves as anything but deficient communicators
(Kinginger, 2008). Fears of being unable to produce native-like language can therefore keep
them from using the L2 and becoming relevant local participants. On the other hand, partici-
pants who navigate destabilizing encounters via meaningful reflection may come to know that
there are many valid ways of viewing the world (Kinginger, 2004, 2008), a central tenet of
translingual and transcultural competence.
The current study contributes to a call made by Kinginger (2010) for more studies that con-
nect language learning and the negotiation of difference to “the development of global aware-
ness, intercultural competence, and civic responsibility” (p. 226) by investigating the tensions

109

This content downloaded from 112.134.159.237 on Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:16:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
110 UP 47.2 (Fall 2014)

brought about by study abroad participants’ need to navigate emotion and emotional experi-
ence. How do those studying abroad in Germany talk about emotion and emotional experi-
ence based on their own lived histories and active participation in local communities? How do
participants’ constructions of emotion, emotional experience, and local participation inform
their developmental trajectories? I argue that the ways in which participants navigate emotion
and emotional experience may inform translingual and transcultural development, that is, how
students learn to operate between and through languages and cultures.

Learner Perspectives, Emotional Disruption, and L2 Development

A number of studies have begun to investigate learners’ perspectives and subjective experi-
ences abroad and have helped lay the groundwork for exploring sites of struggle in study
abroad as a crucial component of intercultural development. These studies emphasize how
learners’ perspectives and narratives can help us to shed light on their developmental trajecto-
ries by understanding the more complex qualities of the sojourn and the complex feelings and
emotions of those who study abroad (e.g., Jackson, 2008; Kinginger, 2004). Kinginger (2004)
noted that Alice, a study abroad student in France, developed the ability to reflect upon her own
position within that particular context after many challenging and destabilizing experiences.
Her shifting abilities afforded her many new subject positions or ways of viewing herself, ulti-
mately leading to her development as an intercultural speaker. Kinginger suggests that if partici-
pants are supported in navigating destabilizing, emotional experiences in study abroad set-
tings, they may be more likely to be able to successfully negotiate differences.
The notion of “re-constructing the self” in study abroad is expanded upon by Pellegrino-
Aveni (2005). She argues that much research has dealt with how emotions affect L2 acquisition
in study abroad, but not L2 use, adding that it is time to begin looking past categorizations of
‘good’ and ‘bad’ learners (p. 145, emphasis in original). According to Pellegrino-Aveni, study
abroad participants in new and linguistic and cultural contexts are “social actors” who find it
challenging to construct a “real self” that approaches what they are currently endorsing (p.
148). She defines the self as a mental representation of the personal qualities and characteristics
of an individual (p. 11). Kramsch (2009a) supports the claim that sojourning students find it
challenging to construct a ‘real’ self, noting that L2 learners lack a sense of continuity and stabil-
ity of the unified self “that comes from being firmly grounded in the body and its neurological
processes” (p. 76). Kramsch also introduces the concept of “synchronicity” rather than stability,
arguing that synchronicity may be more adept at explaining how an organism feels when it is in
sync with itself, its language, its environment, and others (p. 76). In analyzing her participants’
narratives, Pellegrino-Aveni (2005) demonstrates that the participants who orient toward
learner-internal cues (e.g., attitudes toward the self, self-comparison, the predictability of con-
sequences of previous interactions) in order to establish feelings of security present a better
‘sense’ of the self in public domains as compared to those who rely only on cues from the sur-
rounding social environment (e.g., caretaker and peer behaviors and attitudes, persona of oth-
ers). The study abroad participants who orient towards learner-internal cues are also more able
to protect their ‘endorsed’ self. Upon perceiving threats to this ‘endorsed’ self, participants fre-
quently exhibit ‘flight’ behaviors (i.e., avoidance of L2 use) due to apparent threats to their se-
curity. Others exhibit ‘fight’ behaviors (i.e., aggressive L2 use) under threatening conditions.
Pellegrino-Aveni notes that study abroad participants frequently rely on learner-internal cues in
order to maintain security. Such security maintenance is apparent in the current study, as the
participants’ experiences with emotional disruption play a role in the ongoing ‘endorsement’ of
selves.

This content downloaded from 112.134.159.237 on Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:16:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
McGREGOR: TRANSCULTURALITY IN STUDY ABROAD 111

Developing Transculturality

Many scholars have noted that promoting native-speaker proficiency as the goal of lan-
guage teaching corresponds to a demand that the learner strive to emulate an idealized mono-
lingual other (e.g., a monolingual German native-speaker). In other words, L2 learners have
not traditionally been viewed as participants in L2 use (see Firth & Wagner, 1997; Kramsch,
1993, 1996; Rampton, 1990). Additionally, in idealizing the native-speaker, learners are ex-
pected to diminish the effect of her or his own background and sociocultural identity when as-
suming the role of ‘almost native-speaker’ of German. Such a requirement is viewed by many
as unrealistic and constitutes an alarming shift in the balance of power of communication, one
that is always in favor of the native-speaker (Rampton, 1990). Instead, the learner ought to be
considered as a language user and mediator, or someone who mediates between different
cultures and histories not just through L2 competence but through knowledge about, and an
understanding of, another person’s cultural, social, and societal surroundings. This view reflects
the fact that language users participate in many different kinds of groups with divergent hierar-
chical structures (e.g., family, peer groups, groups defined by socio-economic status, age, re-
gion, ethnicity, gender, etc.) and that being born into a particular language group does not guar-
antee proficiency in all areas (Rampton, 1990, p. 98). In my view, it is appropriate to conceive of
L2 learners as emerging bilinguals since it has been ascertained that bi/multilingualism does not
correspond to an end state, but rather constitutes an emergent phenomenon (Ortega, 2013).
Byram (1997) proposed a way of conceptualizing, describing, and assessing emerging bilin-
gual speakers as they develop “intercultural communicative competence” or the ability to com-
municate between different languages and cultural contexts (Byram, 1997, emphasis mine).
Proponents for the development of translingual and transcultural competence have noted that
‘intercultural communicative competence’ is not enough to describe the kinds of critical dis-
tancing abilities and linguistic eloquence that we hope our L2 speakers will develop (Plews,
2012, personal communication). The MLA Ad Hoc Committee report (2007) also indicated
that a more complex, transformational understanding of development is crucial for navigating
what they call “a changed world” (p. 1). The authors cited a dynamic, rapidly changing envi-
ronment in which the United States’ inability to communicate with or comprehend other parts
of the world has plagued various international interventions. They therefore called for more
nuanced understandings of language and culture, naming translingual and transcultural com-
petence as necessary goals of foreign language education in the age of globalization and
multilingualism. Transculturality, according to the authors, involves the ability to operate be-
tween and through both languages; though we are always using language to make our own
needs and desires known to others, language also “simultaneously reveals us to others and to
ourselves” (p. 2). It has been argued that using language is at all times a multilayered phenome-
non, replete with blurred boundaries, concepts, and goals that are tightly interwoven with per-
sonal beliefs, histories, and memories (Atkinson, 2011). While intercultural communicative
competence also involves the ability to mediate between two languages and cultures, it is not
able to address the critical distance from which multilingual speakers reflect on the blurred
boundaries of (and between) their first language (L1) and L2.
The notion of transculturality is advantageous for the current study because it helps explain
how L2 users create a “third place” (Kramsch, 2009b) from which to critically reflect on supposi-
tions and ways of being. Kramsch (2009b) has discussed a third culture pedagogy metaphor
that escapes the acquisition and socialization dichotomy prevalent in the field. A “third place”
allows for “mischievous language play, carnivalesque parody, simulation and role-play and the
invention of fictitious, hybrid identities that put into question native-speaker claims on authen-
ticity” (p. 238). The development of transculturality is said to be occurring while one is creating

This content downloaded from 112.134.159.237 on Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:16:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
112 UP 47.2 (Fall 2014)

and “playing” with beliefs, lived history, and subjectivities through language in the third place
described above.
Issues related to emotional disruption are closely connected to how participants view them-
selves and the world they live in, as well as how their own sociohistoric contexts have shaped
and continue to shape those views. These issues inform the kinds of identity “play” and critical
distancing seen as central to a third pedagogy metaphor. The current study takes up this view of
development and aims to elucidate how participants view, participate in, and narrate the world
around them. How emerging bilingual adult speakers in study abroad contexts narrate emotion
and emotional experiences can not only inform us about how they orient to themselves, others,
the German language, study abroad, and Germany, but also whether or not their narratives
and actions inform translingual and transcultural development.

Study Participants and Methods

Table 1. Study Participants

Name Katie David
Type of Institution Mid-sized State 1 Mid-sized State 2
Age, Oct 2009 20 20
Sex F M
Major German German
Year Junior Junior
GPA 3.75 3.89
Primary Residence Northeastern US Northeastern US
L1 English English
Age at Start of Learning German 14, school 14, school
Additional FL Spanish, beginner Latin, intermediate

In this study, I investigated two American undergraduate students during their year abroad
in Marburg, Germany. The participants were both German majors in their junior year at
mid-sized state universities. Both had been taking German since they were 14 years old (see Ta-
ble 1).
I collected language history questionnaires and language proficiency evaluations from
Katie and David three times throughout the year. The language proficiency evaluation con-
sisted of five cloze tests. Each test increased in difficulty (i.e., level one was the easiest; level five
the most difficult). The cloze tests were very similar to those used in diagnostics for language
placement examinations. I also collected weekly oral recordings in which the participants re-
corded reflections on moments where they negotiated linguistic and cultural differences. I was
especially interested in critical encounters or “rich points” (Agar, 1994), or potential moments of
conflict where one faces emotional insecurity through the need to negotiate linguistic and cul-
tural differences. I investigated how participants felt, reflected, negotiated, and, ultimately,
acted through such points of tension. These tensions often lead to the taking up of new subject
positions, but they may lead to the rejection of certain ways of being. The participants were told
that they could record these reflections in German or English; most of the time they chose Eng-
lish. It is often assumed that language choice is based solely on proficiency level. However, the
articulation of emotional and even embarrassing experiences is at all times linked to a person’s

This content downloaded from 112.134.159.237 on Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:16:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
McGREGOR: TRANSCULTURALITY IN STUDY ABROAD 113

internal “synchronicity” and of the body’s state of “being in harmony or disharmony with its en-
vironment” (Kramsch, 2009a, p. 68; therefore, proficiency level cannot be the only factor in this
decision. The participants may have felt that using German to narrate emotional experiences
would have inadequately expressed their ‘endorsed’ selves. Similarly, participants narrating
embarrassing or emotional moments may use the L2 in an attempt to distance themselves from
the destabilizing event. Lastly, I also conducted four individual semistructured interviews with
each participant.
In analyzing the data, I read and coded the transcripts for emotion words and emotion con-
tent. In narratives where emotion content was particularly salient, I attended to the entire re-
cording or narrative. I was not only interested in discovering how the use of emotion words and
content informed the participants’ views of themselves, others, study abroad, and language
learning, but also how these informed their development as translingual and transcultural
speakers. The findings ultimately show the significance of sites of struggle as opportunities for
reflection, relationality, compassion, and the potential for transcultural development.

Katie: “[In English] you can actually portray what you’re feeling”

Katie, a twenty-year-old German major from the Northeast United States, scored at the ele-
mentary I level in her first language proficiency evaluation and improved to an elementary III
level after one year in Germany (see Tables 2–3).

Table 2. Language Proficiency Evaluation: Grading Rubric

Cloze test levels (German) Cloze test levels (English) Score
Grundstufe 1–2 Elementary 1–2 #50
Grundstufe 2–3 Elementary 2–3 #70
Grundstufe 3–Mittelstufe 1 Elementary 3 – Intermediate 1 #90
Mittelstufe 2–3 Intermediate 2–3 #110
Oberstufe Advanced #120
muttersprachliches Niveau Native-speaker level 120+

Table 3. Language Proficiency Evaluation: Individual Scores

Katie David
1 (Oct. 2009) 45 84.5
2 (April 2010) 69 115
3 (July 2010) 72 114

In her first language history questionnaire, Katie wrote that she came to Germany to invest
in learning and using German for her future career as a German high school teacher. Only
weeks later, Katie noted that speaking German with others made her feel awkward and uncom-
fortable. Katie regularly discussed her frustrations with not being able to properly express herself
in German, especially with emotional topics. These frustrations clearly informed her views of
language learning and use, as she noted in an early oral reflection:

This content downloaded from 112.134.159.237 on Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:16:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
114 UP 47.2 (Fall 2014)

I’m not prepared (…) because (…) there have been certain situations where I’ve been with someone and
they’ve been sad (…) I don’t know what to say to them because I’m not familiar with the language enough to
be able to say, “oh it’s okay,” like, “don’t worry about it,” or offer advice because I don’t know what to say, so
sometimes I feel like I come across as cold or maybe like a little bit insensitive because I don’t respond, or I
don’t add any advice, or I don’t console them (Oral reflection 6, winter semester)

In this particular reflection, Katie experienced frustration with her inability to use appropri-
ate language in German to show that she relates to her interlocutor. Certainly, her proficiency
level was of significance here. However, she was also concerned about being unable to interact
appropriately with a friend who needed support and advice. Katie felt that she lacked ‘familiar-
ity’ with the language, which points not only to her proficiency level but also to a perceived in-
ability to be a ‘good’ conversation partner and provide interactional support. Furthermore, she
felt that how she was perceived in emotional interactions (e.g. insensitive) did not correspond to
the self that she was currently endorsing. This ultimately played a role in her decision to take
‘flight’ in this particular interaction (Pellegrino-Aveni, 2005), and she remained silent instead of
interpreting emotional issues and communicating advice as she would normally have done in
her L1. It is not unreasonable to expect that, considering her early language goals, she would
have eventually ‘fought’ (Pellegrino-Aveni, 2005) in order to find a way to navigate her frustra-
tions with emotional expression so that she would become more comfortable with L2 use. A few
months later, however, she noted the following in an oral reflection:

I feel like the people that I’ve become more close with are the people I can speak English with because you can
actually portray what you’re feeling and you don’t have to tippy toe around everything and find a different way
to say stuff because you don’t know the way to say it in German (Oral reflection 11, winter semester)

Katie navigated her frustrations with emotion and emotional expression by retreating from
L2 communities, spending a lot of time with her L1 communities, and relying on familiar frames
of reference as a way to further support her ‘endorsed’ self. Katie might have benefited from
support in navigating L2 emotional experiences (e.g., Kinginger, 2004, 2008). Instead of
searching out support for L2 use, Katie found support in L1 communities. Developing the abil-
ity to discuss emotional content in the L2 appeared to be so destabilizing that it informed whom
she became closer with (Oral reflection 11, winter semester). She frequently noted in interviews
that this discomfort led her to avoid seeking out the L2 use-in-interaction, even though she orig-
inally claimed that advanced linguistic development was the number one objective of her study
abroad year. By avoiding the need to use German, Katie acted to preserve and protect her emo-
tional security, and thus did not see any change in her ability to express emotion or use the L2 in
a more nuanced way.
Katie’s desire to avoid conflict and emotionally charged topics was not just a product of her
L2 proficiency, but a more complex function of her personality, socialization, and surrounding
context. In many circumstances, she dealt with challenging events by avoiding the need to di-
rectly address them. Jackson (2008) notes that study abroad research cannot ignore either the
surrounding sociocultural and sociopolitical contexts or the individual, social psychological fac-
tors that influence the choices study abroad participants make and how they react to chal-
lenges, as both of these inform the ways in which their experiences unfold (p. 198). It is this point
that leads me to discuss Katie’s relationship with her close German friend, Stefan. Stefan was an
international tutor, one of the first people Katie met upon arriving in Marburg, and someone for
whom she harbored romantic feelings over the first few months. They spoke German early in
the year, but later spoke primarily in English as she became frustrated at her inability to interact
in ways she was accustomed. For most of the year, she did not address her feelings for Stefan,
not only because she was already concerned about how to interact in the L2, but also in favor of

This content downloaded from 112.134.159.237 on Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:16:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
McGREGOR: TRANSCULTURALITY IN STUDY ABROAD 115

avoiding rejection, awkward discussions, and perhaps an altered friendship. Eventually, she
decided to tell Stefan about her feelings, though directly addressing emotionally charged topics
was atypical for Katie. Stefan gently turned her down. A month later, Stefan confided in Katie
that he was gay. Katie, though initially very sad, felt that he needed her support. In personal
communication, Katie told me that her own father was gay, and that she understood what
Stefan might be going through. She indicated that she had always felt uncomfortable address-
ing her father’s homosexuality, as she felt it made people look at her differently. Katie told Stefan
about her father, and their close friendship was strengthened by these shared understandings of
a difficult personal issue.
When Katie’s father and his husband came to visit, she worried about addressing her fa-
ther’s sexual orientation and relationship with her close friends. She found discussing her fa-
ther’s relationship difficult, as she had always avoided discussing it with anyone in order to pre-
serve her own emotional security. Katie noted in her final interview that she preferred to avoid
being the subject of conversation and hoped to continue to avoid addressing this emotional is-
sue. This is quite similar to her avoidance of L2 use in hopes of maintaining her ‘endorsed’ self.
In this particular situation, however, interactions with Stefan (in both the L1 and L2) led her to
consider different ways to approach this deeply personal topic. Katie eventually decided to tell
her friends directly so as to bring about fewer questions in the long-term. When a friend asked if
her father was coming to Germany alone, Katie told her that her father was traveling with his
husband. When the friend indicated that she had no issue with Katie’s father’s sexual orienta-
tion, Katie was relieved and encouraged. The next day, she told another friend about her father
and this time was immediately annoyed by the response, saying in her final interview, “she was
like, oh is [your dad being gay] weird for you?” (Interview 4, Summer semester). After this,
Katie, though still irritated, continued reflecting on how these interactions informed her framing
of the issue:

[She] kind of pissed me off (…) no one said anything. I didn’t know who got the memo. I should have told peo-
ple before but I just avoided it and made a huge deal out of nothing, when I should have said something 7
months ago (Interview 4, summer semester)

It became clear that directly addressing emotionally charged topics that had the potential to
destabilize her ‘endorsed’ self remained a challenge for Katie, though her decision to address
her father’s homosexuality with a few friends showed that she was re-considering how best to
address and navigate challenging, emotional issues. Through these experiences Katie saw
growth through limited intercultural interaction that brought about meaningful reflection re-
garding how to deal with emotionally laden topics. Still, her limited L2 use in study abroad and
their related reflections were fairly limited, and as such, she did not demonstrate a shift towards
translingual and transcultural development.

David: “Your mind says one thing but your emotions do another”

A self-described German language and culture fanatic, David, also a German major from
the Northeast United States, first scored at the intermediate I level on the language proficiency
evaluation. By the end of the year, he scored at the intermediate III/advanced level (see Tables
2–3). David began his year in Germany by enthusiastically reflecting on his desire “richtig
eingelebt zu wirken” or ‘to appear really settled in’ (Oral reflection 2, Winter semester, my trans-
lation). Much to his surprise, however, David was crippled with depression and homesickness
for the first few months, though he eventually created a meaningful life in Marburg. David’s

This content downloaded from 112.134.159.237 on Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:16:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
116 UP 47.2 (Fall 2014)

bouts of homesickness were difficult for him, and he narrated his thoughts and negative emo-
tions during this time in a very detailed manner. According to Pavlenko (2005), language learn-
ing trajectories can be accompanied by feelings of contradiction, positive and negative (p. 215).
For most students, studying abroad offers a chance to create more mature and sophisticated
versions of themselves, as well as the opportunity to construct new identities in a second lan-
guage. In coming to Germany, however, David had envisioned his life continuing as it would
back home. He was thus not prepared to deal with challenges associated with living in a foreign
place. Like Katie, David would have benefited from support in navigating these destabilizing
experiences (Kinginger, 2004). David’s original goals were not related to creating and exploring
new ways of being—he did not want to create new versions of himself. At the same time, he was
aware that he could not stay the same and appear ‘settled.’ David talked about how over-
whelmed he was by the fact that who he imagined himself to be in the United States and the
ways of living and being he had grown accustomed to simply would not be possible in
Germany, saying in an early oral reflection:

so I felt like I knew who I am (…) what it means to be me. I have a life and what I do in my life I have it all fig-
ured out and planned out this is what I do (Oral reflection 8, winter semester)

David was surprised by these sentiments and they led him to believe that he was having an
identity crisis, noted soon thereafter:
I’m having a sense of identity crisis (…) what I know to be David is not working here (…) I’m trying to force the
David that I thought should be in a place that the David that I thought should be won’t work (Oral reflection 8,
winter semester)

In order to navigate his identity destabilization and further endorse a particular version of him-
self, David created a spreadsheet in which he could manipulate numbers and count down the
days until he could go home. This strategy displayed a kind of ‘flight behavior’ which can lead
to social isolation (Pellegrino-Aveni, 2005). At first, the spreadsheet made him feel as though
he had quantifiable control over his homesickness and his own developmental trajectory,
which he problematized in an early interview:

My mind says David don’t play with the graph. It’s not good for you (…) [I’m] thinking about how I can mathe-
matically project my emotions and will the negative experiences somehow mathematically become few with
time (Interview 1, winter semester)

However, David also reflected on the fact that this spreadsheet was actually exacerbating his
depression and homesickness, since he was constantly thinking about the program end-date
and not focusing on local, ongoing social participation. He noted at the end of his first semester
in Germany, “I went through some time here when I was really depressed (…) your mind says
one thing but your emotions do another” (Interview 2, Winter semester).
Months of loneliness led him to reflect on who he was as an American and who he had to be-
come in Germany. In his first language history questionnaire, David noted his determination to
use only German and make only German native-speaker friends, and actively avoided social
gatherings with American exchange students. David later realized that in order to escape the cy-
cle of homesickness and depression, he had to consider new ways of orientating to developing
friendships and social connections in his study abroad context. David eventually decided that
he could not be limited to speaking only German with Germans if he were to move past his
homesickness. He invested more time in a community of Americans, groups of international
students, and a local community of German native-speakers who, at various points, had stud-
ied abroad at his home institution. David could just as easily have elected to rely on familiar

This content downloaded from 112.134.159.237 on Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:16:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
McGREGOR: TRANSCULTURALITY IN STUDY ABROAD 117

frames of reference during his year abroad. However, in actively trying to ameliorate his situa-
tion, he became more open-minded about possible social networks, and yet remained deter-
mined to see his original goals of nuanced linguistic development realized. David began to navi-
gate his emotional difficulties by electing to act—that is, exhibiting “fight” behaviors (Pellegrino-
Aveni, 2005). He sought out participation in local communities, prioritizing L2 use but not com-
pletely shunning L1 use. Over the year abroad, he developed new and lasting friendships with
German and international peers. Through his participation in both L1- and L2-speaking com-
munities, he began to re-consider his orientations to English and German, showing that he was
starting to be able to distance himself from his own presuppositions. David re-negotiated his
previous fervent devotion to the German language and re-oriented to both German and Eng-
lish, commenting in an oral reflection towards the end of his year abroad:

Now for a bombshell I suppose. I always considered myself to be a German fanatic I mean I like English and I
like German. The fact is that I have a newfound appreciation for my own language (Oral reflection 11, Summer
semester)

In reflecting on and calling into question his own perceptions, history, subjectivities, and ac-
tions, David demonstrated his own developing ability to “play” with his language beliefs, his-
tories, subjectivities, and emotions (Kramsch, 2009b), and to critically distance from the L1
and L2.

Discussion

Katie’s story demonstrates the significant value of study abroad—a value that goes far be-
yond pure linguistic gains. She re-negotiated her pre-sojourn goal of developing advanced L2
competencies upon the realization that interacting in the L2, or mutually coordinating actions in
conversation (Hall, 2011), was a much more difficult undertaking than she had previously been
aware of. All the same, Katie did have meaningful interactions in German with very close Ger-
man friends, even though her L2 development was fairly limited. Katie also experienced per-
sonal growth due to encountering different views regarding homosexuality and re-negotiating
her ways of thinking and acting. The fact remains, however, that Katie showed little evidence of
developing the ability to operate between languages, and as such, her development as a
translingual and transcultural speaker remained extremely limited.
Katie espoused some of the frustrations that Pavlenko (2005) discusses regarding negative
emotions. Katie felt unable to express emotions in German and infantilized by her inability to
portray herself as the creative, smart, funny, and caring adult person that she knew she was.
Faced with such challenges, she resisted finding a voice in German, contradicting her original
goals for studying abroad. Katie’s experiences contained many moments in which she could
have been encouraged to reflect on her emotional insecurity and “endorsed” self (Pelle-
grino-Aveni, 2005); however, she had little to no programmatic support options available.
Katie’s close friendship with Stefan did provide her with a local interactional peer support.
Through regular conversations with him, she navigated personal challenges and experienced
growth. Katie’s shifting orientations toward emotionally-charged topics demonstrated this de-
velopment as occurring through dialogue with an international other, through mostly English
and some German. Her relationship with Stefan contributed to her ‘endorsed’ self because
speaking English was an option. At the same time, this relationship saw her reflecting on and
navigating personal challenges in new ways. In addition, she was able to re-negotiate her per-
spectives and goals to continue to be meaningful and relevant in interaction regardless of lan-
guage use. Katie began to act on new orientations to difficult topics in her life, and as such, she

This content downloaded from 112.134.159.237 on Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:16:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
118 UP 47.2 (Fall 2014)

began to construct new ways of being. In Katie’s case, local peer interactional support (regard-
less of language use) provided new ways of negotiating emotional events.
David, on the other hand, demonstrated an ability to distance himself from both his L1 and
L2 when discussing new orientations to these languages and cultures. He critically reflected on
his previous orientations to the German language and language learning and re-negotiated his
orientations to both languages. David thus showed the beginnings of translingual and
transcultural development.
David’s first few months abroad involved depression and homesickness, leading him to in-
tense identity reflection and negotiation. David reflected on how these experiences informed
his own views of himself as an American, as a German language learner, and more, and elected
to “fight’” (Pellegrino-Aveni, 2005). David developed close friendships with various communi-
ties of students, even though he had to abandon or shift some of his pre-departure beliefs and
expectations. He began to develop the L2 linguistic eloquence and critical distancing skills typi-
cal of those who are beginning to create a third place. David began to experience advanced L2
development not only in terms of linguistic proficiency and general self-awareness, but he also
began to create affordances between and across languages, or develop “relationships of possi-
bility” (van Lier, 2004, p. 105). The concept of “thirdness” helps to describe the relationships
that study abroad participants can create if they reflect upon their own lived history and subjec-
tivity as well as the lived history and subjectivity of others (Kramsch, 2009). This is precisely
what David began to do with and through both languages after navigating destabilizing emo-
tional experiences.
Challenges with emotion and emotional expression were significant for the ways in which
Katie and David positioned themselves, others, and how they participated in local communi-
ties. Additionally, how they reflected and acted on their own emotional experiences informed
their development as translingual and transcultural speakers. Moments of conflict are often
destabilizing experiences that can bring about more meaningful reflection on both home and
host cultures and worldviews, involving a re-construction of the self. Both Katie and David’s
cases demonstrate the ways in which emotional experiences can shape a student’s experiences
and development in-sojourn: even the most enthusiastic and well-intending language learner
in study abroad may choose to avoid L2 use-in-interaction or wish they had never set foot in this
new place.

Implications and Future Research

This research echoes others’ calls for more pedagogical resources that not only prepare stu-
dents to initiate and respond to interaction with peer interlocutors, but also have them take part
in those practices in the L2 classrooms (Hall, 2011; Kinginger, 2009; van Compernolle, 2011,
in press). While a number of scholars have called for a view of students as L2 learners and users
in order to help them begin to know what it means to co-construct the ongoing community dia-
logue as well as the self (Block, 2007; Kinginger, 2008, 2009), Jackson (2008) also calls us “to
go beyond the practice/theory dichotomy to address the dialectical and multifaceted nature of
language and culture learning” by adopting critical pedagogy as an educational framework (p.
220). I argue that the use of interactional data in L2 curricula and study abroad workshops ac-
complishes this call for critical praxis, since the instructor would have a way to demonstrate how
certain interactional practices may come to have direct influence on transformed social action
(Jackson, 2008). Engaging with interactional data and a critical pedagogy framework would
have benefitted both Katie and David pre-sojourn, since during study abroad, both clung to
language ideologies that promoted more prescriptive, idealized, and dichotomous understand-

This content downloaded from 112.134.159.237 on Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:16:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
McGREGOR: TRANSCULTURALITY IN STUDY ABROAD 119

ings of language and language use in study abroad. Their cases demonstrate that more should
be done to encourage students to critically reflect on their own and others’ linguistic and cultural
backgrounds, languages, ideologies, histories, and sociopolitical situations before, during, and
after studying abroad.
Implementing a curricular framework that prizes the use of L2 use-in-context(s) (e.g., spo-
ken language corpora or images from linguistic landscape research) with both native speakers
(monolingual and multilingual) as well as other emerging bilinguals would help students to
grasp themselves as not just L2 learners, but also L2 users, Americans, future study abroad par-
ticipants, and so on. Pedagogical arrangements that involve sites of struggle consisting of sensi-
tive, emotional, divisive, and debated issues can help us to impart more appropriate ways of in-
teracting that go beyond the banalities of superficial chat (e.g., greetings, introductions, etc.). In
this way, students must also confront the notion of language and ownership and what it means
to negotiate meaning as an L2 user in a study abroad context. Through such pedagogical prac-
tices, students may become more accustomed to spaces in which they must confront their own
worldviews, re-examine presuppositions, goals, and desires, and understand what it means to
experience challenges and struggles that bring about the need to negotiate identity destabili-
zation.
Future research should investigate dialogue and students’ interactional practices and devel-
opment in study abroad. Some have noted the importance of enhancing students’ awareness
and understanding of civic responsibilities and critical praxis more generally (Jackson, 2008;
Kinginger, 2010), and I have suggested ways in which to bring students to such considerations.
L2 interactional data in study abroad contexts can help us demonstrate how study abroad par-
ticipants question (or do not question) presuppositions about language and culture in L2
use-in-interaction, and whether or not they develop critical distancing abilities. If talk-in-inter-
action is the “primordial site of human sociality” (Schegloff, 2006, p. 70), then we should con-
tinue to investigate instances of interactive talk in order to understand how study abroad partici-
pants negotiate meaning and emotion and how they co-construct ways of being and viewing
the world.

Works Cited

Agar, M. (1994). Language Shock: Understanding the Culture of Conversation. New York: William Morrow.
Atkinson, D. (2011). Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Block, D. (2007b). Second Language Identities. London: Continuum.
Brecht, R. D., Davidson, D., & Ginsburg, R. (1995). Predictors of Foreign Language Gain during Study Abroad. In B. Freed
(Ed.), Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context (pp. 37–66). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Carroll, J. (1967). Foreign Language Proficiency Levels Attained by Language Majors near Graduation from College. For-
eign Language Annals, 1(1), 131–151.
Coleman, J. A. (1996). Studying Languages: A Survey of British and European Students: The Proficiency Background, Atti-
tudes and Motivations of Students of Foreign Languages in the United Kingdom and Europe. London: Centre for Infor-
mation on Language Teaching and Research.
Freed, B. F. (1990). Language Learning in a Study Abroad Context: The Effects of Interactive and Noninteractive
Out-of-Class Contact on Grammatical Achievement and Oral Proficiency. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Linguistics, Language Teach-
ing, and Language Acquisition: The Interdependence of Theory, Practice, and Research (pp. 459 – 77). Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Hall, J. K., Hellermann, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (Eds.). (2011). Second language acquisition: L2 interactional competence
and development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Jackson, J. (2008). Language, Identity and Study Abroad: Sociocultural Perspectives. London: Equinox.
Kinginger, C. (2004). Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore: Foreign Language Learning as Identity (Re)construction. In A.
Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts (pp. 219–242). Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.

This content downloaded from 112.134.159.237 on Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:16:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
120 UP 47.2 (Fall 2014)

Kinginger, C. (2008). Language Learning in Study Abroad: Case Studies of Americans in France. Modern Language Jour-
nal Monograph, 1. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kinginger, C. (2009). Language Learning and Study Abroad: A Critical Review of Research. Hampshire: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Kinginger, C. (2010). American students abroad: Negotiation of difference? Language Teaching, 43(2), 216–227.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. (1996). To whom does German belong? Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 29(1), 1-11.
Kramsch, C. (2009a). The Multilingual Subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. (2009b). Third Culture and Language Education. In Vivian Cook & Li Wei (Eds.), Contemporary Applied Lin-
guistics. Vol.1 Vivian Cook, ed. Language Teaching and Learning (pp.233-254) London: Continuum.
Magnan, S. (1986). Assessing Speaking Proficiency in the Undergraduate Curriculum: Data from French. Foreign Language
Annals, 19(5), 429-438.
Modern Language Association. (2007). Foreign Languages and Higher Education: New Structures for a Changed World.
Retrieved from http://www.mla.org/flreport.
Murphy-Lejeune, E. (2002). Student Mobility and Narrative in Europe: The New Strangers. New York: Routledge.
Ortega, L. (2013). SLA for the 21st Century: Disciplinary Progress, Transdisciplinary Relevance and the Bi/Multilingual Turn,
Language Learning, 63(1), 1-24.
Pavlenko, A. (2002) Bilingualism and Emotions. Multilingua, 21(1), 45-78.
Pavlenko, A. (2005). Emotions and Multilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pellegrino Aveni, V. (2005). Study Abroad and Second Language Use: Constructing the Self. New York: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Schegloff, E. (2006). Interaction: The Infrastructure for Social Institutions, the Natural Ecological Niche for Language, and
the Arena in which Culture is Enacted. In N.J. Enfield and S. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of Human Sociality (pp. 70-96).
Oxford: Berg.
van Compernolle, R. A. (2011). Responding to questions and learner interactional competence during language proficiency
interviews: A microanalytic study with pedagogcial implications. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann & S. Pekarek Doehler
(Eds.), Second language acquisition: L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 117–144) Multilingual Matters.
van Compernolle, R. A. (2014). Sociocultural Theory and L2 Instructional Pragmatics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
van Lier, L. (2004). The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.

This content downloaded from 112.134.159.237 on Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:16:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms