Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Authenticating "non-native speaker teacher" professional identity in French as a second language (FSL)… Wernicke-Heinrichs, Meike 2013

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2013_fall_wernickeheinrichs_meike.pdf [ 2.2MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0165523.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0165523-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0165523-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0165523-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0165523-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0165523-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0165523-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0165523-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0165523.ris

Full Text

AUTHENTICATING ?NON-NATIVE SPEAKER TEACHER? PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY IN FRENCH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE (FSL) EDUCATION  by Meike Wernicke-Heinrichs  A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Language and Literacy Education)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  September 2013  ? Meike Wernicke-Heinrichs, 2013   ii  ABSTRACT  This qualitative multiple case study considered language teacher identity and what it means to ?be authentic? as a teacher of French. It investigated the identity construction of 87 French as a second language (FSL) teachers from British Columbia who participated in a two-week professional development sojourn to France in 2009. The study examined how participants described their experiences abroad in relation to their teaching practices in Canada, and how these accounts made evident particular understandings of cultural and linguistic authenticity. The analysis focused on the way participants? narratives served to authenticate (Bucholtz, 2003) L2 teacher identity and how conceptions of authentic language and L2 learning and teaching represented both constraining and productive ways of ?being? a certain kind of FSL teacher.    Broadly situated within a practice theory framework, FSL teacher identity was first considered through a wide-scale analysis of data from the larger cohort of BC teachers, followed by a micro-analytic examination of individual processes of identification ?performed? by seven focal participants. The analyses highlighted the extent to which the ?FSL teacher? category, grounded in a ?native speaker? ideology, ultimately informed the identity constructions of each individual teacher. The various identity positionings manifested by focal participants shed light on a complex of language ideologies relevant in discourses operating within the FSL profession in Canada with implications for what it means to be practicing as ?non-native speaker teacher? in this context.  Given current empirical emphasis on the sociolinguistic and cultural aspects of language learning and teaching (Firth & Wagner, 1997; Lafford, 2007), the present study answers a recent call in applied linguistics for a more rigorous analysis of identity which moves away from the idea of identity as a simple collection of essentialist categories (Dervin & Kramsch, 2011). It iii  does so by foregrounding a discursive-constructionist orientation and attending to the interactional nature of identity construction, along with a thoroughgoing consideration of researcher reflexivity. The study makes significant contributions to applied linguistics research in the areas of study abroad, L2 teacher development and identity, and the workings of prevalent ideologies informing L2 language teaching and research.   iv  PREFACE  This study has undergone an ethical review process which was approved on June 23, 2009 by the University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board. The Human Ethics Certificate # H09-00776 for ?FSL Teachers in France? expired April 24, 2013.   v  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii PREFACE ...................................................................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ v LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................. x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... xi DEDICATION .............................................................................................................................. xv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the study .................................................................................................................. 1 Background & research questions ............................................................................................ 3 Research questions .............................................................................................................. 4 Significance of study................................................................................................................. 7 Structure of dissertation .......................................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 2: STUDY ABROAD & L2 TEACHER IDENTITY ............................................... 12 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 12 L2 teachers studying abroad ................................................................................................... 14 L2 teacher identity .................................................................................................................. 22 The ?native speaker? ......................................................................................................... 24 The ?native speaker teacher? and ?non-native speaker teacher? ...................................... 28 ? propos language expertise ............................................................................................. 29 Challenging the ?native speaker?...................................................................................... 32 ?Francophone? .................................................................................................................. 35 Inside Quebec.............................................................................................................. 36 In the ROC (Rest of Canada) ...................................................................................... 41 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 43 CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMING ................................................................................ 45 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 45 Practice theory ........................................................................................................................ 46 Language and culture as social action .............................................................................. 49 Authenticity in L2 education .................................................................................................. 51 Defining authenticity ........................................................................................................ 52 Authenticity in L2 learning and teaching .......................................................................... 54 Authenticity as ideology ................................................................................................... 56 Language ideology in FSL ................................................................................................ 58 Identity .................................................................................................................................... 64 Conclusion: Identity and authenticity ..................................................................................... 69 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 72 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 72 Case study ............................................................................................................................... 73 Research context: Sites and participants ................................................................................. 74 vi  Phase I of the research process ......................................................................................... 74 Research site: CAVILAM and professional development.......................................... 74 Vichy cohort participants ............................................................................................ 79 Phase II of the research process ........................................................................................ 84 Research site: FSL education in British Columbia ..................................................... 84 Focal participants ........................................................................................................ 87 Data ......................................................................................................................................... 93 Questionnaires................................................................................................................... 95 Journals ............................................................................................................................. 96 Interviews .......................................................................................................................... 97 Participant observation...................................................................................................... 99 Audio and video recording.............................................................................................. 100 Field notes ....................................................................................................................... 100 Documents ...................................................................................................................... 100 Data analysis ......................................................................................................................... 101 Transcription ................................................................................................................... 104 Researcher position ............................................................................................................... 106 Confidentiality ...................................................................................................................... 107 Quality and rigor ................................................................................................................... 107 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 108 CHAPTER 5: AUTHENTICITY IN FSL .................................................................................. 109 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 109 The question .......................................................................................................................... 111 Assumptions: Recipient design and preference .............................................................. 114 MCA ............................................................................................................................... 118 The Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 119 Constructing ?French language learner? ......................................................................... 120 Constructing ?French language teacher? ........................................................................ 125 Constructing ?Francophone? .......................................................................................... 130 Implications........................................................................................................................... 135 ?Authentic? language expertise ...................................................................................... 135 The ?learner? versus ?teacher? ....................................................................................... 136 The production of ?FSL teacher? .................................................................................... 139 Novel insights from a novel approach ............................................................................ 140 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 143 CHAPTER 6: AUTHENTICITY EFFECTS .............................................................................. 145 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 145 Analytic approach: Positioning analysis ............................................................................... 147 Narrative ......................................................................................................................... 147 Positioning analysis ........................................................................................................ 150 Analysis: Representing processes of authentication ....................................................... 151 Christa ................................................................................................................................... 153 Language expertise: ?Less than perfect French? ............................................................ 154 Administrator .................................................................................................................. 157 Expert speaker as tourist ................................................................................................. 161 vii  Janet ...................................................................................................................................... 167 Language expertise: ?Ok, I was testing?......................................................................... 168 Standards of language and teaching ................................................................................ 170 The inauthentic classroom .............................................................................................. 173 Karin ..................................................................................................................................... 175 Language expertise: ?Des petites choses comme ?a? ..................................................... 176 French only ..................................................................................................................... 180 ?Maman? ......................................................................................................................... 184 Helen ..................................................................................................................................... 188 Language expertise: ?B2 or something? ......................................................................... 189 The distancing factor................................................................................................. 193 All about accent .............................................................................................................. 194 Carolyn .................................................................................................................................. 203 Language expertise: ?To teach is to learn? ..................................................................... 204 Learning for teaching ...................................................................................................... 207 Learner and/or teacher .................................................................................................... 209 Tamara .................................................................................................................................. 213 Language expertise: ?I?m the everything teacher? ......................................................... 214 Authentic Europe ............................................................................................................ 216 A process of historicization: ?It?s about being whole? ............................................. 220 Sara ....................................................................................................................................... 227 Constructing distinctiveness ........................................................................................... 228 Plurilingualism ................................................................................................................ 234 French as mobile ............................................................................................................. 237 World French .................................................................................................................. 240 Language expertise: ?I still don?t have that passion? ..................................................... 243 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 245 CHAPTER 7: CONTRIBUTIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND QUESTIONS .............................. 247 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 247 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 248 Implications........................................................................................................................... 253 Questions: Directions for future research ............................................................................. 259 Qualities and limitations ....................................................................................................... 261 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 263 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 264 APPENDIX A. INFORMATION BROCHURE WITH APPLICATION FORM ..................... 301 APPENDIX B. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ABOUT RESEARCH STUDY ......... 303 APPENDIX C. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION BROCHURE ..................................... 304 APPENDIX D. QUESTIONNAIRES ........................................................................................ 308 APPENDIX E. JOURNAL INSTRUCTIONS AND PROMPTS .............................................. 327 APPENDIX F. INTERVIEW INSTRUCTIONS AND PROTOCOL ........................................ 328 APPENDIX G. TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS .............................................................. 330 viii  LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1   Overview of CAVILAM professional development program  ....................................76 Table 4.2   Data generated from BC teacher participants during Phase I of the study  .................80 Table 4.3   Professional background of sojourn participants  ........................................................83 Table 4.4   Data sources of focal participants  ...............................................................................89 Table 4.5   Professional background and teaching context of focal participants  ..........................91 Table 5.1   Distribution of responses based on preference structure  ..........................................116 Table 5.2   Summary of membership categories .........................................................................138    ix  LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1  Timeline of the data generation process across both phases of the study  ..................74 Figure 4.2  Provincial representation of teachers participating in sojourn to France  ...................82 Figure 5.1  Questionnaire item #29 of the post-questionnaire  ....................................................111    x  LIST OF ACRONYMS ACTFL American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages AH At home context of language learning (versus study abroad) AL Additional Languages BCTF British Columbia Teachers? Federation CAVILAM Centre d?Approches Vivantes des Langues et des M?dias CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages CLT Communicative language teaching CF Core French DELF Dipl?me d??tudes en langue fran?aise DP Discursive psychology EFL English as a foreign language FI French immersion FSL  French as a second language  IF Intensive French MC membership category MCA membership categorization analysis PA Positioning analysis PD Professional development SA Study abroad SLA Second language acquisition TESL Teaching English as second Language TESOL Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages xi  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I am so very grateful to all the people who have supported me throughout my doctoral studies, some of whom have been there from the very beginning and many others who joined in along the way. First and foremost I would like to extend ?un grand merci? to my research participants, the entire cohort of FSL teachers and to my focal participants who welcomed me into their classrooms and indulged my many questions throughout the research process. I would also like to thank Moh Chelali, former director of French language programming with the BCTF, Daniel Belanger, French Language Coordinator of the Vancouver School Board, and Michel Boiron, Director of CAVILAM for supporting me in this research initiative both in France and in BC.  I owe tremendous gratitude to my two supervisors, Drs. Monique Bournot-Trites and Steven Talmy. Monique, je te remercie de m?avoir accompagn?e tout au long de cette formation, de m?avoir fait confiance d?s mes d?buts dans la recherche, pour tes encouragements et ton soutien, tes conseils toujours si pertinents, et de ta gentillesse. Je te suis tr?s reconnaissante de m?avoir offert l?opportunit? de faire cette recherche sur le projet ? Vichy et d?avoir eu l?occasion de m?engager dans l??ducation des enseignants FLS ? UBC. Steven, I thank you for introducing me to an entirely new way of understanding the world through language, for your patience in my tackling discourse analysis, for always expecting more and for never letting up. I so very much appreciate your thoroughness and care, the many hours you spent on my work before it was even called a dissertation, and your constant regard for all aspects of this lengthy and at times arduous process. I would like to thank my dissertation committee member, Dr. Ryuko Kubota for her always-fresh perspective and her insights, and for her continuous support throughout this process. I am especially grateful for the way she has included me, a novice researcher, in the xii  academic community as a contributing member and colleague. I would like to extend a warm thank you to Drs. Bonny Norton and Tony Clarke, university examiners, and Dr. Michael Byram, external examiner, for their interest and insightful feedback on my work. To Bonny, a special thank you for introducing me to a new conception of identity in the very first course of my doctoral program ? ultimately, the point de d?part for my own study.  There are many others in the LLED community whose support, professionalism, and collegiality has meant so very much to me over the past years. I want to thank in particular Drs. Patsy Duff, Geoff Williams, John Willinsky, Stephen Carey, and Wendy Carr. I am also grateful to Drs. Margaret Early and Jan Hare for the thought-provoking conversations and kind words of encouragement over the years. A special thanks to Anne Eastham, who never failed to offer ?life-saving? support in those crucial moments when submission dates seemed impossible to manage, and to Chris Fernandez for making all that paperwork move effortlessly to its destination. Many thanks also to former LLED staff members Teresa O?Shea, Anne White, and Laura Selander for their organizational support with Peer Advising and matters related to teaching.   My peers in the department have been a constant source of inspiration, motivation, and support. I am forever indebted to my friend and colleague Ryan Deschambault for his incredible generosity and kindness, his always-questioning perspective, his thoughtful comments and constructive feedback, and his endurance and patience. I extend a very warm thank you to  Bong-gi Sohn, Rae-Ping Lin, and Won Kim, fellow members of our Discourse Analysis Working/Writing Group (DAWG), for the stimulating discussions, comments and questions, and much appreciated enthusiasm about my work. I also am extremely grateful to have been able to share this academic journey with my fellow LLEDers Alfredo Ferreira and Michael Trottier, xiii  among many others who have contributed to this process in so many ways on both an academic and a personal level. I would also like to thank LLED PhD graduates, Drs. Sandra Zappa, Martin Guardado, Diane Potts, J?r?mie S?ror, and Isabelle Denizot who have helped me along the way with helpful tips, valuable insights, and great stories.   I would like to acknowledge that this work was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences Humanities Research Council of Canada and a UBC Graduate Fellowship. I am also thankful for the travel and graduate student awards from the Department of Language and Literacy Education and the Faculty of Education at UBC.  There are many others who have shown their support and who have shared in every step of the process from a distance. I would like to extend a very heartfelt thank you to my colleagues at Capilano University, especially in the Languages and Linguistics departments, for supporting my studies all these years and for accommodating a crazy schedule of coursework, meetings, and writing which usually had me flying in and out of classrooms, offices, and the language lab. I would like to acknowledge especially my former colleague in the German Department, Biserka Advagic, for her dedicated collaboration in successfully tackling an entirely new German language curriculum with me this past year.  There are many friends in Canada and overseas that I wish to thank for their kind words of support and their understanding when phone calls, birthday greetings, and holiday cards arrived late or were completely forgotten. Ein ganz besonderer Dank gilt Bettina Gmehling, dessen liebe Worte mir durch die letzten, schwierigsten Monate geholfen haben. I want to thank Erika G?tz-Lad for doing what I chose not to do, for being where I could not be, and for making the really hard choices the best and most worthwhile. I would like to thank Chris Leach for his earnest curiosity and ever-insightful comments and questions about my work. I also want to xiv  thank the late Michelle Patterson who as a long-time friend and fellow academic always showed genuine interest and a sharp take on any issue we were discussing, and who should have been here to share in the completion of this work.  Most importantly I want to thank my family. Meinen Eltern Illo und Harm-J?rgen Wernicke bin ich undendlich dankbar f?r ihre Geduld, ihr Verst?ndnis, und ihre liebevolle F?rsorge und Unterst?tzung mit den Kindern. I am so grateful for my sister, Imke, who teaches me every day to be courageous, generous and very smart. I would like to thank my parents-in-law, Edith and Erwin Heinrichs, for their unfailing support and their enthusiasm in my studies, and to my extended family for their patience when, at family gatherings, I would be discovered skulking off with yet another book.   Lastly, I want to thank the three people who have lived this work as much as I have. I am so thankful for my daughter Mathea ? for her consistent encouragement and many insights, and for demonstrating in a couple of minutes over dinner how to effectively formulate a thesis proposal after I had spent six fruitless hours of a sunny Saturday afternoon labouring over exactly that task. I am so grateful for my daughter Malena ? for her refreshing smiles and empathetic ear, her keen questions, and the many reminders not to forget to play. Finally, I thank my partner Kevin without whom I would not have had the strength, courage, and time to complete this degree. He has been my first audience, my first reader, and my biggest supporter, and I am forever grateful that he has vicariously lived this academic and personal journey with me. Kevin, I thank you most for your love and for the amazing heart you have shown me.    xv  DEDICATION       To Kevin, Mathea, and Malena  1  CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION  ?It is important to underscore the ways in which identities are fabrications ? that is, both invented and constructed ? because doing so is a necessary step in accounting for the centrality of representation in the constitution of the real.?  (Ganguly, 1992, p. 30)    ? Si une bonne f?e me proposait de changer en moi ce que je n'aimais pas, je changerais mon niveau de fran?ais orale et ?crite. Je crois que je pouvais engager plus avec les autres professeurs de l'immersion et m'engagerais plus dans leur blague. ?1    Purpose of the study This study is about second language teacher identity and what it means to ?be authentic? as a teacher of French. It is about the identities second language teachers fashion and rely on in their day-to-day professional lives as they negotiate ?conflicting cultural representations of and desires for what a teacher is and does? (Britzman, 1994, p. 55). The communities of practice that language teachers participate in and the activities in which they engage afford teachers a range of resources with which to construct particular identities. These identities are situated in larger historical, political, social, and cultural discourses that teachers can draw on to negotiate a sense of belonging and the extent to which they see themselves and are seen by others as experts within their communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The construction of identity is a social endeavour. It operates at the level of interaction between people (Norton & Early, 2011) and is negotiated in relations with others in temporally and spatially situated contexts. The primary question this study addresses is how second language (L2) teachers shape and perform                                                  1 (If a good fairy allowed me to change what I do not like about myself, I would change my level of oral and written French. I think I could then engage more with the other immersion teachers and participate more in their jokes.) This excerpt represents an answer to a class activity provided by one of the teacher participants of this study who was enrolled in the ?Perfectionnement linguistique? program at the Centre d?Approches Vivantes des Langues et des M?dias in Vichy, France.  2  their professional identities by drawing on the discourses that ?operate in and through individuals to structure experiences, interactions, social relations, daily practices, and ways of being in the world? (Miller Marsh, 2001, p. 9).  This study investigated the identity construction of French as a second language (FSL)2 teachers from British Columbia (BC) who participated in an 87-member cohort on a two-week professional development sojourn in Vichy, France. The study examined how these participants, both L1 and L2 speakers of French, described their experiences abroad and in relation to their teaching practices in Canada, and how these descriptions made evident particular understandings of cultural and linguistic authenticity that ultimately worked to authenticate (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005) teachers? professional identities in their own eyes and in the eyes of others. Examining ?authenticity in performance? (Coupland, 2003, p. 428) in this way takes into account how teachers? conceptions of authentic language, and authentic language learning and teaching, constitute both constraining and productive ways of ?being? a certain kind of FSL teacher. The study first examined FSL teacher identity through a wide-scale analysis of the FSL teacher category design based on data from the larger, 87-member cohort of BC teachers. This was followed by a microanalysis of individual processes of identification ?performed? by seven focal teacher participants that highlighted how the ideological grounding of the category ?FSL teacher? shaped the distinct identity display of each individual teacher. Overall, the various identity positionings manifested by the focal participants shed light on a complex network of language ideologies relevant in discourses that operate within the FSL profession in Canada, and                                                  2 In this study, the acronym ?FSL? is always used with reference to all three French language programs: core French, French immersion, and intensive French. In BC, teachers of French frequently use the ?FSL? descriptor with reference to only core French or fran?ais de base as a way of distinguishing basic French programming from French immersion. This use has now also found its way into the research literature (e.g. Karsenti, Collin, Villeneuve, Dumouchel, & Roy, 2008; MacFarlane, 2005; Mady, 2008).   3  which have significant implications for what it means to be practicing as an L2 speaking teacher in this context.    Background & research questions  The basis and starting point for the present study was a provincially organized, federally funded teacher development project as part of renewed efforts to provide FSL teachers in British Columbia with professional development opportunities. This increased emphasis on effective professional development is the result of a continuing demand for French language education in BC, currently delivered through long-established FSL programs such as French immersion and core French as well as the more recent intensive French program (Carr, 2007a; Netten & Germain, 2005). A significant obstacle in meeting the demand for FSL education is the limited access to formal French language development for in-service FSL teachers, especially in Western non-francophone areas of Canada such as BC (Bournot-Trites, 2008b; Lapkin, MacFarlane, & Vandergrift, 2006; MacFarlane & Hart, 2002). Although student inter-provincial exchange programs are well established across the country and promoted through high school and post-secondary programs, many former FSL students entering the French language classroom as teachers themselves will never have experienced a French-language-dominant environment or have had extended contact with francophones (Carr, 2007b). At the same time, newer delivery models such as intensive French (Salvatori, 2009) or the implementation of alternate, potentially more effective models of existing French programs (CASLT, 2008) must be accommodated in teacher education programs. While specialized teacher education programs for FSL teachers offered by the provinces? research universities are expanding to address the absence of formal FSL teacher training (Carr, 2010; CMEC, 2011), current pedagogical changes 4  in curricula for the teaching of additional languages based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) are also impacting FSL programs in Canada. The adoption of CEFR competence levels and descriptors as a means of boosting official bilingualism across Canada (Council of Ministers of Education, 2010; Vandergrift, 2006) has created a further demand for the training and certification in both teaching and assessment.   In an effort to address the need for increased professional development, the British Columbia Teacher Federation (BCTF) initiated, organized and coordinated a study abroad program with the financial support of the BC Ministry of Education. As a result, in July 2009, 87 FSL teachers from BC participated in a two-week sojourn to Vichy, France, at the Centre d?Approches Vivantes des Langues et des M?dias (CAVILAM), a centre for French language studies and pedagogy. The objectives of the program included an introduction to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, comprehensive training in the DELF exam (Dipl?me d??tudes en langue fran?aise), and development of linguistic and cultural knowledge and French L2 methodology. Teachers with a francophone background or an expert level of French were encouraged to apply for the full two-week DELF certification, while teaching workshops and language classes were available for those wishing to improve their teaching strategies and use of French. The present study specifically investigated teacher participants? narratives about their experiences in Vichy and how these related to their professional environment in Canada.  Research questions  To situate the teachers? short-term professional development sojourn within the overall study and in relation to my research questions I drew on Agar (1994) and Hornberger's (2006) 5  use of the concept, ?rich point.? Agar used the term ?rich points? to refer to instances of  language learning in which one is faced with an especially ?problematic bit of language,? the meaning of which is almost impossible to grasp due to the many uses of the term in question (Agar, 1994, p. 100). Hornberger has employed the concept of ?methodological rich points? to describe the ?tensions between the practice of research and the changing scientific and social world in which researchers work? (2006, p. 221). Drawing on both of these definitions, I have conceptualized the sojourn as a ?rich point? for reflection and inquiry. In view of their experiences in France, the sojourn offered teacher participants an occasion to reflect on and challenge prior or new knowledge, beliefs, and self-perceptions about what it means to learn and teach French as a second language. This process generated and/or foregrounded certain tensions for the teacher participants, while also signaling possible transformation.   Given the widespread assumption that a francophone setting (such as France) constitutes the definitive context for authentic French language learning (Bayliss & Vignola, 2007; Salvatori & MacFarlane, 2009), the sojourn offered an important occasion for examining the notion of authenticity as it relates to L2 learning and teacher identity. Authenticity is a central criterion in communicative approaches to L2 teaching (van Lier, 1996; Widdowson, 1998) and fundamental to conceptions of legitimate language use in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) and L2 education, both in terms of pedagogy and instructional strategies (Badger & MacDonald, 2010; Shrum & Glisan, 2009) and as ideology (Heller, 1996; Train, 2007a). Prevailing conceptions of ?authentic language? in association with language learning and teaching are founded on the ?native speaker? ideal with teachers? language expertise representing a decisive criterion of FSL teacher identity (Salvatori, 2007). Nonetheless, discursive-constructionist perspectives of identity in linguistic anthropology (Bucholtz & Hall, 2010) and sociolinguistic 6  approaches to language diversity and language use in today?s globalized world (Blommaert & Rampton, 2011) provide dynamic spaces for alternative conceptions of authenticity and a potential re-articulation of what it means to be an ?authentic? and therefore legitimate teacher of French. Thus, attending to the ways in which the sojourn contributes to or contests FSL teachers? notions of cultural and linguistic authenticity has the potential to highlight the place and workings of these conceptions in the construction of FSL teacher identity. The inquiry represented in the following chapters was therefore guided by the following three research questions:  1) How are experiences and knowledge from abroad represented by the teacher participants as authentic resources for constructing an identity as FSL teacher?  2) How do the participants use conceptions of authenticity to construct their identities as FSL teachers in terms of professional development abroad and within their local professional contexts?  3) Based on findings for questions 1) and 2) above, a) how does authenticity figure in prevailing ideologies about language learning and teaching in FSL education, and  b) how do these ideologies relate to tensions around FSL teacher identity for the participants of this study? Important here is that the term ?authentic resources? in the first research question not be interpreted in terms of L2 teaching, that is, as designating an instructional artifact or product (i.e. a specific type of knowledge, or instructional method, or teaching tool). Rather, as elaborated in Chapter 3, the notion of authenticity as it is used here is taken from linguistic anthropology and refers to a discursive process of authentication which sees individuals making claims to a ?real? 7  or ?authorized? self as French speakers as they describe their experiences, their interactions with others, and the world around them (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005). In this sense, ?authentic resource? can be understood as a discursive strategy or means of authenticating an identity as FSL teacher.   The impetus for conducting this research derives from my own experiences as learner of three additional languages, English, French, and Spanish, and later as teacher of French and German, as well as my more recent involvement in French language teacher education as instructor and researcher. During the course of my teaching, I have taken the position of ?non-native speaker? teacher with respect to French, my third language, and have assumed a ?native speaker? position with regard to German, my first though no longer dominant language. As a teacher of German my ?native speakerness? has been questioned due to my lack of an ?authentic? German accent when speaking English. As novice French instructor I have been known to cart around a dictionary, and more recently appreciate having my class presentation slides ?authenticated? (Bucholtz, 2003) by my francophone university students. The professional identities that I have negotiated in these different contexts serve as a background to navigating this research process collaboratively with my research participants, both in terms of data generation as well as analysis and representation.  Significance of study This study makes significant contributions to applied linguistics research in the areas of study abroad, L2 teacher identity research, as well as with regard to the workings of prevalent ideologies informing in L2 language teaching and research.  Study abroad (SA) research to date comprises a broad range of inquiry into language learning abroad (Freed, 1998; Kinginger, 2005, 2009), yet very little literature has specifically 8  focused on L2 teachers studying abroad. Currently emerging SA research relevant to the present study considers the relationship between language, culture, and identity as documented in sojourners? reported experiences (e.g., Jackson, 2008; Polanyi, 1995) and the manner in which participants negotiate their positions in social interaction with others (e.g., Wilkinson, 2002). This study contributes to this area of inquiry with a focus on the conceptions of authenticity that shape L2 teacher identity constructions, specifically as these are made relevant in teachers? descriptions about their experiences on professional development abroad. Furthermore, within the field of SA research, prior research findings, such as learner variation, diverse learning outcomes (Dewey, 2004; Diaz-Campos, 2004; Freed, Segalowitz & Dewey, 2004) and the complex nature of the sojourn context itself (Kinginger, 2008) have led to a more critical stance vis-?-vis the presumed linguistic and cultural benefits of study abroad. The present study takes up this critical orientation by examining the impact of the sojourn not as a learning outcome, but rather in terms of how participants? descriptions about their experiences serve as discursive resources in a complex process of teacher identity formation. Participants? narratives in questionnaire, journals, interview, and email accounts bring to light focal participants? continuous negotiation of their own language learning experiences as so-called ?non-native speaker teachers? of French, making relevant the various positionings (Bamberg, 1997, 2004a) that are taken up in accounting for a particular FSL teacher identity in view of developing language expertise. Accordingly, the study offers significant insights not only about research on L2 teacher professional development abroad, but in terms of L2 teacher development more generally, particularly in light of L2 teacher education being conceived as a process of identity building. 9  Language teacher identity has become a prominent field of research in applied linguistics (Block, 2006; Norton, 2010) over the last few decades, as part of the ?social turn? in second language acquisition (SLA) (Block, 2003; K. E. Johnson, 2006) and a theoretical shift  foregrounding sociolinguistic and cultural aspects of language learning and teaching (Firth & Wagner, 1997; Zuengler & Miller, 2006). Emphasis on the social and contextual aspects of learning and teaching an additional language has led applied linguists to investigate productions and representations of culture (e.g., Talmy, 2008), relations of power (e.g., Kubota, 2004; Norton & Toohey, 2004), and agency (e.g., Kramsch, A'Ness, & Lam, 2000; Miller, 2012), studies in which the concept of identity is foregrounded as a means of addressing student engagement and learning, classroom interaction, or a reconceptualization of culture in SLA (Pennycook, 2001). Additionally, poststructuralist theories (e.g., Weedon, 1987) have focused on the concept of subjectivity, placing identity at the center of inquiry into the construction of meanings ?that position and regulate how social life is narrated and lived? (Britzman, 1994, p. 56). Within this theoretical domain, the present study answers a recent call in applied linguistics for a more rigorous analysis of identity which moves away from a ?soft-constructivist? perspective and the idea of identity as a simple collection of essentialist categories (Dervin & Kramsch, 2011). It does so by foregrounding a discursive-constructionist orientation with an emphasis on the interactional nature of identity construction, along with a thoroughgoing consideration of researcher reflexivity. An important contribution of this study is its focus on the intersection of language and culture, the ideologies associated with these two concepts and the way they relate to the ideological orientations of L2 teacher identity construction. In considering interactionally constructed professional teacher identities in view of prevailing language ideologies, this study 10  addresses several areas of qualitative inquiry which remain currently underrepresented in research on second language (SL) teaching (Heller, 2007; Kinginger, 2009; Kroskrity, 2004; K. Richards, 2009). In North America, current research has attended to various issues involving language ideologies, with a specific focus on French as minority, heritage, official, or foreign language. Most recently this research has considered learners of French on study abroad (e.g., Kinginger, 2004), the use of French in a school environment or workplace (e.g., Heller, 1999c, 2002), multilingual student teachers learning French (e.g., Byrd Clark, 2008), and the status of the language itself and its pedagogic implications (e.g., Train, 2000, 2007a). However, little research has investigated the impact of the ideological orientations pertaining to language learning and teaching that operate in the day-to-day lives of practicing FSL teachers. Also relevant for this study is the manner in which French as Canada?s ?other? official language is taken up in the educational domain, particularly in Western Canada, and the underpinning socio-cultural and historical context of French within an English-dominant region such as British Columbia (Wernicke & Bournot-Trites, 2011). Discourses around learning, teaching, and speaking French make relevant particular ideologies of bilingualism and multiculturalism, standardization and language variation, as well as provincial and federal language policy and notions of national identity, all of which position learners, teachers, and speakers in a variety of ways. Within this discursively constructed context of FSL programming, different versions of professional identity are produced which teachers choose to take up, resist, or rearticulate in various ways. In turn, the manner in which this identity construction occurs (that is, the types of identities which are constructed by teachers in questionnaires, journals, interviews, and emails) foregrounds prevailing conceptions of authentic language learning and teaching constituted in larger social discourses. Although the highlighted ideologies about French as a second language 11  pertain first and foremost to Western Canada, insights resulting from this study are relevant for other language learning contexts as well as teachers of other additional languages, including English.   Structure of dissertation The dissertation consists of seven chapters. The present introductory chapter is followed by a review of the literature in Chapter 2 and the theoretical framing of the study in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 sets out the methodology of the study, including descriptions of both research phases, in France and in BC, as well as my approach to data analysis in general terms. Chapter 5 represents the first discourse-analytic component of the study, a large-scale membership categorization analysis of post-questionnaire data generated by the entire cohort of BC teacher participants. This analysis centers on the production of the category of ?FSL teacher? based on participants? interpretation of what it means to be a ?French language teacher? on professional development abroad. This large-scale analysis addresses the first research question by considering the ?what? with regard to authenticity and thus provides the starting point for the subsequent analyses of each of the seven focal participants. The seven case-analyses are represented in Chapter 6 and address the last two research questions about how the construct of authenticity is employed by focal participants in their construction of an FSL teacher identity. The initial cases involve identity constructions that foreground language expertise as the most prominent element of the identification process while the final cases highlight participants? direct engagement with conceptions of authenticity. Chapter 7 offers final conclusions and implications of the study.      12  CHAPTER 2: STUDY ABROAD & L2 TEACHER IDENTITY   [T]here are still advantages today for the teacher who is a native speaker of the target language. Whether there are advantages for the language learner is another question.                                             (Bailey, 2006, p. 294)   Introduction  As noted earlier, the impetus for this inquiry was a professional development sojourn to France involving a cohort of FSL teachers from British Columbia, Canada, who are for the most part L2 learners of French themselves. The research topic of L2 teacher identity construction situates this inquiry in the field of L2 teacher education, in connection with the following related areas of research: L2 teachers studying abroad, L2 teacher identity with a focus on the so-called ?non-native speaker teacher? (NNST), French in Canada in terms of francophone identity, and L2 teacher professional development.   I begin this review by considering research from Europe and North America about L2 teachers who have studied abroad. This overview serves to highlight both the scant amount and narrow range of SA research with L2 teachers to date. The BC sojourn to France is most closely affiliated with professional development projects originating in the United States, while the studies documenting these projects constitute primarily program evaluations with emphasis on positive outcomes. My own study is distinct from these studies in that it: a) critically examined notions of authenticity within both the study abroad and at home contexts related to language, setting, speakers, and artifacts; b) focused specifically on the identity construction of the teacher participants; and c) adopted a discourse-based approach to the data in terms of its production, analysis, and representation. Consequently, in contrast to previously conducted research in this area, my study not only offers new findings but insights into findings from existing studies.    13    Current conceptions of professional development place teacher identity at the center of professional learning. For this reason, an investigation of teacher identity offers a key entry point to understanding the Vichy sojourn as a much-valued professional development opportunity for the BC teachers. In my review of L2 teacher identity, I begin with the ?native speaker? concept as a way of relating research about ?non-native speaker teachers? to conceptions of authenticity commonly found in the literature on L2 teacher education. As a result, this review of the literature allows me to situate the present study not just in SA research, but in the extensive research about ?non-native speaker teachers,? specifically alongside studies that question or challenge conceptual foundations of ?native speaker? ideology, in terms of language ownership and ?authentic? language use. Furthermore, this discussion makes relevant an assumption about commonly encountered expressions of confidence in the research literature related to L2 expertise ? an assumption which represents a key analytic device in my consideration of the data in Chapter 5. I conclude my review of L2 teacher identity with a look at ?native speaker? identity in a Canadian French-speaking context by elaborating on the various historical discourses that have shaped the ?francophone? identity category in Canada. This discussion addresses the French-speaker identity in terms of the historical-political context of the French language as a distinct Canadian variety. As a final note, I come back to the subject area of L2 professional development, which as noted earlier, forms the frame for the three areas of research reviewed here. In this sense L2 professional development is implicated in this study primarily as a topic, particularly in terms of this study?s implications for L2 language teacher education. While the study?s key concepts of authenticity and identity are certainly relevant in the literature reviewed here, my own conception of these constructs from a discursive-constructionist perspective is presented in Chapter 3.  14  L2 teachers studying abroad  As indicated above, research investigating L2 teacher professional development abroad has received relatively little attention thus far (Ehrenreich, 2008; Kinginger, C., personal communication, October 14, 2008), especially as compared to the extensive amount of study abroad research involving second language learners abroad (Freed, 1998; Kinginger, 2005). Already a century ago, study abroad for teachers was seen as an integral part of language teacher education (Rossmann, 1896) and over the decades it has continued to be hailed as an opportunity for L2 teachers ?to refresh and perfect their language proficiency and to intensify and update their cultural knowledge? (Allen, 2010, p. 93; see also, Carroll, 1967; Kalivoda, 1977; Phillips, 1991). Over this time, study abroad has evolved from being seen as an educational endeavour  associated with the European ?Grand Tour? to representing a significant element in today?s globalized world where transnational linguistic and cultural experiences are viewed ?as a functionally worthwhile, professionally valid, and academically strong model of education? (Gore, 2005, p. 106). Today we see study abroad as a feature of internationalization, particularly in higher education (Kubota, 2009), in connection with intercultural development (Byram, 2008; A. D. Cohen, Paige, Shively, Emert, & Hoff, 2005; Deardorff, 2004) and cosmopolitanism (Besnier, 2004; Guilherme, 2007). For L2 teachers specifically, language and culture experienced on study abroad remains a salient topic in L2 teacher education, both in terms of preparation (Schulz, 2000; Tedick, 2009) and on-going professional development (Swanson, 2012). As Salvatori (2007) observed in his study with ?non-native speaker teachers? of FSL in Canada: Participants eschewed the traditional after-hours workshop as a model of professional development that would assist them to improve their French language proficiency. 15  Almost every one of the participants indicated that an immersion experience for teachers in which they could focus on using French in an authentic language context would be the most effective means of further developing their language proficiency. Time spent in an authentic target language milieu remains the most popular strategy for the improvement of language proficiency. (Salvatori, 2007, pp. 127-128) As is evident here, study abroad is seen as providing the ideal language learning setting alongside notions of authentic language and the idea of the ?native speaker? as defining the ultimate goal of L2 learning (Frye & Garza, 1992; see also Rissel, 1995). As outlined in the most recent review of the literature (Kinginger, 2009), current research in SA research is moving beyond a strict focus on only language by considering the study abroad setting and the individual participants in relation to what is being learned, as well as the historical and ideological contexts of SA research. In line with developments in applied linguistics, early SA research centered on improvements in L2 proficiency, fluency, and specific second language skills such as listening comprehension, reading, and writing. Later this focus extended to studies examining particular aspects of communicative, discourse, and sociolinguistic competence, including research exploring the impact of study abroad activities and communicative settings on students? language learning. The presently emerging critical orientation is shifting from a view of study abroad as simply another variable in language learning to a focus on the complexity of the SA setting itself (e.g., DuFon & Churchill, 2006; Jackson, 2008), interpreted as a ?complex, dialogic interaction of the natural and social backdrop and the subjectivities of the players? (Kinginger, 2011, p. 626). This is especially relevant in the most recent SA research which considers the intersecting dynamic of language, culture, and identity as documented by students in regards to their interactions with others while abroad. It is this area of SA research with which the present study 16  is most closely affiliated, given its focus on participants? study abroad experiences in terms of the kinds of identity positions negotiated across various social contexts and with reliance on participants? own sociocultural resources.   As noted earlier, SA research specifically about L2 instructors who are ?non-native speakers? of the language they teach remains scant. The dozen or so studies that have been conducted in the past two decades generally involve either institutionally designed/organized SA cohort program initiatives or post-secondary state-funded exchange programs that address individual learning abroad. The latter of these, post-secondary state-funded exchange programs, are prevalent in the European context where a major impetus for study abroad is currently provided by the CEFR, the Council of Europe?s growing conceptual framework for language learning, teaching, and assessment. In embracing concepts such as interculturalism, plurilingualism, and mobility, the framework represents a key component of an emerging ?European identity? (Little, 2002) in which study abroad is increasingly recognized as an integral element of vocational training and general education (Ehrenreich, Woodman, & Perrefort, 2008). One of the largest student exchange organizations, the Socrates/Erasmus Programme, promotes university student mobility in higher education across 36 countries (www.esn.org) and is likely the largest source of current SA research in Europe (Coleman, 2008). This European identity in some respects constitutes an emerging language ideology (Maurer, 2011), a particular understanding about language in Europe which features plurilingualism and multiculturalism as ?European? values representative of a ?new? openness towards linguistic/cultural diversity on that continent (Blommaert & Verschueren, 2002). At the same time, such a discourse is seen to function within an ideological setting that continues to uphold the ?ideal political order of one 17  nation, speaking one language, ruled by one state, within one bounded territory? (Irvine & Gal, 2000, p. 63).     In the European context, SA research about adult sojourners has focused almost exclusively on teaching assistants teaching their first language (L1) in another European country for a year. Typically, these studies have involved participants in post-secondary programs who go on their ?year abroad? to experience the language and culture of the host country, yet without specific career goals related to language teaching (e.g., M?ller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Dithfurth, 2008; Murphy-Lejeune, 2002). For example, Byram & Alred (1992) conducted an interview study of 30 British and French students on a year-abroad in France and England, then followed up a decade and a half later with a retroactive interview study involving 15 of the former students to examine the impact of their experiences abroad on later career choices (Alred & Byram, 2006). The findings of the initial study focused on culture learning and language use in social interactions with an emphasis on mediating intercultural encounters. The follow-up study paid particular attention to how this intercultural learning affected participants? experiences in later life, and the overall impact of the year abroad on participants? decision to enter into the teaching profession or not. A retrospective study (Ehrenreich, 2004) modelled on the Byram and Alred studies and involving 22 EFL student teachers offered similar findings: significant variation among the participants and a noticeable shift in interest from language learning to an engagement in social networks and intercultural negotiations. In sum, these studies have tended to concentrate on issues specifically related to this geographical context ? European experiences of professional and social mobility and the benefits of intercultural and plurilingual learning for (potential) L2 teachers.  18  The present study is therefore more suitably located in the North American context alongside studies investigating experienced L2 teachers on study abroad. In Canada, one documented L2 teacher SA initiative involved a research project connecting Canada and Europe in a collaborative international exchange program with a focus on interdisciplinarity and intercultural learning3 (Bournot-Trites, 2008a; Thomas, Verrier, Beauchamp, & Holgado, 2007). The study was conducted over a two-year period in the early 2000s with 24 teacher education candidates from three European4 and three Canadian universities5. Participants from Canada, including two Spanish teachers and three French teachers, spent four months in Spain and France respectively, teaching in the host country?s national language. Analysis of the questionnaires completed by students and administrators generally presented positive outcomes of the sojourn experience. Student teachers reported improved language performance, greater knowledge of European school systems and pedagogical approaches, an increased awareness of language use in different cultural contexts, and a heightened sense of what it means to be a language teacher in Canada (see Barkhuisen and Feryok, 2006, for similar study of pre-service English teachers from Hong Kong on study abroad in New Zealand). Another Canadian study (Plews, Breckenridge, & Cambre, 2010) investigated the experiences of two in-service English teachers from Mexico who participated in a professional sojourn in Western Canada as Spanish language assistants at two different universities and public schools. This study focused on the challenges of accommodating the multiple aims of international sojourns, which in this case included teaching engagements,                                                  3 This program, known as the Wide Interdisciplinary System in Education or WISE, emphasized student mobility and teacher development and formed part of the Student Mobility Project (SMP) of the Canada-European Community Program for Co-operation in Higher Education.  4 IUFM Champagne-Ardenne,France; Uni Rovira i Virgili Tarragone, Spain; and St. Martin's College/Lancaster University, UK  5 University of British Columbia; Bishop's University; and Universit? de Sherbrooke 19  cultural immersion, language development, professional homestay, and organized interactions with language education professionals. Of particular interest here in relation to my own study is that the researchers found a ?conspicuous? lack of attention to L2 language development in participants? narratives, attributing this to an oversight in the program organized for these two teachers. Although a tension between learning and teaching roles is mentioned in connection with participants? status as in-service teachers, the theme-focused narrative analysis in this study precludes further insights into the issue.  Studies involving experienced teachers studying abroad, and therefore most resembling the BC sojourn to Vichy, include a number of short-term, largely one-off cohort-based programs organized for L2 teachers in the US. Most of these studies constitute or include program evaluations focused largely on French and Spanish teachers? SA experiences (e.g., Bacon, 1995; Thompson, 2002; Walker de F?lix & Cavazos Pe?a, 1992). Unlike the European studies reviewed above, these US studies comprise a much stronger emphasis on language development and typically include quantitative pre- and post-assessments of participants? language proficiency as well as qualitative journal/survey data (e.g., Barfield, 1994; Rissel, 1995). Qualitative data are typically analyzed for prevalent themes which are then variously summarized by the authors as findings and presented with a substantial selection of what appear to be randomly chosen data extracts, which offer little context as to participants? responses and therefore little understanding of the studies? potential implications for future research. These findings tend to highlight first-hand cultural experiences with ?native? French speakers and the acquisition of authentic artifacts as teaching resources, both of which are viewed as resulting in a new ?understanding of what it is to be Fran?ais? and make L2 learning in the home context ?more real? (Allen, 2010, pp. 99-20  100). Language development is discussed in relation to increased confidence and presented in terms of ?improved language skills? and opportunities to ?practice? the language.  One of the earliest of these studies involved a Florida Department of Education program for French and Spanish language teachers conducted between 1990 and 1993 (Bad?a, 1994). The duration of the sojourns ranged from two to four weeks, with program sites located in Quebec and France or in Costa Rica and Spain. The sojourns involved fieldwork as well as classroom time, with quantitative and qualitative analysis of questionnaires, journals, and interviews, as well as external evaluations reportedly showing ?dramatic? gains in language proficiency, cultural knowledge, and teaching strategies. Bad?a?s enthusiastic conclusion about the success of this study abroad program asserts ?renewed confidence and a strong sense of professionalism? among the teachers (p. 134). A later study (Allen, 2010) offers a similar discussion of research findings from 30 American French language teachers at a summer institute in Lyon, France, based on a slightly more extensive research focus. In addition to language expertise and cultural knowledge, Allen?s study examined the impact of study abroad on teachers? curricular choices and instructional practices, as well as the potential for further professional development. An interesting observation made by Allen concerning the sojourn?s reported impact on teacher participants? language expertise pertains to the surprisingly small number of participants who mentioned increased language proficiency in their self-reports. The content analytic approach taken in Allen? study provided no further insight into why so few participants addressed language expertise or language learning, unfortunate because L2 development ranks among the most anticipated benefits of study abroad for L2 teachers, as discussed above. In my own study, I have theorized participants? responses not as reported reflections, but as discourse, an analytic perspective which allows for a unique examination of language expertise (see Chapter 5).  21  Although the research in studies such as Bad?a and Allen, among others, differed slightly given the differences in program content, the value of going abroad for L2 teachers is almost always emphasized, often with authors glossing the projects? successes as an expected outcome study abroad as, for example, in the following:  Within days of their return to Texas the teachers were made aware of their greater proficiency in Spanish. Their families and friends noticed the fluency, the wider vocabulary, and the greater self-confidence they exhibited. The project, therefore, was successful in meeting the established goals. (Walker de F?lix & Cavazos Pe?a, 1992, p. 748)    Given that in many of these studies the authors were sojourn participants themselves or even organizers of the project, ?success stories? like the one above must be read as coming from stakeholders with a considerable interest in the benefits of such an initiative. Here again, the discursive-constructionist (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004) approach I take in the present study, which allows for an interpretation of the data as collaboratively produced between research participants and researcher, has the potential to problematize such findings in view of current critical approaches in SA research.   A final point of concern comes from Biron?s (1998) autobiographic case study, in which the author documents her own learning experiences as a post-secondary L2 Spanish teacher in a Mexican study abroad exchange program. The study is relevant to my own in that the sojourn abroad represented a definitive learning experience rather than merely an authentic setting for language development. Biron?s experiences, which focused entirely on cultural knowledge, were considered in the study in terms of self-directed teacher learning (Bailey et al., 1996; Moran, 1996) and thus constituted a clear example of continued learning/development for L2 teachers  ? 22  an issue which is not a straightforward matter when it comes to the linguistic development of L2 teachers, as discussed below.  In sum, findings of the above-cited US studies generally included unproblematic glossing of improved language skills and the direct linking of language expertise with enhanced teaching abilities. Both the conception of the programs as well as participants? reports display an orientation to ?authentic? language and resources in terms of host families, educators, and residents and artifacts of the so-called ?target? community. This is also evident in participants? explicit and implied references to approximating ?native? or ?native-like? speakers as L2 learners. At the same time, the authors pay little attention to teacher participants? negative experiences or the potential challenges of having to reconcile various kinds of learning activities in terms of linguistic and sociocultural phenomena from a position as teaching professional. In this regard, my own analysis of the data provides a very different insight of the expected positive outcomes of study abroad.   L2 teacher identity The sojourn to Vichy unquestionably constituted a much sought after form of professional development for the teacher participants from British Columbia. It was a learning process that formed an integral part of the sojourners? ongoing development and professional practices as L2 teachers. In present day terms, L2 teacher education no longer only comprises the acquisition of knowledge and skills training to be applied in the classroom ? rather, the context of teaching itself constitutes a process of learning that views professional development in terms of a career trajectory (Freeman, 2009). At the centre of this process of professional learning lies L2 teacher identity (Singh & J.C. Richards, 2006) ? the way in which teachers see themselves 23  and ?how they enact their profession in their settings? (Varghese, 2006, p. 213). Theories of cultural production (Levinson & Holland, 1996), language socialization (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986) and the concept of situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1990) have led to a reconceptualization of L2 teacher education which places identity formation at the center of the learning process. Teacher identity is thus understood more broadly as an ?evolving form of? and not simply as a ?condition for? membership in a professional community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 53). In other words, teacher identity is seen as negotiated in relationships with others in a particular context, and as indexing how one sees others and how one is seen by others in the shared experiences of those negotiated interactions (K. A. Johnson, 2003, p. 788) (see also Clarke, 2008; Varghese, Morgan, Johnston, & Johnson, 2005).  In response to Firth and Wagner?s (1997) call for a greater orientation to social interaction and situated language use in theorizations of language learning (see also Lafford, 2007), an increasing preoccupation with sociocultural and political dimensions in L2 education (e.g., Block, 2003; Kramsch, 1993, 2002; Lantolf, 2000; Norton & Toohey, 2004; Young, 2009), and L2 teaching (e.g., K.E. Johnson, 2009a; K. Richards, 2009) have foregrounded identity as a topic of research (e.g., Norton, 2000; Norton Peirce, 1995), particularly in critical applied linguistics (Pennycook, 2001; see also Block, 2007; Kubota & Lin, 2009; Norton & Toohey, 2011; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004; Varghese et al., 2005). Language learning as a social endeavour contrasts with traditional cognition-based conceptions of learning as autonomous internalization of linguistic knowledge, one which sees ?learner? as the only identity of relevance (Gass, 1998; Ortega, 2012; Zuengler & Miller, 2006). Alternatively, understanding language learning as ?located in activity? (K. E. Johnson, 2009b, p. 25) constructs language learners as active users of the language who are in the process of being socialized into the practices of a 24  particular sociocultural setting, a view which takes into account the many other potentially relevant social identities of those learning to speak an additional language (e.g., Kramsch & Whiteside, 2007). Such a perspective of language learning and learners also means that L2 teachers must now focus on the processes that enable L2 learners to use certain resources to make meaning in order to successfully participate and interact with others in particular contexts. These reconceptualizations of L2 teacher education, language learning and learner/teacher identity over the past few decades fall within the larger context of the ?linguistic turn? (Mart?n Rojo, 2001), with an increasing focus on discourse and the ways in which language is used in the construction of representations of the self. The present study brings these reconceptualizations together by taking a discursive-constructionist approach to investigate L2 teacher identity. In the following section I review the research literature relating specifically to L2 teacher identity, with an emphasis on teachers who teach their L2, given that three quarters of the BC teachers who participated in the Vichy sojourn were L2 speakers of French. The notion of the ?native speaker? construct therefore figures prominently as a frame for this discussion. Although the present study is concerned with the identities of already practicing L2 teachers, teaching as ?practice? (Britzman, 2003) means that identity constitutes an ongoing process of signification and identification (Dervin, 2011). Accordingly, research pertaining to both apprenticing and experienced teachers is reviewed in the following sections.   The ?native speaker? One of the most prominently discussed identities in the research literature about language teaching is the construct of the so-called ?non-native speaker teacher? (NNST). This is not surprising given that the majority of L2 teachers teach a language they themselves have learned 25  as an additional language. Ostensibly derived from the ?native speaker? (NS) category, the NNST has received much attention in SLA and L2 teacher education over the past two decades (e.g., Braine, 1999; Johnston, 1999; Tang, 1997). Current studies investigating the realities of NNSTs represent a well-established area of research, with prominence given to English language teaching (e.g., Braine, 2010; Kamhi-Stein, 2004; Llurda, 2005; Moussu & Llurda, 2008). More than anything, the continuing growth of this scholarship points to persistent language ideologies about the value of the ?native speaker? in L2 learning (e.g., Gass, Mackey, & Pica, 1998) and teaching (Moussu & Llurda, 2008), despite the highly disputed use of the ?NS? construct and the view that it merely points to the reproduction of unequal power relations (Menard-Warwick, 2005). ?Native speakerness? typically refers to the usage of a ?standard? language variety associated with a homogenous group of monolingual speakers representative of educated, middle-class mainstream society (Widdowson, 1994). Commonly associated with Chomsky?s (1965) notion of the ideal speaker-hearer and associated with Western notions of schooling (Rajagopalan, 2005; Train, 2007a), the ?native speaker? norm became the accepted standard in cognitivist-based SLA (Bhatt, 2002) in conjunction with the expansion of communicative language teaching (CLT) and a growing emphasis on oral competence and sociolinguistic knowledge (Kramsch, 1997; Mahboob, 2010b; Phillipson, 1992b). Early orientations in SLA to acculturationist and assimilationist models of L2 learning posited ?optimal models? (Ricento, 2005, p. 898) of identification as a measure of learners? ability (or failure) to achieve ?nativelike? fluency. Despite the enthusiastic proclamation twenty years ago that ?[t]he native speaker is dead!? (Paikeday, 1985) and ongoing efforts in applied linguistics to challenge this construct (e.g., Bhatt, 2002; Braine, 1999; Canagarajah, 1999; Kachru, 1992; Mahboob, 2010b; 26  Phillipson, 1992b), the notion of an idealised standard persists in conceptions of language competence and use, whether as a birthright (Rampton, 1990), a theoretical convenience (Chomsky, 1965; Cook, 1999; A. Davies, 1991; Halliday, 1985), or as a standard of lexical and grammatical accuracy (Kramsch, 1986). With regard to English specifically, the ?NS/NNS? opposition has been used to categorize its many varieties around the world in terms of an Inner/Outer Circle dichotomy (Kachru, 1985, 1997). The Inner Circle comprises ?mother tongue? (i.e., ?native speaker?) varieties of English such as are found in Britain, North America, and Australia. Outer Circle groups together ?non-native? English varieties that function as ?sublanguages? in institutional contexts and have to some extent become ?nativized? alongside other languages, typically in countries previously colonized by the British (e.g., India) (1986, p. 19). English as a foreign language is associated with a third area, the ?Expanding Circle.?   Among the various critiques contesting the validity of the ?native speaker? construct, many point to the concept as representing ?a political rather than a linguistic label? (Murphy-O'Dwyer, 1996, p. 21), with the ?notion of native and non-native  speakers...interwoven with issues of race and ethnicity? (Pennycook, 1999, p. 333). Similarly, specifically in terms of identity, the notion of ?native speakerness? is considered to represent not a linguistic construct but a (self-)ascribed, socially constructed identity (Brutt-Griffler & Samimy, 2001) ?based on cultural assumptions of who conforms to the preconceived notion of a NS? (1999, p. 416). The ability to ascribe the ?NS? category (to oneself or others) depends on one?s (self-)perceived proximity to the ?NS? standard at a given time, and for this reason is not seen as ?a generalizable phenomenon? (Inbar-Lourie, 2005, p. 279), but a relational one; perceived ?native speaker? identity is said to be ?the product of the interaction between the judge and the person being judged and the relevant knowledge that both parties bring to the joint encounter? (p. 279). This 27  constructionist understanding of the ?native speaker? highlights the situatedness and relational character of such an identification, and is therefore particularly relevant for examining a categorization of ?non-native speaker? from a discourse perspective. For the L2 teachers in the present study, the ?native speaker? category is closely associated with language expertise and, by extension, teachers? legitimacy as FSL language professionals (see also Medgyes, 1994; Reves & Medgyes, 1994). Examining accounts of confidence in terms of language expertise therefore has the potential to provide significant insights into L2 teacher identity construction as it relates to conceptions of authenticity associated with the ?native speaker? construct.   Another common means of challenging the NS construct is to move beyond the ?NS/NNS? and Inner/Outer Circle dichotomies by proposing alternative conceptualizations, such as the notion of language ?ownership,? for example (A. Davies, 2003). Higgins (2003), following Norton (1997), views ?taking ownership? as offering speakers a sense of legitimacy as rightful, authoritative users of the language, with access to ?the material and symbolic resources associated with knowing the language? (p. 617; see also Kramsch, 1996, 1997). Again others have rejected the ?NS? concept outright, offering a historically-based definition of the construct related to linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992b) and colonialism (Pennycook, 1998). Similarly, Nayar (1994) has characterized the ?native/non-native speaker? dichotomy as a mythical notion and offered a list of linguistic and non-linguistic features to critically dismiss the ?native speaker? construct. Meanwhile Train (2007a) has pointed out that the notion of ?ideal? language competence not only implicates language itself, but involves a context of standardization in which standardized language associated with the ?native speaker? concept defines ?what counts as ?a? or ?the? language, and profoundly shapes the discursive practices 28  surrounding that constructed idea of language and speakers in a given sociocultural context? (p. 244).   The ?native speaker teacher? and ?non-native speaker teacher?  In L2 teacher education research many scholars have sought to justify the ?native speaker? construct by emphasizing the advantages of either side of the ?native/non-native speaker? dichotomy (?rva & Medgyes, 2000; Barratt & Kontra, 2000; Medgyes, 1992, 1994). Others have downplayed the distinction between the two groups or simply focused on valued qualities of ?non-native speaker? teachers. Davies, for example, outlines various ?native speaker? characteristics based on linguistic, psycholinguistic, and socio-linguistic perspectives to challenge the ?exclusivity? of this idealized standard for teachers,  arguing that the ?skills and knowledge possessed by the native speaker are ?attainable by non-native speakers? (2003, p. 8). Alternatively, a considerable amount of research continues to focus specifically on the advantages of the NNST (e.g., Mahboob, 2010b). Many researchers, for example, report that L2 teachers? own language-learning experiences form an integral element of their teaching practices (e.g., Braine, 2010; Moussu & Llurda, 2008; Tatar & Yildiz, 2010) by providing ?a privileged understanding of the problems and weaknesses of their students? (Tang, 1997, p. 578). Such experiences appear to be particularly valued when it comes to boosting teachers? confidence levels as a way to counter shortcomings of language expertise, both (self)-perceived (Golombek & Jordan, 2005; Seidlhofer, 1999) and as expressed by administrators and students (Moussu, 2006). Alternatively, instead of an emphasis on the NST/NNST dichotomy, other scholars have advocated for bridging the divide, calling for collaboration between ?native? and ?non-native? 29  L2 teachers as a way to benefit from the strengths of each type of teacher in a holistic manner (Matsuda & Matsuda, 2001).  When the ?native speaker? concept is considered in terms of ?correct usage,? notions of linguistic authenticity and professional legitimacy/authority are foregrounded. According to Widdowson (1994), the concept of authentic language privileges ?native speaker teachers? as the only ones with access to ?the proper language for learning? (p. 387). While many researchers would agree that ?native speaker? status is not indicative of ?good? teaching (e.g., Pasternak & Bailey, 2004), expert language use is commonly viewed as resulting in effective L2 teaching. Furthermore, notions of authenticity associated with a ?native speaker? standard highlight the assumption that language development  depends on access to ?authentic? language, speakers, and immersive settings. Carr?s study with Canadian generalist FSL teachers who teach French in addition to other school subjects demonstrated that those with very little oral French expertise tended to focus on songs and poetry as the ?most authentic forms of language use? in order to negotiate increased confidence in their teaching of FSL (Carr, 1999, p. 173). Similarly, Salvatori has suggested that interacting ?with native and expert speakers in authentic target language situations? affords a means of ?instilling confidence in the NNS teacher,? based on his study with Canadian ?NNS? FSL teacher (2007, pp. 170-171). Such conceptions of authenticity directly associated with a ?native speaker? standard were prominently represented by the participants in my own study.  ? propos language expertise Notions of authenticity in association with the ?native speaker? construct underpin the view that language expertise is ?of concern to most language teachers? (Murdoch, 1994, p. 254) 30  ? a prevalent issue in L2 teaching research, particularly for ?non-native speaker teachers? for whom language development is portrayed as an essential component of L2 teacher training and development (e.g., Barnes, 2002; Bayliss & Vignola, 2007; Berry, 1990; Hiver, 2013; Kamhi-Stein, 1999; Lange, 1990; Lavender, 2002; McDonald & Kasule, 2005; Veilleux & Bournot-Trites, 2005). Particularly in the Outer/Expanding Circle, language development has been characterized as ?the bedrock of ...professional confidence? for ?non-native speaker teachers? of English (Murdoch, 1994, p. 254). Interestingly, this attention to improving L2 teachers? language skills has been frequently articulated in the research literature with reference to ?classroom language? (e.g., R. K. Johnson, 1990), in a sense, establishing two ?versions? of language learning ? one for L2 learners and one for L2 teachers (i.e., former L2 learners). An emphasis on language expertise in terms of ?classroom language? is presented as a response to the increased demand for ?natural? or ?authentic? language in the CLT classroom (Cullen, 1994), as a means of improving L2 teachers? ability to engage in ?realistic and spontaneous classroom interaction? (2002, p. 220). Addressing L2 teachers? ?language proficiency? in terms of specifically ?classroom language? constructs this form of language development as a purely professional endeavour. Such a move could be interpreted as possibly signaling a sense of trepidation around the notion of language learning as an acceptable element of L2 teachers? professional identity ? a central issue in the present study as elaborated in Chapter 5.  While some researchers explicitly acknowledge that L2 teachers are ?language learners as well as...language teachers? (Brogden & Page, 2008, p. 126), other studies investigating L2 teacher language proficiency with regard to confidence point to a tension when it comes to reconciling L2 learning with L2 teaching. For example, Bayliss and Vignola?s study about French language proficiency levels among FSL teacher candidates in Canada report participants? 31  asserting  ?adequate L2 skills for their profession? with only ?certain aspects? needing improvement (2007, p. 386). The authors attributed their participants? display of confidence to successfully passing the French language admission test. However, one might also interpret this show of confidence as an effective means of constructing an identity as competent FSL teacher-to-be. With regard to transitioning from L2 learner to L2 teacher, the authors described participants? level of confidence as ?precarious, ? noting that, although participants were ?willing to accept criticism of their language skills? from associate teachers, they were ?not entirely comfortable with it? (p. 387). In this case we might interpret criticism of teachers? language expertise as a direct challenge to the FSL candidates? projected identity as FSL teachers. A similar situation was, in fact, observed by Salvatori (2007) in his study examining Canadian ?non-native? FSL teacher?s self-perceived linguistic identity, only in this case in terms of teachers? maintenance of French language proficiency and its effects on their teaching practices. To establish FSL teachers? self-perceived level of French, Salvatori asked his participants to ?identify their degree of confidence? when undertaking a number of teacher-related activities and interacting with other students and colleagues in French (p. 93). According to Salvatori, the teacher participants reported feelings of insecurity when perceiving to be judged by more proficient speakers, with the judging itself ?often construed as a questioning of the credibility of the NNS teacher's status as an FSL teacher? (p. 152). Interestingly, the language expertise/confidence connection typically associated with L2 learners is presented by Salvatori as conflicting with participants? sense of legitimacy as teachers of French, even as they were negotiating their ongoing L2 development in that language. Of significant interest in this regard is a study by Johnson (K. A. Johnson, 2001; see also Varghese et al., 2005) which investigates the L2 teacher identity of a ?non-native? English 32  language teacher candidate enrolled in a M.A. TESOL program in the United States. Drawing on social identity theory (Tajfel, 1974) the study focused specifically on the tension that was generated as the candidate?s attempted to reconcile her ?conflicting? L2 learner/teacher identities. According to the author, the candidate?s concerns with language expertise was ?troublesome? for the mentor-teacher overseeing the teaching practicum ? the mentor was able to accept the emerging ESL teacher identity but struggled with the candidate?s ?concurrent self-identification as ESL student? (p. 26). The idea that language knowledge should not be an issue for the L2 teacher is similarly implied in the candidate?s own observation: ?I?m an ESL teacher, I should know, shouldn?t I?? Conclusions drawn from this study attribute the candidate?s ?nervousness? to the typically marginalized position of the ?non-native speaker? status in L2 education. As will be demonstrated in Chapter 5, the tension manifested by the teacher candidate in Johnson?s study is also evident in the responses of my own participants. While I, too, examine L2 learning and teaching in terms of ?native speaker? ideologies, the focus in my study is on the discursive construction of L2 teacher identity from a participant-relevant perspective ? not as an externally ascribed social category but as an interactionally constructed identity category that makes evident various ?native speaker? ideologies at play.    Challenging the ?native speaker?  Ultimately, then, the NS construct serves to position ?non-native speaker teachers? specifically in relation to ?native speaker teachers,? that is, in the subordinate category of ?defective communicator,?  at the expense of all other social identities (Firth & Wagner, 1997; J. K. Hall, 1995). At the same time, there is evidence in the research literature that apprenticing L2 teachers find ways of resisting or challenging ?native speaker? ideologies as a means of 33  legitimating a position as ?authentic? L2 teacher. This is also evident in studies using narrative inquiry as a form of action research to generate critical language awareness among ?non-native speaker teachers? in order to address issues of L2 teaching in relation to ?NNSTs? as a disempowered, marginalized subgroup (e.g., Brutt-Griffler & Samimy, 1999; Chac?n, 2009; Rajagopalan, 2005), often with a focus on racial identities (e.g., Amin, 1997). A key consideration in these studies is the notion of resistance as a means of countering ?native speaker? ideologies by creating awareness among participants that such ideologies entrench L2 teacher identity in a restricted conception of legitimate language. At the same time, alternative conceptions of language use and L2 teaching offer participants a space in which to move beyond or directly challenge the constraints of ?native speaker? discourses.  One example is Pavlenko's (2003) study of L2 speaking English teachers which demonstrated the effects of a ?non-native? categorization on teacher identity and on the professional choices available for L2 teachers. The study illustrated how labels such as ?non-native speaker? (or ?L2 learner?) function as potential gatekeepers that can restrict a language user?s membership into a particular ?imagined? community of practice (Norton, 2000). In Pavlenko?s study, most of the apprenticing and experienced teachers who used English as an additional language were unable to identify as members of the imagined community of English speaker teachers, given the discursive constraints of an identity categorization based on the ?native/non-native? dichotomy. A new awareness of differing understandings of L2 speaker incorporating conceptions of bilingualism and multicompetence allowed participants to take up alternative identities to ?non-native? speaker. Positioning themselves within a re-imagined community of multilingual, multicompetent speakers allowed these teacher participants to see themselves and be seen as competent future English language teachers instead of as ?failed? 34  ?non-native? speakers. Golombek and Jordan (2005) present a similar study in which two L2 English student teachers in a Masters TESOL program challenge native-speaker discourses with a focus on multicompetence. Meanwhile Faez ( 2007), who investigated self-perceived linguistic identities of English language teacher candidates in Canada, offers a series of identity category labels as alternatives to the simplistic NST/NNST dichotomy (English dominant, L1 dominant, bilingual, second generation English speaker, English variety speaker, and so on). In the present study, one of my focal participants makes evident a similar process in the form of ?authentication? (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005), also as a means of reconceptualizing and/or subverting standardizing language ideologies.  With respect to methodology, as with the SA research reviewed earlier in the chapter, most of the studies addressing L2 teacher identity involve some form of content analysis (coding of patterns, Grounded Theory, category comparisons), in some cases without direct mention of how the data were analysed. While teacher identity has been examined as discursively constructed in terms of larger discourses and ideologies (e.g., Britzman, 1994) and as produced in interaction (e.g., G. C. Johnson, 2006), only one other study offers a discourse perspective on specifically L2 teacher identity construction ? the pragmatic occasioning of ?native speakerhood as an idealized abstraction? (Nao, 2011). As alluded to throughout this review of the literature, my decision to also focus on discourse as the basis for identity construction provides significant new insights about L2 teacher identity, particularly with regard to both the persistence and pervasiveness of ?the native speaker fallacy? (Mahboob, 2010b) in L2 education.      Particularly significant for the present study is that the research investigating L2 teacher identity, specifically ?non-native speaker teacher? identity, makes relevant a taken-for-granted association between language expertise and confidence. In most studies, language expertise is 35  commonly expressed in terms of increased confidence and, in the process, often becomes directly associated (at times even conflated with) teaching expertise. In other words, ?being confident? about one?s language expertise is equated with ?being confident? as L2 teacher. In much of this research, then, confidence functions as a ?natural? indicator of language expertise ? even if not explicitly addressed as such. Only seldom is the relationship between the two directly considered as, for example, in the following:   ...what really counts when it comes to assessing a teacher's self-confidence is not necessarily their actual, publicly attestable knowledge of the language, but rather the way they perceive themselves and rate their own fluency. (Rajagopalan, 2005, p. 290; see also Berry, 1990) In some cases this relationship is presented with confidence not merely reflecting language competence but ?potentially impacting [L2 teachers?] self-perceived level of proficiency? (Faez, 2007, p. 96; see also Salvatori, 2007). A more detailed discussion of confidence vis-?-vis language expertise follows in Chapter 5 as analytical framing for the analysis represented there.  ?Francophone?  In this section I address the concept of ?francophone? identity, not only as a ?native speaker? construct but also with regard to its historical and sociopolitical construction in an officially bilingual context. In studies conducted Canada, L2 teacher identity has been addressed in terms of a national/multicultural identity (Byrd Clark, 2008) and with reference to a francophone identity (Brogden, 2009), yet without specific elaboration of FSL teacher identity. As seen from the above discussion of L2 teacher identity, the ?native speaker? concept also figures prominently in FSL teacher research undertaken in Canada. In French the term ?native 36  speaker? is commonly translated as ?locuteur natif,? but can to some extent be equated with the label ?francophone? with reference to someone who is a ?native speaker? of French. At the same time, given the complex political history of French in Canada, the label ?francophone? carries an additional load of historically constituted meanings within the Canadian context. These meanings are tied into ethnocultural and national understandings of French Canadian identity as well as language ideologies of linguistic isolationism/purism (Bucholtz, 2003), both of which are evident in the data generated for this study. In this section, I therefore offer a discussion of French in Canada6 as well as in relation to the French spoken in France (European French) in order to provide a frame for the analytic work in subsequent chapters.    Inside Quebec  In Canada, French has always been a fundamental source of identity for French Canadians as descendants of 17th and 18th century French settlers of New France ? initially as an ethnic collectivity of colonials and later as a means of mobilizing a shift to territorial nationalism in its more recent history (Heller, 1999b, 2011). Canadian francophones have relied on their language as a means of ensuring cultural and linguistic survival in an English-dominant environment. Language ideologies of linguistic purism have been crucial in orchestrating this protectionism, not only against the anglicization of the French language but also against cultural and social assimilation, as a way of resisting the political and economic control of the English-speaking majority. Historically, then, social relations between the two groups were built along linguistic lines (McRoberts, 1997), with ethno-national labels such as ?francophone? and ?anglophone? functioning as social categories that served to construct hierarchical class relations                                                  6 I refer to French in Canada or Canadian French not as a single variety but as comprising the many varieties of Quebecois French and those spoken in other parts of Canada, historically and today.  37  between the English-speaking elite and the marginalized francophone minority (Heller, 2011). In the 20th century, monolingualism played an important role in nationalist discourse within Quebec society, ultimately leading to greater political power for francophone Quebecers and the elevation of French to a language of equal socioeconomic power (Fraser, 2006; Hayday, 2005; Heller, 1999b). In the early part this century, francophone mobilization efforts promoted monolingual use of French as the moral social order of French Canadian society, meaning that ?to be francophone was to seek to live in a monolingual world? (Heller, 2011, p. 61). 7 Since the 1970s, provincial language policy in Quebec and the creation of the Office de la langue fran?aise have served as an important strategy in maintaining francophone political and socioeconomic control in that province, ensuring use of French in not only the public but also the private sector. Heller has described Canadian francophone identity as laying the groundwork for a modernist discourse, one in which language is seen as a central means of nation-building. According to this discourse, the only way francophones can successfully participate in the modern world as equals is ?if they can fall back on institutions that are monolingual and belong to them? (2001, p. 384). As noted by Heller, conceptions of francophone identity in present day Quebec are certainly ?consistent with modern liberal democracies? in that they ?foreground language as a means to build participation in the nation-state, on the grounds that anyone can learn a language? (Heller, 2011, p. 71). The sense of inclusiveness expressed here stands in obvious contrast to earlier understandings of French Canadian identity based on ethnicity and religion, and yet the notion of authenticity associated with ?francophoness? clearly points to implicit exclusionary practices of ethno-national differentiation (Haque, 2012). For Heller this authenticity is evident in the commodification of French Canadian language and culture in a globalized market. In my own                                                  7 For example, the Ordre de Jacques Cartier, a Catholic-affiliated male-only secret society of educated francophones in Central and Eastern Canada active from 1926 until 1965 promoting a strong French Canadian identity and supporting the political mobilization of francophones in Canada (Heller, 2011)  38  study, I examine notions of ?authentic? Frenchness (Coffey, 2010) as highlighted in participants? identity constructions through a process of authentication (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005) in which Canadian French both converges and is contrasted with the French from France.   Interwoven with the notion of French as central to francophone identity in Canada is a century-old preoccupation with the quality of Canadian or Quebecois French vis-?-vis the French spoken in France. The ongoing ?revalorisation? of Canadian French ? its enhancement in terms of prestige ? manifests itself in the efforts of Quebec?s Office de la language fran?aise to promote extensive and correct usage of both spoken and written Quebecois French (Levine, 2010). These efforts are a response to a past which saw the French spoken in Canada constructed as an outdated, ?bastardized? language (Lappin, 1982). Pejorative attitudes towards Canadian French contributing to the deterioration of the language date to eighteenth century historical texts (newspaper articles, personal accounts, government and court documents) (Bouchard, 2002; No?l, 1990). In these texts, the perceived ?decline? of the quality of French was largely voiced by the French Canadian educated elite which saw the ?anglicization? of French in Canada as threatening the collective rights of the French Canadian people. Losing French meant losing the prestige associated with France?s glorified past, ultimately reducing the French Canadian people to ?un petit peuple pauvre, isol?, domin? et vou? ? l'extinction? (a small, poor people, isolated, dominated and destined for extinction) (Bouchard, 2002, p. 92). At the same time, the language spoken by the rural population, the ?paysans,? was seen to represent the authentic language of the past ? the language of seventeenth century France, le grand si?cle, and therefore a language untainted by the dominance of English Canada. According to this view, it was better to be speakers of a ?pure? form of French rather than of a corrupted, modern version.  39   At the same time, not only the pervasive ?anglicismes? but also the presence of ?archa?smes? (archaic language) was viewed as detrimental to the quality of Canadian French, prompting calls for the adoption and use of modern French based on the normative standard evolving in Europe. In France, the standardization of French by sixteenth and seventeenth century grammarians under the auspice of the Acad?mie Fran?aise extended into post-Revolutionary France. A late-nineteenth century popularized English language publication characterizing Canadian French as backward and outdated underwrote the perception among largely anglophone Canadians that French in Canada amounted to merely a patois, further contributing to the caricature of its speakers as ?illettr?, pauvre, simple? (illiterate, poor, and simple-minded) (Bouchard, 2002, p. 97).   The tension between the desire to cling to a venerated historical era and the need to defend one?s language against the power of the English persisted into the twentieth century. Francophones continued to see the ?patois?-classification of their language as a fundamental threat to French Canadian identity and to their survival as a linguistic minority in North America. As summarized by Bouchard:    S?ils ne parlent qu'un patois, il ne vaut plus la peine de se battre pour conserver ce qui les d?classe, leur langue ne m?rite alors aucun statut officiel, elle ne m?rite pas d'?tre enseign?e ni perp?tu?e. (Bouchard, 2002, p. 101)  Despite increasing bilingualism, especially among working class francophones in urban areas who began to see the socio-economic benefits of English, monolingualism was viewed as the only means of defending and protecting the identity of French Canadians and thereby their rights as a people. Consequently, we see the ?refrancisation? of French Canadian society initiated at the beginning of the twentieth century as part of francophone political mobilization in Canada, with 40  a focus on the revitalization of French and efforts to reassert its value as a legitimate language. By the 1960s an inquiry into the ?degenerated? status of French in Canada became part of the mandate of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (Royal Commission, 1967) and was subsequently addressed in Quebec?s language policy, Law 101, which substantially limited the use and visibility of English in favour of French in that province. The latest instantiation of that law in 2012, Bill 14, sets out further restrictions in terms of access to English language education for francophone and allophone8 students in Quebec. Over the past fifty years several quantitative studies have examined perceptions and attitudes among francophone, anglophone, and more recently also allophone speakers in Quebec towards spoken Quebecois French as compared to European French (e.g., Genesee & Holobow, 1989; Kircher, 2012; Lambert, Hodgson, Gardner, & Fillenbaum, 1960). Although perceptions towards Quebecois varieties have become increasingly more favourable, the most recent survey showed no significant increase in positive attitudes towards the status of French in Quebec as compared to two decades ago, pointing to the ?persistence of the monocentric ideology surrounding the French language? (Kircher, 2012, p. 365).   In Canada, then, francophone identity is not only directly linked to the French language, but also predicated on a certain quality of that language (Heller, 1994), with ideologies of monolingualism and purism generating a notion of French as both protected from extinction and as untainted (i.e. as ?authentic?). Authenticity of French in Canada rests on the paradoxical orientation to both the idealized standard of European French and insistence on a legitimate, local French Canadian standard variety. This tension plays itself out on the North American continent with publications of a standard Quebecois dictionary (Guillot, 1999), progressive                                                  8According to Mady (2007), allophones are students who have arrived in Canada during their elementary or secondary school careers and are learners of English and/or French as an additional language.  41  spelling reforms as compared to France, and the use of feminine equivalents for the names of professions which continue to be rejected by the Academie Fran?aise (Dawes, 2003). The tension is also directly evident in ongoing debates about which variety (European French or standard Quebecois9) should serve as the model of reference for French speakers in Canada (Kircher, 2012). In addition to the experiences documented by my participants, my own experiences as sojourn participant and researcher in France, certainly can attest to European perspectives of Quebecois French as merely a humorous diversion or a quaint artifact ? that is, as a language variety that doesn?t amount to ?real? French nor is suitable for L2 learners of French.  In the ROC (Rest of Canada) The ?French fact? in Canada is also evident in discourses that circulate outside Quebec in the rest of Canada. Dallaire and Denis (2000) have attributed the term ?francophone? to a national discourse within Canada which has contributed to the formation of this concept as defined within both a linguistic and cultural discourse. The linguistic discourse, primarily centered on French language proficiency, promotes the idea that both francophone and non-francophone speakers have access to French language activities or institutions based on their ability to understand and express themselves in French. According to Dallaire and Denis, this linguistic discourse ?opens the boundaries of the francophone community and offers a broad, multicultural definition of the term francophone? (p. 424). The notion of inclusiveness discussed earlier is thus constructed as extending to non-francophone regions of Canada by including both ?francophone? and ?francophile? identities (the latter refers to impassioned ?non-native? French speakers and devotees of everything French), without attending to the power differential between                                                  9 European French refers to the standard in France commonly associated with the French spoken in the region of Paris, ?le de France. Standard Quebecois French is typically seen as representative of educated, middle-class francophone speakers of the Montreal region (Genesee & Holobow, 1989).  42  these two categories constructed on notions of ?natural? versus ?learned? language expertise. An important related concept to the notion of inclusiveness is that of la francophonie (the French-speaking world), French as lingua franca which comprises a range of culturally different societies, all of which share French as a common language (St-Hilaire, 1997). The notion of international or world French ? although often still predicated on monolingual francophone spaces promoting standard French ? is legitimated through ?authenticating? local features of the regional French-speaking community (Heller, 1999a, p. 338), in this way, contributing to a sense of French as ?plural? (Fagyal, Kibbee, & Jenkins, 2006).  The cultural discourse, conversely, relates ?francophone? to an ?authentic? cultural heritage, (e.g., French-Canadian, Quebecer, Acadian) in much the same way that the English ?native speaker? identity indexes ethnic or racial belonging in a particular linguistic community. The cultural identity of ?francophone? thus attributes ownership of French to only ?native speakers? of the language and thereby excludes those who speak French as an additional language. In other words, the first, more inclusive ?linguistic? construction of the term ?competes with the assumption that those whose mother tongue is French have a stronger claim to francophone identity? (Dallaire & Denis, 2000, p. 428). Similar to the ?native speaker? construct, then, francophone not only references a linguistic identity but constitutes a socio-historically constructed cultural identity which is fundamentally grounded in a notion of ethnic or racial authenticity.   In sum, francophone identity in Canada has to do with the construction of discursive spaces in which ideologies of purism and authenticity, national emancipation, as well as standardization and modernization operate (Heller & Labrie, 2003). On the one hand, French in Canada is tied into a purist language ideology grounded in Herderian notions of language as ?the 43  soul? of the nation. Maintenance of French in Canada protects both francophone culture and francophone identity. Insistence on a strong regional language variety (Canadian French or Qu?b?cois French) has allowed francophones to establish themselves as distinct from France and to simultaneously carve out their own place and participation in a globalized world (Heller, 1994). On the other hand, ideologies of French as a monocentric language, its idealized standard represented in terms of ?le bon usage? 10 specifically vis-?-vis European French, continue to underscore the difficult past of French in Canada and the continuing struggle to see Quebecois French (or any other French Canadian variety) validated as equal to the French in France.  Conclusion  The BC teachers? professional development sojourn to France brings together a series of interrelated themes ? teacher study abroad, the ?non-native speaker teacher? identity in L2 education, and notions of French and francophoness ? all of which provide a context that informs my participants? identity construction as FSL teachers within this research project. L2 teacher professional development comprises various forms of teacher development for both apprenticing and experienced teachers (J.C. Richards & Farrell, 2005) ? reflective teaching (J.C. Richards & Lockhart, 1996), portfolios (Davis & Osborn, 2003), and narrative inquiry (K. E. Johnson & Golombek, 2002). In view of the study?s research focus on FSL teacher professional identity, the topic of professional development plays a key role in this study in that the sojourn constitutes an intended learning experience for my participants. The way in which this learning was ultimately taken up by the participants is informed by their interpretation of what it means to be an FSL                                                  10 The construct of le bon usage originated with the seventeenth century grammarian Vaugelas and is generally understood to be representative of the French used by ?la classe cultiv?e de Paris ? une ?poque donn?e? (the cultivated/educated class of Paris at a particular time period), based here on the definition by French linguist Albert Dauzat (Hatzfeld, 1962, p. 40). 44  teacher. Investment in ongoing teacher development is closely connected to issues of language expertise and perceived legitimacy as French language teacher and in this way informs participants? decisions to take part in professional activities and to see themselves as legitimate members of the larger community of FSL teachers (see Karin in Chapter 6). Consequently, the relevance of L2 teacher PD in this study applies in particular to the implication of the study?s findings ? how continued learning, specifically language learning, conceptions of language expertise and ?being confident? fit into the identity construction of FSL teacher.    45  CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMING  [T]he endorsement of one sort of action or activity over another implicitly attributes authenticity to one while denying it to others. It runs the risk of assuming that some sort of actions are ?natural? whereas others are ?contrived.?                                                                                           (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996, p. 117)   Introduction Our participation in everyday life and our interactions with one another as social beings are rooted in our ability to make meaning in and of the world. Our engagement with language lies at the basis of this meaning-making process and is inextricably linked to knowledge or knowing, and to our understanding of how we come to know what we know. A view of language as social practice requires that we conceive of learning and teaching as social action in which knowledge and expertise are collaboratively constructed through our interactions with one another. It is in these interactions that we construct conceptions about what it means to be authentic, or competent or expert, and therefore legitimate, and it is here that we fashion our identities amid the relationships we form with fellow practitioners within our communities of practice, both shaped by and shaping the practices and resources afforded by the larger social world.  In this chapter I present the theoretical framing of the study. In so doing, I outline a social practice approach for an understanding of language and culture, and the intersection of these in the formation of identity that is accomplished through processes of authentication. I begin with some fundamental principles of practice theory and the interplay between structure and agency, and how this informs my understanding of language and culture as action. I then discuss authenticity, first in terms of prevailing conceptions of the concept as ideology, followed by a review of some of the language ideologies relevant to this study, and finally in terms of a process 46  in which authenticity is considered as an achievement as opposed to as an inherent, pre-existing, quality. From this follows my conception of identity and its construction in discourse. I conclude the chapter with a brief sketch of the relationship between authenticity and identity.   Practice theory This study adopts a social constructionist framework that articulates with the fundamental premise of practice theory, namely that language and culture constitute social action, one result of which is the construction of identity. Practice theory places action (and by extension power) at the centre of analysis, with action inextricably linked to both social structure and individual agents. Practice is understood as human activity ? activity that is never neutral but always characterized by asymmetry, inequality, and domination in its particular historical and cultural setting (Ortner, 1989). In this sense, then, practice can be understood as ?the construction and reflection of social realities through actions that invoke identity, ideology, belief, and power? (Young, 2009, p. 37). Moreover, this activity is articulated and defined by individuals, not with reference to actors alone but always in relation to structure. As part of the foundational work of practice theory (Bourdieu, 1977b; Giddens, 1979, 1984), Giddens? structuration theory proposes a recursive relationship between structure and practice in which social structure is produced and reinforced by people?s concrete actions and, at the same time, shapes those actions. Bourdieu also offers a dynamic perspective of structure with his concepts of habitus and field. Habitus is a structure that comprises an individual?s dispositions, the way an individual is predisposed or inclined to act in a particular social field or context. The habitus is shaped by a person?s past and present experiences and conditions and, at the same time, structures or shapes a person?s actions. In that sense habitus is a structure that is both structured and structuring (Grenfell, 2008).  47  Structure is therefore central to the analysis of practice, since practice ?emerges from structure, it reproduces structure, and it has the capacity to transform structure? (Ortner, 1989, p. 12). An analysis of practice examines the underlying principles of people?s action ? the relationship between structure and individual agency. It asks, what makes people act the way they do? In the present study, it considers what makes participants construct particular kinds of identities as FSL teachers in Canada. The emphasis on social action is an attempt to move beyond a deterministic notion of social structure or culture (e.g., in the sense of rules that are intentionally followed), as well as the idea that human action is based solely on free will (Ahearn, 2001; Ortner, 1989).   Echoing Giddens, Wenger (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) conceptualizes the structure/agency relationship in terms of the (re)production of institutional practices as (re)negotiated meaning. Within their daily practices, individuals engage with one another in the mutual negotiation of meaning, a productive process that is at once ?historical and dynamic? and ?contextual and unique,? and which continually leads to new ?circumstances for further negotiation and further meanings? (Wenger, 1998, p. 54). This process of negotiation involves the working duality of participation (the mutually recognized individual engagement in a social endeavor) and reification (the process by which experience is abstracted and given a particular form by way of a policy or concept). The interplay of participation and reification constitutes our ?experience of meaning? in everyday life: what we say and do, how and with whom we speak and (inter)act, and how we see ourselves. Meaning is then not a given entity, either in the world or in our heads, but is created in and through our actions. We are engaged in the ?doing? or ?practice? of meaning-making, which in turn, conceives of individuals as agentive beings in the world.  48   Wenger?s conceptualization of meaning is emulated in Duranti?s definition of agency, here enacted and represented in language through the dimensions of performance (the enacting of agency, i.e., ?participation?) and the encoding (linguistic depiction of that action, i.e., ?reification?) (2004, p. 454). Agency is understood as an individual?s capability to do things, to effect a change of events through action, which may or may not have intended consequences. This flow of action is constantly monitored or evaluated by individuals in interaction with others, yet only on a partial ?practical? (Giddens, 1984) level of consciousness. Thus, the discursive construction of identities ? the manner in which identity is enacted or performed (Butler, 1997) ? is not always or necessarily intentional (see also Kroskrity, 2004). Agency is therefore best defined more loosely as ?the socioculturally mediated capacity to act?  (Ahearn, 2001, p. 112) ? it does not reside with the individual manifested as free will nor is it completely determined by external forces, for example, as an (intentional) form of resistance (Ahearn, 2010, p. 29). For this study, participants? acts of identification are understood as a form of negotiated action that is produced in interaction (with me as researcher) and shaped by the immediate (e.g., research setting) as well as the larger context (e.g., FSL education in Canada).  Agency as an integral dimension of practice means that it is also inextricably linked to power. While power is not inherent in action itself, it is exercised through the resources individuals use to socially produce and reproduce relations with one another (Giddens, 1979). Power thus brings into focus the question of how social transformation might occur. Sahlins (1981) has situated the potential for transformation in what he calls a cross-cultural ?structure of conjuncture,? a kind of ?rich point? whereby newly encountered and conflicting experiences generate new resources which then reform existing practices, leading to potential transformation of the structures that shape these same practices (Ahearn, 2001, p. 110). Ortner (1989) locates 49  agency in the naturally asymmetrical distribution of power by arguing that hegemony or domination is always conflicted and full of tensions, which in turn, allows for spaces or ?loose structures? in which transformation can occur, both linguistically and socioculturally. The asymmetric power relations produced in social action thus in themselves serve as an occasion for change, particularly with regard to the process of identity construction. In the present study the issue of power is made relevant in participants? ways of orienting to a ?native speaker? ideology as a means of constructing an identity as FSL teacher, given the asymmetric relation this construct implies in terms of ?native-speaker? versus ?non-native speaker? teacher identities and the tension this dichotomy produces. A potential for transformation may be seen here in terms of how participants conceive of the ?native speaker? as a form of authenticity and how they relate to this authenticity in their identity work. In the following section I elaborate on conceptions of authenticity in L2 education and as a feature of prevailing language ideologies. I conclude this section by briefly outlining my understanding of language and culture as social action or ?practice.?  Language and culture as social action The notion of language as social action may be traced to Wittgenstein?s (1953/2001) conception of meaning as constituted in language use and as woven into the social action or practices of a particular Lebenswelt or ?form of life.? Wittgenstein uses the notion of Sprachspiele (language games) to foreground the idea that ?the speaking of a language is part of an activity? (p. 10e). Meaning is produced in using language and must be understood as varied, particular, and situated, and as always socially produced. Wittgenstein?s view of language and meaning as constituted in social human activity has been elaborated in other social theories of 50  language: in sociocultural theory with a conceptualization of language as mediating learning through interaction with expert others (Vygotsky, 1978), in functional linguistics which places meaning at the centre of language use and development (Halliday, 1971), and through the concept of dialogism (Bakhtin, 1981, 1986) to highlight the socially contextualized use of language and embedded nature of language in interaction. Important here is that it is action, not thought, which underlies language, that it is in our daily practices ?where understanding is structured and intelligibility...articulated? (Schatzki, 1996, p. 12). In other words, it is in our everyday activities ? such as teaching or learning or talking about what we teach and learn ? that we produce meaning about the world and us in it. Integral to this understanding of language as action is the conception of context as ?a point of departure? for understanding ?the different ?language games? that human beings engage in? (Goodwin & Duranti, 1992, p. 16). Language as a mode of action is based on the idea that meaning derives from the appropriate use of language in a certain context of situation (Malinowski, 1994/1923), which encompasses the wider non-linguistic context of human interaction (Austin, 1962; Goffman, 1974; Gumperz & Hymes, 1972; Hymes, 1974) as well as the way in which individuals? relations and identities are accomplished and maintained, both in everyday and institutional interaction (Goodwin & Duranti, 1992; Heritage, 1984; Sacks, 1992). Context as fundamental to a theorization of language as social action necessarily points to language in relation to culture, specifically the co-constitutiveness of the language-culture relationship, wherein culture is seen as constituted in language and at the same time constitutive of language. In this way, the intersection between language and culture can be seen as located in individuals? ?engagement in discursively mediated social practices? (Kasper & Omori, 2010, p. 458). 51  In the same way that language is conceptualized as a form of social practice with meaning fundamentally dependent on contexts of language use, culture also must be understood as social action. As part of a theoretical approach to language as social action, I draw on a conception of culture as an ensemble of ?discursively mediated, context-sensitive and context-shaping? practices (Kasper & Omori, 2010, p. 458). This discursive-constructionist theorization of context takes the view that the social world is not based on fixed, universal, or ahistorical properties but rather, that it is produced through individuals? social and discursive actions, and, epistemologically speaking, can be understood as different versions of topics that are discursively produced (p. 461). A social practice conceptualization of culture and language as theoretical framing for the present study thus provides not only an analytic approach but locates practice as an object of formal study within the context of FSL education ? notably as these relate specifically to conceptions of authenticity.   Authenticity in L2 education  The notion of authenticity continues to permeate prevailing conceptions of language and culture, attesting to the interrelatedness of all three of these constructs, particularly in L2 learning and teaching. A central aim of the present study is to shed light on the problematic of authenticity as a constraining ideology in L2 education, yet also to highlight the productive impact a ?process of authentication? (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005; Coupland, 2003) affords L2 teachers as a means of negotiating or challenging such constraints. Authentication as a discursive process moves beyond essentialist conceptions of authenticity as a quality of language or culture and instead conceives of authenticity as ?processes by which speakers make claims to realness? (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, p. 601). From this perspective, ?authenticity does not exist prior to the 52  authenticating practices that create it? (Bucholtz, 2003, p. 410), and it is therefore important to distinguish authenticity (as ideology) from authentication (as social practice). In Chapter 2, authenticity was discussed with regards to L2 teacher education, professional development, and L2 teacher identity in association with the literature on ?native/non-native speaker teachers.? In this section I concentrate on the concept of authenticity itself. I begin this section with an overview of how the concept has been defined, first broadly across a number of social science disciplines, and then specifically in L2 education within communicative language teaching (CLT). This involves a discussion of how authenticity has been taken up in terms of language learning and language use, pedagogical texts, and with regard to L2 teaching. I then consider authenticity as ideology, particularly in terms of language ideologies of standardization and its related features. I conclude with authenticity from a social practice perspective.   Defining authenticity  Authenticity has been variously defined in the social sciences. It originally evolved as a contrast to ?sincerity,? an evolution that dates from the pre-modern era (Trilling, 1972). The modern preoccupation with authenticity emerged with the secularization and pluralization of society, which over time no longer offered individuals a sense of self, anchored in a hierarchized reality, a reality that had previously been based on a symmetrical relationship between ?subjectively experienced and institutionally assigned identity? (Berger, 1973, p. 85). According to Trilling, individuals? inability to find meaning in society led to a turn inward, a shift in focus from ?sincere? representations of the self in society to a preoccupation with the ?hidden motives of action,? that is, to ?the ?depths? presumed to lie below the surfaces of observable social life? ? the inner, mental self (p. 82).  53   From this basis, we find the concept defined today in a number of ways, including references to ?authentic? as a revealed truth, as something genuine, original, or associated with the idea of exclusive authorship or unique creativity (Van Leeuwen, 2001). In anthropology the notion of authenticity has received substantial attention in research on tourism and historical reproduction (e.g., E. Cohen, 1988; Kelner, 2001; MacCannell, 1973). Bruner (1994), for example, outlines four distinct meanings of authenticity: a) verisimilitude or ?true likeness?; b) genuineness, through historical accuracy; c) originality, in terms of being novel; d) authority, something which is ?duly authorized, certified, or legally valid? (pp. 400-401). In applied linguistics, Kramsch (1993) has offered a similar list of definitions which includes meanings of authenticity pertaining to that which is authorized, real, trustworthy, or sincere, original or genuine. In sociolinguistics, specifically with regard to the notion of authentic language, Coupland (2003) has made a distinction between establishment and vernacular authenticities of language as two competing articulations of modernity, grounded in Lockian and Herderian philosophy respectively. Establishment authenticities typically emphasize linguistic purity and standardization, authoritarian/ exclusionary notions of authentic language, often with reference to nationhood. Vernacular authenticities foreground ?real language on the ground? (p. 420) and are associated with the notion of community affiliation and consensus, as well as the idea that linguistic change and social complexity is inherently orderly. In a more recent theorization of authenticity, Coupland?s (2010) considers these tacit understandings not as inherent qualities but in terms of a value system that ?anchor[s] personal, social and cultural identities? (p. 104). This system comprises four dimensions: a) ontology ? ?authentic things being felt to have a particular depth of reality?; b) historicity ? ?authentic things being perceived to be durable and sometimes timeless?; c) systemic coherence ? ?authenticity as a matter of 'making sense' and imposing 54  order?; and d) consensus ? ?authenticity resulting from some social process of authentication accepted by a group? (p. 104). It is these values that inform my participants? identity construction through a process of authentication that is ?played out in discourse? (Bucholtz & Hall, 2010, p. 24).  Authenticity in L2 learning and teaching As discussed in Chapter 2, in L2 education the concept of authenticity has gained attention with the growing interest in CLT (Widdowson, 1998) and an emphasis on L2 teachers? use of authentic or ?natural? classroom language (Cullen, 1994). This emphasis is overwhelmingly found in ?culturally authentic? curricular resources (van Lier, 1996) typically recommended in teacher handbooks (e.g., Omaggio Hadley, 2001; Shrum & Glisan, 2009). Here authentic texts are defined in terms of  ?real? language, ?real? speakers/writers, and a ?real? audience (Morrow, 1977; cited in Gilmore, 2007, p. 98) ? the idea being that only a linguistically and culturally authentic source can produce so-called ?authentic communications? (see also Galloway, 1998). Although authenticity continues to be understood along modernist lines of thinking in L2 education, efforts to problematize the concept have led to a range of perspectives about ?authentic? language learning and teaching ? often, to move beyond the notion of authentic texts.  Thus, similar to reconceptualizations in other disciplines, the focus on authenticity as an inherent feature of a particular text has been rearticulated in L2 education as a process of validation or authentication (van Lier, 1996; Widdowson, 1990), something which is created by users of the language (Kramsch, 1993). Widdowson has long been arguing that authenticity is a function of the interaction between receivers and producers of (authentic) language, in other 55  words, authenticity ?has to do with the appropriate response? (1979, p. 166). For Widdowson, the L2 classroom has the potential to provide an opportunity for language learners to ?authenticate? meanings on their own terms by ?localising? the language in what he calls ?genuine? discourse (1998, p. 712). It is the context of this discourse that renders it authentic, to the extent that this involves ?normal? language use rather than ?the language-like behaviour of the learner? (1990, p.46). Other scholars have argued that the notion of ?authenticity? is open to interpretation and primarily dependent on the way the immediate context is realized through language use in the classroom (Kramsch, 1993; Taylor, 1994; van Lier, 1996). Breen (1985), for example, identifies four kinds of authenticity: textual authenticity, the learner?s own interpretation of the text, its pedagogical purpose, and the social context of the classroom. While Widdowson (1998) views authentic language use as something which the learner must experience, for Breen it is the interpretation of authenticity that enables learners to interact with texts ?in ways which are likely to be shared with fluent users of the language? (1985, p. 63). Breen places emphasis on the authentic use of a particular text, the how and the where of its application in the classroom. In this sense, authenticity lies not only in using language but also in the activity of language learning itself, that is, in communicating about ?how best to learn to use another language? (p. 65). Consequently, instead of being conceptualized as merely a product or an ?entextualized? unit of language (Badger & MacDonald, 2010), authenticity is now more often understood as a process which defines the nature of the tasks for which language is used. Van Lier (1996) has elaborated this definition by suggesting that authentication is ?a personal process of engagement,? potentially different for every learner and not only constituted in the context in which language learning takes place. Rather, it is through ?acts of authentication? that classroom setting, events, and language are validated as authentic by both teacher and students in 56  interaction with one another (p. 128). For van Lier, situated and purposeful use of language is central to the process of authentication, given that authenticity cannot exist without learner awareness (relating new knowledge to past experiences) and learner autonomy (taking responsibility for one?s learning) (see also Kramsch et al., 2000).  Authenticity as ideology Modernist conceptions of linguistic authenticity also constitute a central feature of language ideology (Bauman & Briggs, 2003; Briggs, 2007; Heller, 2006, 2011). Language ideologies are articulated beliefs about language that mediate the connection between larger social structures and the discursive practices within these structures (Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994). These beliefs are seen to represent rationalizations of perceived systematic language structure and use in relation to social groups (Irvine & Gal, 2000; Silverstein, 1979) with power as a central element (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004). In this sense, ideology may be defined in relation to a particular social position (Woolard, 1998) with the idea that ideology ?organizes and enables all cultural beliefs and practices as well as the power relations that result from these? (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004, p. 379). Conceptions of authentic language as language ideology are especially salient in ideologies of standardization, which continue to permeate L2 education (Lippi-Green, 1997).  For example, authenticity in CLT intersects with the concept of standard language in that the latter is usually indirectly defined in relation to ?authentic? language use, often with a clear orientation to ?native speakerness? (Train, 2000; Widdowson, 1994). The link between authentic and standard language in the teaching of French has been characterized by Train (2000, 2007a) as a complex relationship between situated French language use and standardized French as a 57  pedagogical construct, the latter solidly entrenched in present-day L2 classroom discourse and materials. Train traces the historical construction of French as a Pedagogic Hyperstandard through a two-level process of recontextualization. The first level involves the selective appropriation and relocation of French speakers? discursive practices ?from their original sites? into a discourse of ?Native Standard French? (2003, p. 245). This relocation then continues through a second level of recontextualization on the periphery of national French speaking regions where these standardized practices are further rearticulated into a Pedagogic Hyperstandard discourse. The acquisition of the standardized language variety thus becomes associated with ?natural language? ? language that is acquired without conscious study or learning (i.e., as ?native speakers?) (cf. Krashen, 1982). In CLT this has led to a confusion between notions of accurate versus appropriate language use and ?an overall institutional focus on standardness? (2000, p. 26) as epitomized in the codification of French in traditional texts such as Le bon usage (Grevisse, 1986), for example. According to Train:   As suggestive as the rhetoric of the communicative revolution may be, the myth of authenticity, nativeness, and ?natural acquisition? attached to the foreign language construct tends to gloss over the fundamental standardness of language in a pedagogical context. (Train, 2000, p. 352)  At the same time, this results in a tension which sees mainstream standardized language in conflict with formal L2 learning since language learning is based on an ?artificial? pedagogical standard that has been codified for the purpose of teaching (Train, 2000, p. 335; see also Badger & MacDonald, 2010; van Compernolle & Williams, 2012).    58  Language ideology in FSL  The underlying orientation to ?authentic language? in L2 teaching makes relevant a number of ?salient features of the standard-language construct? (Train, 2000, p. 27), which together form a complex of interrelated notions that are articulated in discourses of standardization. These discourses make evident related ideological (?native speaker?) conceptions about language learning and use. One such conception, highly prominent in the present study, is the discourse of the inauthentic classroom, summarized by van Lier as follows: The fact that classroom language looks and sounds like classroom language is often taken as evidence of the artificiality of language lessons, and this in turn can then be used as an explanation for the lack of success of language instruction. 'Classroom language is unnatural' means in practice that language use in the classroom is different and distinguishable from language use elsewhere. In addition, it implies that language use is natural in all places, except in classrooms. To become more 'natural,' then, the classroom must try to be less like a classroom, and more like some other place. The people in the classroom must speak and write as if they were somewhere else. In the interests of authenticity, the classroom must become inauthentic, as a classroom. (van Lier, 1996, p. 121) This discourse represents a salient component of FSL teaching and is made evident by the majority of my focal participants, in one case, as a principal means of negotiating an FSL teacher identity. Especially when contrasted with the immersion setting abroad, the FSL classroom in Canada is frequently described as an ?artificial? learning context without access to ?real? French.   Another ideology often offered in response to the ?inauthenticity? of the L2 classroom, and also highly relevant in this study, is the notion of monoglossic bilingualism (Garc?a, 2009; 59  see also Roy & Galiev, 2011) and the monolingual classroom (Lippi-Green, 1997; see also Vald?s, 1998). These ideologies, also discussed in terms of balanced bilingualism or additive/subtractive bilingualism, consider language as a codified unit referred to as a ?container? view of language (Martin-Jones, 2007, p. 166). The idea is that the L2 learning context is best restricted to a focus on only one language ? the target language ? and therefore does not allow for the multilingual reality that L2 learners actually experience. This ties into the construction of the FSL classroom as a purely monolingual space, with linguistic purity a salient feature of this ideology, frequently expressed with a prominent focus on error correction (Lippi-Green, 1997) and characterizations of language use in terms on ?interlanguage? and ?fossilization? (Selinker, 1972; see also Bhatt, 2002). For the L2 learner, use of this monolingual standard is thereby relegated to a form of ?practice? or ?imitation? which in turn, intersects with notions of language ownership (Kramsch, 1996, 1997, 2012; Norton, 1997; Widdowson, 1994), ideologies of linguistic and cultural belonging, and the issue of who counts as a legitimate speaker. All of these features ? the monolingual classroom, descriptions of balanced bilingualism, and an emphasis on ?perfect imitation? of French ? are displayed in the identity construction of my participants.  The bias toward a monoglossic ideology of bilingualism is a much-debated feature of the French immersion model in Canadian FSL education (e.g., Cummins, 2007; Martin-Jones, 2007; M. Swain, 1983). Its ?bilingualism through monolingualism? approach is based on a principle of strict language-separation that is realized through the creation of distinct, monolingual learning spaces. An association with ?authentic? language is evident here in that the monoglossic learning context of the FI model carries a prestige factor in FSL education, which manifests itself in comparisons with other FSL programs, notably in terms of who is qualified to teach in this 60  program. FI is internationally recognized as one of the most successful program models for second language learning, with enrolments still highly competitive, especially in British Columbia (Canadian Parents for French, 2008b). In this content-based approach, FI teachers are typically seen to have a high level of expertise in French, leading to the tacit understanding that the program represents the ?next best thing? to a ?native speaker? context. For some of my participants, the prestige of the program served as a significant authenticating resource in their construction of a particular identity as FSL teacher.  The privileging of a monolingual standard in association with ?authentic language? ties into another ideological assumption which interprets the standard-language construct as a form of Eurocentrism. According to this belief, a language such as French is seen as anchored in the prestige of the European native-speaker community associated with the language (Train, 2000). In this sense, Eurocentrism is consistent with the authentic values delineated by Coupland (2010), notably historical tradition, cohesiveness, and social consensus, all of which are grounded in Herder?s (1967 [1877-1913]) notion of cultural continuity ? the notion of oral vernacular tradition cultivated into an idealized, stable form (Bauman & Briggs, 2003; see also Irvine & Gal, 2000). Herder?s privileging of the vernacular as a means of revitalizing eighteenth century German literature and culture directly connects with present day ideological underpinnings of language standardization and the idealized ?native speaker?:  This ideology of a monoglot and monologic standard has provided a charter not only for homogenizing national policies of language standardization and the regulation of public discourse, but for theoretical frameworks that normalize and often essentialize one society ? one culture ? one language conceptions of the relationships among language, culture, and society. (Bauman & Briggs, 2003, p. 195)   61  This Eurocentric orientation is prominently manifested both explicitly and tacitly by a number of participants in this study, either by way of a contrast between European French and the French in Canada or simply as the fundamental standard of superior language and culture. The idea of France as the locus of French language and culture renders this variety as exclusively representative of authentic ?Frenchness,? in this sense providing an effective ?authenticating? resource for my participants. An orientation to Europe or France also connects to ideologies of variation, specifically notions of language subordination (Lippi-Green, 1997) and language isolationism or purism (Bucholtz, 2003; Cameron, 1995). In Canada, this is particularly relevant with regard to the status of Canadian or Quebecois French vis-?-vis its origins in France (also discussed in Chapter 2). Heller (1999b) has referred to this as ?the ambivalent relationship between the French in Canada and the French in France?:   [French speakers in France] may act as models, but are often also resented as imperialists almost as oppressive as the English in their contempt for French Canadians. They are also both the source of French Canadian identity, a glorious heritage, and traitors (since the Revolution) to the original cause which brought the French to Canada in the first place. This creates a tension between an acceptance of France as the origin of the value of the French language, and a desire to value what is distinctive about the Canadian variety of the language. The source of the value of French in Canada is both its origins and its distinctiveness. (Heller, 1999b, p. 151) Heller has identified these tensions as part of a French Canadian linguistic ideology that are created through contradicting elements such as ?fear of contamination by English, concern for the ?quality? of language, valuing of local forms as long as they are not ?jargon?? (p. 151). In the FSL context, concerns about linguistic purity characteristic of minority contexts of French in 62  Canada to some extent reinforce a monolingual standard in the French language classroom in association with an ?authentic? language ideal.     A final ideological assumption relevant to this study is the privileging of written language over spoken practices. The privileging of written over spoken language is a further feature of language standardization, one that has resulted in a prioritization of codified norms as ?the final authority on correctness and even inclusion in the language? (Train, 2000, p. 29). In the FSL context, we see the codified language of dictionaries, verb conjugation and grammar books constituting a pedagogical hyper-standard, one that ultimately defines the L2 classroom in association with ?inauthenticness.? Consequently, in the present study, we see this ideological preference for written language become inverted, with orality (not the written text) constructed as a means of authentication. In the ?inauthentic? environment of the L2 classroom, L2 teaching requires a reversal of emphasis that shifts the focus on oral language as the most authentic expression and achievement of L2 learning. As alluded to earlier, this modernist conception of authentic language is embedded in Herder?s conception of culture as grounded in the oral vernacular literary tradition of a people (Bauman & Briggs, 2003, p. 191). As Briggs points out, the ?nostalgic celebration of words constructed as organic forms intimately tied to their social milieu, from family to community to region to nation? have underscored the notion of the authentic as fundamentally reflected in human connections and social interaction (2007, p. 553). The ?natural basis of sociality? found in and established through family and local community directly extends into present-day ideas about face-to-face communication and specifically underpins ideologies pertaining to authentic language learning: 63  Face-to-face communication became what Derrida (1974 [1967]) characterizes as a Western metaphysics of orality?it was construed as primordial, authentic, quintessentially human, and necessary. (Briggs, 2007, p. 553)  In French, the juxtaposition between written and oral language is exacerbated given that Standard Modern French, which is firmly entrenched in its written form, is becoming increasingly distinct from the evolving spoken language, or ?New French? (Joseph, 1988). Despite the cultural stigmatization of spoken French in institutional/educational contexts, the colloquialness of oral French is viewed by the participants in this study as an authenticating antidote to the ?inauthentic? setting of the FSL classroom. It is in this sense that my participants? focus to oral language in their teaching functions as an authenticating mechanism through which to achieve approximation to an assumed authentic ?native speaker? ideal. Oral language is constructed as synonymous with (communicative) language learning/teaching, characterized as fun and engaging. As such, it precludes grammar-focused drills characteristic of the ?inauthentic? classroom and likens L2 acquisition to the L1 socialization typically experienced in the ?mother tongue.? One might say that it is the participants? experiences in an ?authenticating? social milieu encountered on study abroad that, to some extent, reinforce this shift to oral language in the classroom.  In the present study, my participants? experiences in what is considered to be an ?authentic? language and culture setting not surprisingly foregrounds authenticity as a salient feature in their descriptions of the sojourn. As will be demonstrated in Chapters 5 and 6, participants? conceptions and assumptions about authentic language use, learning, and teaching to varying extent highlight the ideologies outlined above. The ways in which language and language use are manifestly taken up with reference to ?native speaker? ideologies construct 64  authenticity as a tangible product (Heller, 2003), predominantly as a measure of language expertise expressed in terms of confidence. Confidence here serves as discursive resource to navigate issues of language expertise and ongoing L2 development, two issues which sit uneasily with an identity as FSL teacher that is defined in terms of authentic (i.e., ?native?) language. It is this essentialist conception of authenticity which informed my initial use of the concept in formulating the central research questions of the study. Choosing an analytic approach which considers ?authenticity in performance? has allowed me to investigate authenticity as a process, to gain a sense of how my participants ?do complex self-identification work that ends up being authenticating for them and possibly for audiences.? (Coupland, 2003, p. 428). In the next section I elaborate on my conception of identity, the role discourse plays in this conceptualization, and my approach to analysing identity. In the final section I discuss the relation between these two concepts, authenticity and identity, by briefly outlining my approach to authenticity as a process of identification based on Bucholtz & Hall (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004).   Identity  Identity, as it relates to issues of language and culture, has been studied over the last several decades based on an ever-broadening range of conceptualizations and research topics (Duff, 2012) ? from linguistic and learner identities and ethnically/culturally-defined group identities (J. Edwards, 1985, 2009; Tajfel, 1974) to social identities with an emphasis on power relations and discourse (e.g., Blackledge & Pavlenko, 2001; Block, 2007; Kramsch, 2009; Norton, 2000). Psychological and variationist perspectives call forth modernist notions of identity, the innate, authentic self of the Romantic literary periods as well as Freud?s focus on the individual mind in the field of psychoanalysis emerging at the turn of the last century (Benwell 65  & Stokoe, 2006). The 1960s and 70s saw an evolving emphasis on group identities in terms of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) which considered social identity in terms of socio-cognitive processes of membership. Also known as intergroup theory, it was heavily influenced by ethnolinguistic identity theory in the area of language maintenance (see also Clement, 1980; Giles & Johnson, 1987) which sought to explain language use based on ethnic group affiliation, similar to variationist approaches to identity in sociolinguistics. These conceptions of identity as naturalistic, mentalist, or collective all posit an essential self, an a priori categorization that serves to explain why people behave in a particular way, with essentialism based on the idea that the characteristics and behaviour of a socially defined group are determined by cultural and/or biological elements which are inherent to that group (Bucholtz, 2003).   Essentialist conceptions of identity contrast with a view of identity as interactionally mediated and socially constructed. Given my aim to highlight the constitutive role of discourse in identity work, I have chosen to adopt a ?discursive-constructionist? (Kasper & Omori, 2010) perspective of identity. Within this theoretical frame, identity is viewed as taking shape and operating ?in local discourse contexts of interaction? (Bucholtz & Hall, 2010, p. 18), contexts which are conceived as ?multi-scalar? in that they are locally emergent but also ?infused with [globally available] information, resources, expectations and experiences? (Blommaert & Rampton, 2011, p. 9). In other words, identities are attributes of situations rather than of individuals or groups (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004, p. 376). Thus, instead of a stable, pre-existing and context-independent social category which determines a person?s actions and participation, identity is understood as always situated and historical, as ideological, emergent, and partial, and as accomplished in interaction through the use of symbolic forms (including language) (cf. 66  Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998; Block, 2007; Butler, 1997; Duff, 2012; Kramsch, 2009; Norton, 2010; Wenger, 1998).   Types of identification: A conception of identity as a social process means that identity refers to both larger institutional and ideologically driven roles as well as local identities accomplished in everyday interactions and mutual engagement with members of shared communities of practice:  On the one hand, the interactional positions that social actors briefly occupy and then abandon as they respond to the contingencies of unfolding discourse may accumulate ideological associations with both large-scale and local categories of identity. On the other, these ideological associations, once forged, may shape who does what and how in interaction, though never in a deterministic fashion. (Bucholtz & Hall, 2010, p. 21)  From this perspective, even social or extra-situational categories ? what Georgakopoulou (2007) has referred to as narrated ?portable? identities such as Canadian, mother, professional musician, etc. ? do not exist prior to having been ?called into being? in specific interactions through semiotic practices (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, p. 588). Identities are therefore seen to include various levels of identification: a) macrolevel demographic categories, b) local, ethnographically specific cultural positions, and c) temporary and interactionally specific stances and participant roles ? all of which may occur simultaneously in a single interaction (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, p. 592; see Zimmerman, 1998, for a similar conception of identity). For my participants this means that locally instantiated identities, such as respondent, or research participant, L2 learner or teacher, mother or music teacher, are considered as both drawing on and constructing the category of ?FSL teacher.? A conception of context as multi-level or multi-scalar is particularly relevant for processes of identification in that macrolevel features can ?be seen operating at the 67  most micro-level of an interactional process, as resources that participants can draw upon? as they construct identities within particular communicative events (Blommaert & Rampton, 2011, p. 10).   Identities in discourse(s): In the present study this multi-scalar perspective ties into the way in which larger social discourses (norms, expectations, codes, generalizations), both circulating  in and shaping FSL contexts are referenced by my participants as a means of constructing, circumnavigating or authenticating an identity as FSL teacher. An analysis of FSL teachers? discursive construction of identity is thus also an analysis of discourse, both in terms of what people do discursively with discourse as the medium for interaction (Potter, 2004) or as larger social forces or cultural narratives (Kramsch, 2011; Mart?n Rojo, 2001). As the analyses of focal participants identity construction in Chapter 6 show, in spite of displaying distinct processes of identification all participants displayed an orientation to common language ideologies by drawing on shared discourses of L2 teaching and learning. This begs the question as to how a shared orientation to the discursive generalizations and norms circulating in FSL education manifests itself in such different ways for each of the focal participants. In part, the answer lies in the way discourse is conceptualized here ? infused not merely with a single ideology or a uniform set of beliefs, but as constituting a complex of ideas and practices: ...the same chunk of discourse may be simultaneously understandable for many people, yet receive very different interpretations by these people, depending on whether the work of interpretation is done in the same event as that of production, later, much later, by someone else than the original interlocutor, in a different contextual space, from a different historical position, from a different place in the world, and so forth. (Blommaert, 2005, p. 175) 68  The idea that there are varying interpretations of discourse(s) also supports an understanding of identity as both emergent in specific contexts as well as continuous over time, given that ?discourse always displays both continuity and discontinuity in meanings that are attached to it? (Blommaert, 2005, p. 175).    Analyzing identity: My focus on identity as a ?relational? phenomenon takes into account the relationships enacted as part of the identification process and highlights the varying power relations between individuals. The notion of ?relationality? (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005) in identity work makes clear that ?identities are never autonomous or independent but always acquire social meaning in relation to other available identity positions and other social actors? (p. 23). Bucholtz and Hall have expanded this ?principle of relationality? beyond the simple juxtaposition of identity relations in terms of similarity and difference to include two other overlapping, complementary relations ? genuineness/artifice and authority/delegitimacy. Given the relevance of participants? own language learning trajectories in this study, the relational categories (Benwell & Stokoe, 2006; Tracy, 2002) of ?native speaker teacher? versus ?non-native speaker teacher? are therefore of particular interest, specifically with regard to how these identity categories are discursively and collaboratively enacted as (in)authentic and (il)legitimate within the context of FSL teaching.  An in-depth examination of this identity work must take into account the various semiotic processes that come into play, identified by Bucholtz and Hall (2004) as: a) practice ? everyday social actions and activities, b) indexicality ? indirect semiotic associations which form between linguistic structures and social categories over time, c) ideology ? socio-cultural and political meanings about language and speakers, and d) performance ? both as deliberate social display or mundane interaction. All four processes operate together to accomplish identity:  69  Ideology is at the level at which practice enters the field of representation. Indexicality mediates between ideology and practice, producing the former through the latter. Performance is the highlighting of ideology through the foregrounding of practice. (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004, p. 381) At the same time, Bucholtz & Hall (2004) point out that identity, conceptualized through these processes, highlights the manner in which ideologies and practices push into two different directions: ideologies are reified cultural notions about ?how people of various social backgrounds should, must, or do speak and act whereas individuals? linguistic and social practices are specific to social contexts and therefore ?highly complex and strategic? (pp. 381-382). Analysis of identity conceived from this perspective, requires teasing out the workings of these processes of identification, specifically the tensions that arise through conflicting practices and ideologies and the way in which these tensions are reconciled in the construction of particular identities. For my participants such a tension is produced in the context of their professional development practices with regard to learning, specifically language learning. As will be demonstrated in Chapter 5, it is these practices which push against the ideological construction of the ?FSL teacher? as defined by the reified notion of ?native speakerness.?   Conclusion: Identity and authenticity  In the present study, authenticity plays a definitive role in FSL teacher identity construction. On the one hand, authenticity figures in essentialist terms, grounded in ?native speaker? ideologies that impose constraints on what counts as legitimate membership as FSL teacher. From this perspective:     70  ...the possibility of a ?real? or ?genuine? group member relies on the belief that what differentiates ?real? members from those who only pretend to authentic membership is that the former, by virtue of biology or culture or both, possess inherent and perhaps even inalienable characteristics criterial of membership. (Bucholtz, 2003, p. 400) On the other hand, authenticity, as a resource, plays a crucial role for my participants in their construction of FSL teacher identities as a means of authenticating this professional identity. From this perspective, identity is not primordial but viewed as ?the outcome of constantly negotiated social practices? (Bucholtz, 2003, p. 408). This reconceptualization, specifically intended to address the notion of ?authentic speaker? as defined by Bucholtz here, relocates my participants as agentive members, engaged in linguistic and other symbolic practices. In this way, authenticity becomes an achievement (Bucholtz, 2003), which for my participants involves a process of authentication as a means of legitimating a position as FSL teacher. The relationship between authenticity, legitimacy, and authority has been theorized by Bucholtz and Hall (2004) in terms of a set of relations called tactics of intersubjectivity (see also Bucholtz, 2003; Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, 2010). These tactics constitute a framework for examining identity in terms of the social relations that are created through semiotic processes such as practice, indexicality, ideology, and performance, outlined above. The primary objective of this framework is to establish why a particular identity is being constructed, that is, to understand the purpose for which a particular semiotic process is put to use (2004, p. 382). The relations or tactics relevant to the identity formations in this study are genuineness/artifice and authority/delegitimacy, with a focus on authentication and authorization: authentication is put to use in identity work to generate a sense of genuineness while authorization serves to create legitimacy. As will be demonstrated in the analysis in Chapter 5, these tactics often intersect and thus tend to operate in 71  combination with one another in the sense that participants? orientation to ?native speakerness? in regard to language expertise constitutes a tactic of authentication which serves to legitimate participants? incumbency as FSL teacher. In other words, the ?authenticity effects? this tactic produces (Bucholtz, 2003, p. 408) are seen to bestow on participants the authority to act and speak as a legitimate teacher of French. The aim of this study, then, is to examine participants? conceptions and uses of ?authenticity? to understand how authentication as a social process plays out in the discursive construction of FSL teacher as a legitimate professional identity.   72  CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY  ...individuals, including scholars, actively construct and constrain?rather than passively receive?interpretations that are both socially mediated and intertextually situated within a bounded universe of discourse.  (Ahearn, 2001, p. 112)  Introduction This inquiry is a qualitative multiple case study conducted over a 12-month period with a primary focus on a small group of teacher participants. Qualitative research has been defined as ?a situated activity that locates the observer in the world? (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 2), which sees methods of investigation as constitutive of the ways in which we make sense of our actions and social lives (P. Atkinson & Coffey, 2003; Hatch, 2002). In L2 education, empirical qualitative studies offer a suitable means for examining a wide range of issues (Duff, 2002; K. Richards, 2009), including those relevant to the present study: teacher professional development abroad (e.g., DuFon & Churchill, 2006; Jackson, 2008; Kinginger, 2004) and discourse analytic approaches to identity in L2 teaching (e.g., Clarke, 2008; Varghese et al., 2005).  In this chapter I discuss how the research methodology I have chosen constitutes a suitable way to approach a qualitative inquiry of FSL teacher professional identity from a discourse analytic perspective. In the following sections I briefly outline the relevance of a case study methodology for this study. I then discuss the research contexts and participants of both phases of this inquiry, Phase I comprising research conducted in France, and Phase II pertaining to the follow-up phase undertaken in British Columbia. From this I move to a discussion of data generation methods followed by data analysis. I conclude by addressing researcher position, confidentiality, and the rigour of the research process and findings.   73  Case study Case study is a particularistic descriptive research approach comprising a qualitative, interpretative research design and is commonly used in the social sciences to investigate bounded situated phenomena in their natural contexts (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003; Hatch, 2002; Merriam, 2009). Owing to the need for more holistic and in-depth qualitative inquiry of FSL teacher development, specifically within an SA context, I have chosen to conduct a descriptive (Yin, 2011) multiple case study to extend the modest amount of existing research in this area. As a research approach, case study typically incorporates multiple data sources to allow for in-depth analysis (Duff, 2008; K. Richards, 2011; van Lier, 2005), and thus lends itself to an investigation of teachers? professional identity constructions as theorized in this study. The case selection I have made involves both intrinsic and instrumental interests (Stake, 1995). On the one hand, my interest in how individual teachers construct a particular professional identity centers on focal participants as separate intrinsic case studies (see Chapter 6). On the other hand, the larger cohort of BC teachers constitutes an instrumental case as a topic of interest, with the potential to offer further insight (Stake, 1995) about the language ideologies underpinning L2 teacher identity construction more generally and the role authenticity plays in the identity work of individual teachers. Instrumental case study on a particular topic allows the researcher to draw analytic generalizations to theory or a particular theoretical process (Duff, 2006), in this case FSL teacher identity construction. At the same time, the entire cohort of FSL teachers is not only considered as a topic but may itself be seen as representing a bounded case, specifically with respect to the production of the FSL teacher identity category (see Chapter 5).  74  Research context: Sites and participants Data for this research project was generated in two phases, in both local and international sites, each involving differently configured groupings of participants. The timeline (Figure 4.1) below provides an overview of the research process. In this section I present a description of the two phases of the study with a focus on the research context, the participants, and the data sources involved. A discussion of how the different methods were used within the context of the study and with regard to the theoretical framework follows in the next section.  Figure 4.1 Timeline of the data generation process across both phases of the study.           Phase II (continued)         ? multiple interviews with 7 focal   Phase I              participants  ? two-week sojourn in France    ? classroom observations with   ? 87 participants           4 focal participants          Phase II      ? continued recruitment of         focal participants in BC      ? receipt of Vichy journals and        monthly e-journals entries    Phase I of the research process Research site: CAVILAM and professional development   During the first phase of the study I accompanied 87 FSL teachers to Vichy, France, to participate in a two-week professional development program at the Centre d?Approches Vivantes des Langues et des M?dias (CAVILAM), an institute for French language studies and pedagogy. Funded by the BC Ministry of Education with support from district French coordinators, the SA program at CAVILAM was specifically designed for BC FSL teachers in core French (CF), Jul 20-31, 2009        Sep-Dec, 2009 Jan-Jun, 2010        75  intensive French (IF), and French immersion (FI) under the coordination of the French Language Services Branch of the BC Teachers? Federation in conjunction with CAVILAM administrators (FSL programs are discussed in further detail below). The primary objective of the sojourn was to provide BC teachers with an orientation to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and a specialized one- and two-week training course in proctoring, correcting, and implementing the Dipl?me d??tudes en langue fran?aise (DELF) ? France?s internationally recognized French language state exam, recently adapted to CEFR learning and assessment guidelines. In addition to the DELF orientation/certification sessions, the program at CAVILAM also offered French language classes as well as teaching development with a focus on instructional strategies and curricular materials. All three content areas (language instruction, pedagogy workshops, and DELF training) were delivered through classroom instruction, group workshops and open lectures (see Table 4.1 below for an overview of the CAVILAM program designed for the BC cohort).   The competitive application process for participation in the sojourn was undertaken in BC by French language coordinators in school districts across the province in collaboration with the British Columbia Teachers Federation (BCTF). The application process was open to all FSL teachers in CF, IF and FI programs in BC public schools. Teachers with a francophone background or ?native-like fluency? in French were encouraged to apply for the full two-week DELF certification while pedagogy workshops and language classes were available for those participants wishing to improve their teaching strategies or use of French. Selection for each program level was thus in part based on the applicant?s level of French language expertise while other criteria included the number of available spaces, as well as a willingness to participate in future initiatives involving the prospective adaptation of the CEFR framework in French  76  Table 4.1 Overview of CAVILAM professional development program.  language curricula in BC (see Appendix A for the information brochure/application form). In view of my research interests in FSL education, I was introduced to the principal organizer of the program, Mr. Chelali, Assistant Director of French Programs and Services in BC, by my PhD supervisor Dr. Bournot-Trites and subsequently welcomed to the project as participant- Language Program (Perfectionnement linguistique) 7 participants Pedagogy & DELF (Parcours th?matiques) 25 participants DELF Certification (Formation DELF) 55 participants WEEK 1 Mornings Language classes according to CEFR levels A2, B1, B2, C1 Pedagogy Workshop  (choice of weekly theme) DELF  Training 12:30 Lunch  (held daily in the cafeteria at CAVILAM) 14:00 to 15:30 Conversation classes: CEFR levels A2, B1, B2, C1 Pedagogy Workshop  (choice of weekly theme) DELF  Training 16:00 to 17:30   Tues/ Thurs DELF orientation S?ances ?D?couverte?: open lectures & workshops Wed Book fair: weekly presentation of CEFR curricular materials for purchase Evenings Week 1: Cultural Activities guided tour of Vichy ? outdoor theatre ? tastings of local wines and pastry excursion to village of Charroux ? chateaux visits ? cinema WEEKEND Saturday Journ?e libre (day off) Sunday Day trip through Auvergne region, including a visit to the basilica Notre-Dame d?Orcival,  an excursion to the wine and cheese market in the town of Besse,  and lunch at farmhouse in Saint Nectaire WEEK 2 Mornings Language classes according to CEFR levels A2, B1, B2, C1 DELF training DELF training 12:30 Lunch  (held daily in the cafeteria at CAVILAM) 14:00 to 15:30 Conversation classes: CEFR levels A2, B1, B2, C1 DELF training DELF training 16:00 to 17:30 Tues/ Thurs DELF orientation S?ances ?D?couverte?: open lectures & workshops Wed Book fair: weekly presentation of CEFR curricular materials for purchase Evenings Week 2: Cultural Activities outdoor festival and theatre ? tastings of local wines and pastry excursion to the town of Riom cinema ? volcano hike up the Puy de D?me  mayoral reception at city hall 77  researcher. Aside from my doctoral research, I was to conduct a cursory program evaluation for the Ministry of Education and the Vancouver School Board. Of the 87 teacher participants, 55 took part in the intensive two-week DELF-training program to become certified as proctor, examiner, or educator-trainer for the DELF exam in BC. The sessions were taught by an instructor from the Centre international d??tudes p?dagogiques (CIEP), a branch of the French government?s Ministry of Education that oversees implementation of the CEFR and DELF. Given the large number of participants from BC interested in the DELF-certification, the teachers participating in this program were divided into two groups with DELF-training sessions running simultaneously. In addition to learning about the exam itself, course content included an introduction to instructional strategies in support of the DELF implementation process, taught by three CAVILAM instructors. Teacher participants who did not opt for the intensive two-week DELF-training were encouraged to undergo language assessment on the first day for placement in one of the other two programs offered at CAVILAM ? pedagogy workshops or language development.11 The teaching workshops were chosen by 25 teachers from BC who took part in the parcours th?matiques during the first week of the sojourn, followed by a week of intensive DELF training, also specifically designed for the BC teachers. The five-day Parcours-program offered a wide variety of FSL instructional strategies and resources at different grade levels. These courses were also taken by other international students at CAVILAM and thus allowed the BC teachers to interact with French language teachers from other countries.  The 7 teacher participants in the language classes or Perfectionnement linguistique program attended morning classes and afternoon conversation workshops for the entire two-                                                 11 It should be noted that there was some flexibility for participants with a more advanced level of French to choose between the teaching workshops or language program. Advanced refers to participants demonstrating between a B2 and C1level of French language proficiency on the placement test.  78  week period, also together with other CAVILAM students. Placement in the language classes was based on the results of the initial language assessment, which for the cohort ranged from levels A2 to C1 in accordance with the global proficiency guidelines of the CEFR. These guidelines are divided into six common reference levels which describe L2 users in terms of basic (A1/A2 - beginner/elementary), independent (B1/B2 - intermediate/upper intermediate) and proficient (C1/C2 - advanced/mastery). In addition to language classes, BC teachers in this group attended an introductory orientation to the CEFR and DELF with the CIEP instructor during two weekly afternoon sessions.  Outside the classroom and aside from the daily midday break, participants from all three groups had an opportunity to reconnect during the ?discovery? lectures (S?ances ?d?couverte?) held on two afternoons each week, and by taking part in CAVILAM-organized cultural activities. Historical visits included excursions through Vichy and to neighbouring towns such as the medieval village of Charroux and the town of Riom, as well as a hike up the Puy de D?me, one of the region?s most renowned volcanoes. In the evenings, activities ranged from outdoor theatre performances in the neighbouring town of Cusset or a movie on the CAVILAM campus to dinner with colleagues or the host family. The weekend excursion organized specifically for the BC teachers consisted of a bus trip through the Auvergne region with visits to the town of Orcival and its Roman Basilica, a midday culinary experience in a farmhouse outside the town of Saint Nectaire, and a late afternoon wine and cheese tasting at the town market of Besse. The local programme culturel exclusively organized for the BC teachers and sponsored by CAVILAM included two ?tastings? of local pastry, cheese, and wines, a reception with the deputy mayor of Vichy at city hall, and a meeting with the Vice-Director of the CIEP and a representative of the French government?s Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs. 79  Accommodation for the teacher participants was arranged with local families residing in Vichy or the vicinity and provided further opportunity to engage with locals or other international teachers/students also enrolled in a summer program at CAVILAM. Lengthy evening dinners at the families? homes were frequently discussed among the teachers and for most participants a much-anticipated conclusion to each day.   Vichy cohort participants Recruitment and data sources  In consideration of ethical concerns, recruitment of participants for the research study did not take place prior to the cohorts? departure for France so as not to interfere with the application process. Since the teachers? participation in the study abroad was entirely voluntary, it was important not to make their potential acceptance in the professional development project contingent on participation in a research study. A description of the research study was however included in the initial information brochure accompanying the application form (Appendix A), and sent out to district French language coordinators across the province in early April. Based on subsequent questions from applicants about the research, I drafted an additional statement to clarify the issue of participation in the study as it related to the sojourn (see Appendix B). In May, a supplementary brochure with information about the DELF and its potential implementation in BC was sent out to all accepted teachers participants by the organizing branch of the BCTF (see Appendix C).                                                                                               In Vichy, the study?s research objectives were presented to participants on the first morning of the sojourn, in French, with all information simultaneously projected on a slide presentation in English. Interested participants were asked to sign the forms according to three 80  possible levels of participation. Participation in the first level required completion of pre- and post-questionnaires on the first and last day of the program in France, primarily for the purpose of a program-evaluation report. The second level comprised more in-depth data generation, which in addition to the questionnaires also included keeping a journal throughout the 2-week sojourn and consenting to audio/video recordings of classroom interactions at CAVILAM. The third level pertained to the follow-up phase in BC and included, in addition to the first two levels, individual semi-structured interviews conducted between January and June 2010, a participant e-journal documenting teaching experiences over the course of the year, and an audio-/video-recorded classroom visit between January and June 2010.  During this first phase of the study, data generation thus involved pre- and post-questionnaires, journals, audio/video recordings of classroom sessions and extra-curricular activities, field notes, and one informal interview in lieu of a sojourn journal (Table 4.2). Table 4.2 Data generated from BC teacher participants during Phase I of the study.  Phase I    Data Sources (out of 87) Procedure Quantity pre-questionnaires 82 post- questionnaires 69 Vichy journals 19 unstructured interviews 1 (35min) audio-recording 30 hours video-recording 12 hours  Of the 87 participants all but one teacher consented to the first level of participation by completing either the pre- or the post-questionnaires, with 65 participants completing both questionnaires. For the second level, 37 journal booklets were initially handed out in Vichy with 81  19 ultimately returned, several prior to leaving Vichy and the remainder via mail during the fall of 2009. There were no objections from any of the BC teachers with regard to the audio/video recording of classroom time while in France. In addition to the BC cohort, CAVILAM instructors and other students enrolled in classes with the BC teachers were given an opportunity to consent to the audio-/video recording of the classroom interaction and my participation as researcher in the class. The 30 hours of audio-recordings include classroom interaction (24 hours) as well as outside class group activities, such as bus tours, speeches at special gatherings, lectures, meetings, and spontaneous group singing. The video-recordings were limited to the classroom. Although 46 participants had indicated potential interest in participating in the follow-up phase of the study, this number dwindled to a handful of participants upon subsequent requests (discussed in the next section).  Professional background of participants  To give a sense of the composition of this group of teachers, I present relevant professional characteristics based on the background information generated through the pre-questionnaire. This also provides a context for the selection of the focal participants in terms of how they are situated within the larger professional community of FSL teachers in BC.   As can be expected with regard to school districts, the largest contingent (almost two thirds) of teachers participating in the sojourn originated from school districts located in the south-west corner of the province, the most densely populated region (Figure 4.2 below). Proximity to this region is a direct indicator of the number of participants from other regions in the provinces, with coastal/island and interior districts better represented than northern and 82  eastern areas. In part this is due to the dissemination of information (or lack thereof) about the sojourn to school districts rural areas in the province. Figure 4.2 Provincial representation of teachers participating in sojourn to France.               The types of FSL programming associated with the participants are shown in Table 4.3 below. Participants from secondary CF and early FI programs predominated, constituting two thirds of the entire group, while secondary FI teachers also constituted a notable part of the cohort.12 These programs enroll students on a voluntary basis (after Grade 8 CF) and, given their status as ?high level French? programing, require teachers with a relatively advanced level of French. Elementary CF (represented by 6 participants) falls into province-mandated additional language programing and is the most widely taught government supported L2 program in the                                                   12 Although most district coordinators did not indicate an affiliation with a specific FSL program it can be assumed that they have taught in at least one of these three programs (as indicated by one participant). NORTHWEST TERRITROIES YUKON YUKON YUKON  ALASKA YUKON YUKON  WASHINGTON YUKON YUKON  ALBERTA YUKON YUKON  Northeast BC YUKON YUKON  Northwest BC YUKON YUKON  Cariboo   Thompson Okanagan   Kootenay   Islands   Vancouver BRITISH COLUMBIA YUKON YUKON  13  52   9  4  1  2  83  Table 4.3 Professional background of sojourn participants in terms of program, experience, and linguistic background. Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of L1 speakers of French as indicated by the participants on the pre-questionnaire.      YEARS   OF   TEACHING  under 1 year 1-3  years 3-5 years 5 + years 10 +  years 25 + years  /82 2 3 10 11 37 19 TYPE     OF     PROGRAM CF Elementary 6  1 1  3 (1) 1 (1) CF Secondary 25 2  1 3 10 (3) 9 (1) Early FI (K- Grade 7) 28  1 (1) 6     4 (1) 13 (3) 4 (1) FI  Secondary (Grades  8-12) 12  1 (1) 1 3 3 (2) 4 (3) Late FI (Grade 6-7) 5   1  4 (1)  CF & FI Secondary 1     1 (1)  Intensive French  1     1  District Coordinator 4    1 (1) 2 (1)  1 (1)  province, due to the official status of French in Canada. Teachers in this program may be specialist or generalist teachers, the latter often with a very limited knowledge of the language (Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers, 2004; Carr, 2007b). It seems reasonable to assume that the DELF focus of the sojourn and the popularity of FI programs played a role with regard to the type of teachers that ultimately submitted an application for this PD sojourn abroad. Moreover, the criteria for participation and the French-only application process further points to a representation from predominantly ?high-level? French programs. 84   With regard to the length of participants? teaching careers (Table 4.3), these range from 1 to over 25 years, with over two thirds of participants having taught for more than a decade (between 10 and 20 years), whereas a third has 25 or more years of experience. In terms of the relationship between career length and the type of French programming, not surprisingly the majority of teachers with more than 10 years of experience teach in ?high level French? programs, more or less equally distributed across secondary CF and early FI. Among the 25 + group, half teach secondary CF. With regard to participants? linguistic background as indicated on the pre-questionnaire, the distribution of L2 French speakers constitutes 72 percent versus 28 percent L1 French speakers, indicated in Table 4.3 as bracketed numbers.   Phase II of the research process Research site: FSL education in British Columbia The second phase of this study involved a one-year follow-up inquiry with seven focal participants from the Vichy cohort, conducted at different sites across the province of British Columbia. In terms of the socio-historical and political elements of this setting, the research context represents a predominantly anglophone region in Western Canada where French, as one of the two official national languages, is a minority language vis-?-vis English, alongside a substantial number of other non-official languages. Despite increasing public acknowledgment of the benefits of a multilingual and plurilingual society, the place of FSL education in BC has been and remains a highly politicized issue, especially as regards its official status in Canada (Steffenhagen, 2011a, 2011b). The learning of French in BC can be traced back over a century and a half, but it was not until the later part of the twentieth century that it was officially integrated as a subject into all 85  levels of schooling and institutionally funded (Carr, 2007b). Based on the recommendations of the 1960s Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the federal government passed the Official Languages Act in 1969 designating French and English as Canada?s two official languages and establishing bilingual services in the central government and within federal courts. A year later, it launched the Bilingualism in Education Program (BEP), today the Official Languages in Education Program (OLEP), as partial funding for the provinces and a number of federal programs for the promotion of French and English as minority and second languages in Canada (Hayday, 2005). At the time, the government?s central focus was on individuals? rights, which were seen to encompass language rights and, in this way, offer citizens equal access to government services in the official language of their choice. However, with education under provincial jurisdiction since Confederation (1876), many provincial governments, including BC, preferred an emphasis on multiculturalism and multilingualism and therefore initially adopted a hands-off approach to French language education. Eventually, however, the BC government granted francophone education leaders greater protection for minority-language education and at the same time promoted bilingualism among the anglophone population through FSL programing, which today includes core French, French immersion, and intensive French in British Columbia.13  Core French was recommended as a required school subject at the secondary level in BC in 1977, with a non-compulsory local option in elementary grades. By the mid-1990s, BC?s Language Education Policy (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 1994) had shifted from French-specific requirements and called for a general mandatory second language option in                                                  13 On occasion, use of the term FSL can be found with reference to only core French. This use is especially popular among teachers in BC, who often use the descriptor ?FSL? to distinguish basic French programming from French immersion. Unfortunately this ambiguous use appears to now have also made its way into the research literature (e.g., Karsenti, Collin, Villeneuve, Dumouchel, & Roy, 2008; MacFarlane, 2005; Mady, 2008).  86  grades 5 to 8, which in most cases constituted CF due to existing programs and resources. As an introductory course, CF is typically taught as a 40-50 minute block twice a week in elementary, and often for three hours per week in Grade 8. The delivery of the program differs across districts, as well as from one school to the next depending on the school?s timetable, semester format, and available resources (Carr, 2007b). The main emphasis of this program is on basic communication and cultural understandings, which may be further developed in secondary grades (Carr, 2007a). French immersion (Lambert & Tucker, 1972) is an intensive content-based L2 program in which French is used as a medium of instruction for non-French speaking students (Cummins, 1998). Introduced in Canada in 1965 in the now famous St. Lambert school in a suburb of Montreal, it made its way to British Columbia in 1968 (Canadian Parents for French, 2008a) and has grown steadily in popularity (Canadian Heritage, 2008), in part due to an active research community (Cummins, 1983). In the mid-1990s, consistent with a renewed interest in second language education by the BC Ministry of Education, school districts sought to increase French language intensity in its FI program by extending FI instruction from 50 to 80 percent of the core academic curriculum through intermediate Grades 4 to 7 (Bournot-Trites & Reeder, 2001; Reeder, Buntain, & Takakuwa, 1999). FI continues to be described as a primary means of providing non-francophone students an opportunity to become bilingual (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 1996). As to the intensity of French language instruction, the BC Ministry of Education recommends that schools begin with 100 percent in kindergarten and primary grades, progressing to 80 percent in intermediate elementary with the introduction of English in Grade 4, decreasing to 50 percent in junior high school (Grades 8-10), and finally ending at approximately 25 percent of FI instruction in the senior Grades (11 & 12). Current curriculum 87  guidelines for early elementary, secondary, and late elementary FI date back to 1995, 1997 and 1999 respectively (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2011). A third FSL program, intensive French, was introduced to BC in 2004. First piloted in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1998, it was conceived by Joan Netten and Claude Germain (2004) as a way to revitalize basic French programing (MacFarlane, 2005). IF is modeled after Quebec?s classes d?accueil, that province?s intensive French language program and equivalent to FI (Netten & Germain, 2004). As a program option, IF is situated somewhere between CF and FI in that it offers Grade 5 and 6 students the opportunity to learn French in an immersion setting for a half year, followed by an English language curriculum during the second half, with Math delivered in English throughout the entire school year. In BC, this is followed-up with an enriched French language program in Grade 7 with up to five hours of French per week (Carr, 2008, p. 788).   Within the province of BC, there are seven separate research sites, each of which is associated with one of the focal participants discussed in the next section. Five of the participants I met in their respective schools to conduct multiple interviews and, in the case of four of these participants, also classroom observations. The other two participants met with me for an interview outside of their place of work.  Focal participants   Recruitment and data sources  In this study, it was not my aim to look for representativeness of focal participants within the larger cohort; rather, I was interested in focal participants? individual displays of professional identity construction, specifically conceptions of authenticity. Selection of participants was therefore based on intensity or variation sampling (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 1990), to 88  provide for information-rich cases from multiple data sources and an opportunity for in-depth analysis. In other words, the emphasis was on variability in an effort to understand how different participants identified as ?FSL teacher? account for similar experiences in different ways (Wood & Kroger, 2000). In fact, the identity category to which participants in this study have been recruited is itself an element ?of the research arguments that are being pursued? (Potter & Hepburn, 2012, p. 6). This category as well as related categories of L2 learner, ?non-native speaker teacher,? FSL professional, research participant, and so on, figure explicitly and implicitly in questionnaire, journal, and interview prompts and are made relevant by focal participants in several ways. While fully recognizing that my own orientation to these categories as a researcher has an influence on their salience in participants? accounts, my primary focus is on how these categories are discursively produced and how they function as discursive resources in the construction of participants? identities.   During the fall of 2009, those who had submitted a journal and consented to participate in the third option were contacted by e-mail for further participation in the study. The fall school term tends to be a particularly stressful and busy time for teachers, a period during which teachers have to adapt to new workloads, schedules, classes, etc. With only three confirmed participants by the end of the term, another request was sent in late December, 2009. The timing appeared to be right this time. By early 2010 nine participants had officially agreed to continue with the study, of which seven ultimately participated as focal participants (see Table 4.4 below for an overview of data sources).   All seven participants had completed pre- and post-questionnaires and a journal in France. Although each had also consented to participate in Phase II of the study, the specifics of   89  Table 4.4 Data sources of focal participants.  that participation were worked out on an individual basis through email contact and at the time of the first interview based on both the teachers? and my own schedule. During this second phase of Phase II   Data Sources Participant Data Source Time Frame Christa ? pre- and post-questionnaire July, 2009 ? Vichy notebook journal (5 entries) ? 1 semi-structured interview face-to-face (1 h audio & video) January 2010 Janet ? pre- and post-questionnaire July, 2009 ? Vichy notebook journal  (10 entries) ? monthly e-journal (1 entry as part of e-mail correspondence ) Nov 2009 ? 1 semi-structured interview face-to-face  (1 h of audio & video) February 2010 ? 1 ?debriefing? interviews (40 min audio) May, 2010 ? classroom observation of a Grade 5/6 FI class conducted over  2 days  (total: 7 h audio) Karin ? pre- and post-questionnaire July, 2009 ? Vichy notebook journal (3 entries) ? 1 semi-structured interview face-to-face  (1.25 h of audio, 1h video) January, 2010 ? 2 ?debriefing? interviews (1.5 h audio) May, 2010 ? classroom observation of a Grade 2 FI class conducted over 2 days      (total: 4.5 hours of audio & video) Helen ? pre- and post-questionnaire July, 2009 ? Vichy notebook journal (5 entries) ? monthly e-journal (9 entries) Sep09 - Jun10 ? 1 semi-structured interview by telephone (1.3 h audio) January, 2010 ? 5 ?debriefing? interviews (2.5 h audio) April, 2010 ? classroom observation conducted over 4 days: 6 classes of one CF Grade 9 and 5 classes of one CF Grade 10 (total: 9.25 h audio & video) Carolyn ? pre- and post-questionnaire July, 2009 ? Vichy e-journal  (8 entries) ? 1 semi-structured interview by telephone (1.3 hours of audio) February 2010 ? 1 ?debriefing? interview (45 min audio) June, 2010 ? classroom observation of 2 CF Grade 9 classes and 1 CF Grade 10 class (total: 4 h audio & video) Tamara ? pre- and post-questionnaire July, 2009 ? Vichy notebook journal (6 entries) ? 1 semi-structured interview face-to-face (1.5 h audio) January, 2010 ? web-hosted slide-show (97 photos w/ captions) Sara ? pre- and post-questionnaire July, 2009 ? 1 semi-structured interview face-to-face (1.5 h audio) February, 2010 ? 1 follow-up semi-structured interview face-to-face (1 h audio & video) May 2010 90  the study, data generation comprised at least one semi-structured interview with every participant, with five participants agreeing to a second interview. Except for one participant, who regularly submitted monthly e-journal reports, others submitted occasional, brief accounts as part of ongoing email correspondence.  Classroom visits with audio and video recordings were negotiated during the first interview. Once a participant had agreed to classroom observation, consent was obtained from the school district and the school principal, always in collaboration with the research participant. As soon as I had access to the classroom, each teacher participant was sent the parent/student consent and assent forms for completion by parents and students. Although the largest portion of the data from focal participants was produced during the sojourn in France and the subsequent school year 2009/2010, in November 2010 I requested focal participants? permission to use as data any e-mail correspondence generated throughout the research process.  Participants? professional backgrounds  In this section I briefly sketch the working contexts of the focal participants (see Table 4.5 below for a summary). This sketch is not meant to draw up particular case studies but to provide an overview of the composition of this group of participants in terms of educational and professional background. Furthermore, the information included in this table is contingent on the following: a) I decided not to include information that might potentially lead to an identification of the focal participants, given that many in the FSL community were participants or are connected with someone who participated in the sojourn; b) the participant-relevant discourse analytic approach taken here means that any information about the participant is based on what has been provided by the participant herself and interpreted as constituting discourse, that is, as 91  contributing to the construction of a particular identity. I have therefore not introduced other social categories aside from the FSL teacher category, which is made directly relevant in this study?s research questions.  Table 4.5 Professional background and teaching context of focal participants FOCAL  PARTICIPANTS  EDUCATIONAL  &  PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND  CHRISTA JANET KARIN HELEN CAROLYN TAMARA SARA French  L2 L2 L2 L2 L2 L2 L2 currently teaching FI primary & intermediate FI intermediate FI primary CF & FI secondary CF secondary CF intermediate CF secondary years of teaching 28 years 9 years 16 years 1 year 28 years 24 years 10 years workload full-time full-time full-time full-time full-time full-time full-time education  ? CF ? BSc in Biology ? Teacher Ed     in FI ? FI ? BA: Psych & French ? Teacher Ed: FSL ? Basic ? French ? BA: French ? M.Mus ? Teacher Ed ? Basic French ? BA: Theatre & French ? Teacher Ed ? CF ? B.Ed ? Teacher Ed ? French school ? B.Mus ? Teacher Ed ? CF ? BA(Hons) in French ? MA in French Lit ? Teacher Ed: L2 time in French-speaking region ? bi-yearly  2-wk visits to Quebec  ? 3 weeks in Quebec ? several visits to France & Quebec ? 3 sojourns   between  1-6 weeks in length ? 1yr & 4wk study in France; ? family vacations    to France ? 3 months in Quebec ? several SA trips w/ students to France ? 23 years  in Quebec; ? short Paris visit many years ago   ? 2 weeks as chaperone to students in France CAVILAM program  Parcours Parcours Parcours Parcours Parcours DELF DELF  All of the focal participants were female teachers, not surprising given that the 87 participants included only eight male teachers, three of whom took part as members of the organizing committee. Gender is not something that I focused on specifically in my investigation. As an identity category it is made relevant indirectly by several participants 92  through the category ?mother,? predominantly with a focus on its signification as parent rather than in terms of an orientation to gender (see Chapter 6).  Another attributable characteristic common to all the participants was the L2 acquisition of French, either as a second or third language. All learned French through the public school system through a variety of programing options including basic French, French immersion, or at a francophone school. At the post-secondary level almost all the participants studied a subject other than or alongside French and not every participant concentrated on FSL teaching in their teacher education programs. Thus, while the data analysis in Chapter 5 is based on data generated by the cohort as a whole and therefore includes both L1 and L2 speakers of French, analysis of the identity construction of the focal participants centered specifically on so-called ?non-native? teacher speakers. Also of interest is that for every one of these participants English was the dominant language, either acquired as an L1 or in conjunction with a heritage language ? specifically as concerns Tamara, Carolyn, Karin, and possibly also Sara.  In regard to the participants? teaching careers, all held full-time positions and, at the time of the study, represented a wide range in terms of career length: one novice teacher (Helen), three ?old-timers? with more than 25 years of public school FSL teaching (Tamara, Christa, and Carolyn) and the remaining three with a decade or more of FSL teaching experience (Karin, Janet, and Sara). The types of programs represented also constitute a substantial range, with CF secondary most prominent, followed by primary and intermediate FI, and one CF elementary teacher. Finally, all participants had travelled abroad to a French-speaking region either within or outside of Canada, most often for the purpose of study or travel, but also as teachers on student exchanges. Participants? accounts of these trips and the role they played within their professional lives speak to understandings of authenticity as well as the formation of FSL teacher identities. 93  Data  This section outlines the different methods of data generation used in the study, including the purpose and procedure of each method. Data generated by participants are seen to represent one possible perspective or version of events, with multiple methods affording multiple instances of data production and therefore potential consideration of alternative versions (Wood & Kroger, 2000). My approach to data production relies on a social practice orientation (Talmy, 2010b), grounded in discussions about the use of interviews in social science research (e.g. Briggs, 2007; Potter & Hepburn, 2005), specifically in regards to the explicit theorization of the status and data of qualitative research interviews (Deschambault, 2011; Roulston, 2010). A similar perspective has also been proposed for autobiographical narrative research (Pavlenko, 2007) and the use of questionnaires for qualitative inquiry (Wernicke, in progress). Consequently, in this study, data production is understood as ?participation in social practices? and as such constitutes a ?collaborative achievement? between participants and researchers (Talmy, 2011).  The choice of methods is based on the position that the ?ability of method to act as the bridge from questions to reasonable answers? (Freebody, 2004, p. 68) requires an explicitly outlined and coherent methodological framework in order to justify the validation (Mishler, 1990) or trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) of qualitative inquiry. Given the reflexive nature of social research (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007) it is important to consider the inherently different methods and the type of data they afford. As noted by Atkinson and Coffey (2003), while different research methods present different means of understanding the world, the resulting data from these methods all represent social actions which can be talked about (see also Speer, 2002):  Social life is performed and narrated, and we need to recognize the performative qualities 94  of social life and talk. In doing so, we shall not find it necessary to juxtapose talk and events as if they occupied different spheres of meaning.... By acknowledging that accounts, recollections, and experiences are enacted, we can start to avoid the strict dualism between ?what people do? and ?what people say.? (P. Atkinson, Coffey, & Delamont, 2003, pp. 110, 119) This means that participants? descriptions and accounts from interviews, questionnaires, journals, and email correspondence are taken to be co-constructed narrative texts demonstrating enacted teacher identity (Bamberg & Georgakopoulou, 2008; Pavlenko, 2007). At the same time, each data set constitutes a distinct form of social action by comprising a particular type of textual representation (P. Atkinson & Coffey, 2003). Recognition of the particular affordances or qualities of each text is important because one may yield corroborative or conflicting findings when placed next to the findings from another data source. The recognition that each method provides different affordances to explore the perspectives of a particular social reality also means that these ?different points of view cannot be merged into a single, ?true? and ?certain? representation of the object? (Silverman, 2006, p. 291). Each method and its corresponding analytic strategy is of value on its own, which means that triangulation is theoretically incompatible with the social practice and discourse analytic approach taken here (P. Atkinson & Coffey, 2003; Silverman, 2000; Talmy, 2011; cf. Talmy & K. Richards, 2011, pp. 3-4). As noted: Triangulation is inconsistent with the principles of discourse analysis in that it assumes that different versions (from different methods, etc.) can be taken as a route to something behind them, and further, that there is one correct version; it fails to recognize sufficiently 95  that observations are affected not only by theory but also by conventional methodological imperatives. (Wood & Kroger, 2000, p. 176) The manner in which triangulation in terms of multiple methods and data sources does contribute to the present study is by augmenting the variety of data and consequently providing for a more multidimensional understanding of language teacher identity construction. Instead of being used as a method of validation, triangulation can be seen as ?a strategy that adds rigor, breadth, complexity, richness, and depth? to the study (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 5). It is with this ontological and epistemological stance in mind that I discuss the various methods used for data generation of this study.   Questionnaires  As one of the most common research instruments in applied linguistics research (Brown, 2009; Brown & Rodgers, 2002; Chaudron, 2000; D?rnyei, 2003) I have used questionnaires in this study for professional and educational background information about the participants and to gain an overview of the research topic. With virtually no literature specifically focused on teachers on study abroad, a large-scale survey such as this one served as a useful starting point for further data and subsequent analysis by offering a ?bigger picture? of the participants? take on the PD initiative. Surveys represent a common design feature in case study research because they allow the researcher to establish the representativeness of the cases presented with individual cases offering an in-depth description of the phenomenon being investigated (Duff, 2008). The questionnaires for this study were designed with both closed and open-ended response items. Closed response items were included to produce background information as well as evaluative feedback about the CAVILAM program. Open response items allowed participants 96  to elaborate on biographical data and offer brief accounts or descriptions related to the PD sojourn. The 41-item pre-questionnaire and the 48-item post-questionnaire were created in collaboration with CAVILAM administrators in order to provide for a general program evaluation in addition to generating research data for the multiple case study (see Appendix D). Questions from a variety of CAVILAM evaluation forms were integrated into the questionnaire design in an effort to cover all research and assessment objectives, and thus avoid the need for multiple questionnaire forms at the end of the program. The pre-questionnaires attended to participants? professional status and experience, pre-service education, self-assessment of language expertise in French, and familiarity with study abroad programs. Topics addressed in the predominantly open-ended questions of the post-questionnaire focused on participants? study abroad experiences as they related to the course content and instruction at CAVILAM, extra-curricular activities, accommodation, and the PD initiative in general.    Journals  Journal data were generated in this study as professional narrative (e.g. Bailey & Nunan, 1996; Golombek & Johnson, 2004; Pavlenko, 2003a; Tsui, 2007) to gain in-depth descriptions of participants? study abroad experiences to understand how the participants related these experiences to teaching practices and identities as FSL teachers. In research Phase I, participants were provided with a notebook on the first day of the sojourn which included a list of prompts for possible journal entries, including a) unexpected experiences, b) new knowledge,  c) progression of the sojourn, and d) impact of the sojourn on professional practice (see Appendix E). Given my focus on particular aspects of the SA sojourn and the number of participants in the cohort, my thoughts were also on subsequent data management and analysis. 97  Participants were encouraged to write entries according to their own schedule (e.g. on a daily, weekly, or one-time basis) in hardcopy or electronic format, in French or English. Teachers who had consented to participate in the follow-up research phase were encouraged to write entries in an e-journal on a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly basis. An e-journal template in Word document format was initially sent out to participants, pre-formatted with six prompts in the form of questions about a) the types of activities, resources, artifacts used in class, b) reflections about a particular lesson, c) interactions with students and colleagues, d) the impact of the sojourn on daily professional activities and relations, e) successes and, f) challenges (Appendix E). Only one focal participant submitted a journal entry regularly. As noted above, email-embedded journal-like reports were counted as participants email correspondence.   Interviews  Interviews are a favoured method of inquiry in applied linguistics and education research (P. Atkinson & Silverman, 1997; Briggs, 1986; Talmy, 2010b), certainly in studies investigating teacher identity (K. Richards, 2009), and as such figure prominently in this study. My use of interviews draws on a social practice approach which conceives of the interview as locally and collaboratively constructed (Holstein & Gubrium, 2004; Talmy, 2010b). From this perspective, interviewees and interviewer(s) are considered co-participants in the construction of the data and meanings are seen as developing out of the interaction of the interview itself (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995), with the interviewer as ?neither neutral nor indifferently supportive? (Wood & Kroger, 2000, p. 72). This means that, in the present study, so-called ?interviewer bias? or ?contaminated data? are not viewed as problems, but merely as a different kind of research practice associated with a certain theoretical conception of interviews (Roulston, 2011; Talmy, 98  2010b). From a social practice perspective, the role of the researcher is viewed as a valuable analytic resource in interpreting the data (see also Miller, 2011).   In the second research phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted on a one-time basis with two of the focal participants while the remaining teachers participated in interviews on multiple occasions, often in conjunction with the classroom observation. Initial interviews were conducted and recorded in a face-to-face, telephone, or email format. All additional interviewing occurred face-to-face. In designing the protocol for the initial interview (see Appendix F) I drew on questionnaire and journal data generated during the sojourn in France, with subsequent interviews conducted as a direct follow-up to classroom observations and/or as a means of examining in more detail issues made relevant during the first interview. Despite a set protocol, questioning in the first interview was in part guided by the interaction, at times requiring adjustment of the order of the questions. Interview questions for subsequent interviews or debriefing sessions were designed as follow-up to previously collected data.   Online interviews were organized through e-mail correspondence and therefore required a more formal approach to procedural aspects. Prior to my sending any interview questions over email, the participant was sent a list of guidelines about the process of the interview (James & Busher, 2009), allowing for clarification of time-lines and the addressing of concerns or questions from the participant (see Appendix F). Subsequent to the participant agreeing to the interview procedure, I sent the first two questions listed on the interview protocol. Based on an approximate turn-around period of three days for each set of questions, the entire interview was scheduled over a total of 6-8 weeks. Each participant response was followed-up with one or two questions pertaining directly to the response (as necessary) in addition to the next set of questions from the interview protocol. In order to establish an on-going interaction between 99  interviewer and interviewee, both of us composed each subsequent question or comment directly into the ?reply? window of each e-mail, thereby creating a running transcript of the entire interview. Despite the laborious nature of this process the temptation to simply work through all the questions at once, the ability to follow-up on responses and to focus on only two or three questions at a time contributes immensely to collaborative and interactive character of the interview.  Participant observation  Another common source of information-rich data in case study research is participant observation (Hatch, 2002; Yin, 2009). My central purpose for using this method was to gain an understanding of the study abroad setting and of participants? professional development activities while in Vichy, given the small amount of research involving teacher PD in a study abroad context. This involved sitting in on different classes, workshops, and lectures; attending extra-curricular events with the participants inside and outside of Vichy; and being part of participants? daily visits in classroom, cafeteria, library, computer lab, the outdoor terrace or the much-visited caf? down the street from CAVILAM. In BC, my interest centered on participants? particular teaching contexts and their instructional practices in those environments. This involved visiting multiple classes of four different focal participants, usually over several days, to observe teacher-student interaction during a particular lesson. My level of participation was moderate on these occasions (Spradley, 1980) and mostly entailed being seated on the side of the classroom and attending to the video/audio recording equipment. Identity work accomplished in classrooms as well as in interview interaction foregrounded certain identity categories or particular tensions between different identity roles.  100  Audio and video recording  Audio/video recording represents an important supplementary method of data production. As noted by Gubrium and Holstein (2009), determining how the internal organization of accounts relates to their social context ?requires an understanding of what people do with words to create and structure meaning? (p. 25). Arriving at this understanding is most effectively accomplished with audio or video recorded, transcribed data. In the present study, audio recordings constituted the main source of interview data.   Field notes The product of participant observation as a method of data collection usually involves a considerable amount of field notes. In France, daily events and activities were documented in chronological order. During the follow-up phase, field notes were taken during each classroom visit, providing further context of the class activities I observed (Hatch, 2002) alongside audio- and/or video-recordings. Given the focus on L2 teacher identity in this study, particular attention was paid to the setting (classroom set-up and decor), teacher-student interaction, participants? mobilization of certain identity categories, teaching practices, orientations to language ideologies, conceptions of language learning and language use, participants? use of French, and types of teaching materials in the classroom.   Documents  During both phases a variety of documents were collected as a means of contextualizing participants? accounts with further background information. In France these comprised CAVILAM literature made available to students by the institution, including booklets, and 101  calendars with information about the language centre, the city of Vichy, accommodations, cultural activities, touristic pamphlets, newsletters, and schedules of classes and workshops. Specifically associated with the BC teachers are documents with programmatic information for the cohort, in-class handouts, and correspondence with CAVILAM regarding arrival procedures and host families. In BC, documents included handouts and copies of classroom materials distributed to students and/or used by focal participants during observed classroom sessions. Photos were also taken prior to or after the classroom observations, generally of both the interior and exterior of the school and classroom.  With regard to language preference for all data generation methods used here, it is important to note that, given that the research topic and context involve bilingual/multilingual interaction with research participants, data generation procedures were designed and carried out with as much flexibility as possible to allow for collaborative negotiation of language choice /alternation during each research activity.  Data analysis Data analysis for this study was a continuous activity which began at the outset of the first research interaction, recursively shaped the subsequent phases of the research process, and proceeded in an iterative manner throughout the writing of the thesis. Analysis considers not only the content of participants? accounts as responses to research questions, but also how these narratives have been generated, and how both analysis and findings are to be represented for the reader. In this section, I briefly discuss management and analysis of the data generated for this study. Rather than outlining specific approaches to data analysis at this point, I introduce 102  fundamental features of a general analytic approach, and leave discussion about specific analysis of the data for Chapters 5 and 6.    My approach to focal participants? data and insights into individual FSL identity constructions constitutes an iterative analytic trajectory. I began with initial readings and compilation of journal and questionnaire accounts. Hand-written responses were recontextualized (Briggs, 2003) into a text document, taking into account line and paragraph breaks and the graphic organization of the text. This was followed up with an initial rough transcription of each interview and coding of questionnaire responses, journal accounts, and email correspondence. Open-ended questionnaire responses were examined for thematically salient patterns across participant accounts. Responses to one question item were subsequently analysed from a discourse-analytic perspective, the results of which are presented in Chapter 5. Analyses represented in Chapter 6 were based on more detailed transcriptions of each interview, with specific focus on excerpts particularly relevant to participants? particular identity construction. While initial transcriptions merely served to summarize interview content, later transcriptions focused on relevant interactional detail such as pauses, intonation, overlapping utterances, and laughter particles. Final interview transcripts and other data items were assembled into individual hermeneutic units for each focal participant, with each unit subjected to further analysis with consideration of the temporal elements characterizing the generation of each data set. Analysis of salient themes and discursive constructions of identity, both of self and other, brought to light explicit and implicit orientations to prevalent assumptions and beliefs about second language learning and teaching.  As outlined in the previous chapter, a central question the present study addresses is the relationship between larger social structures and locally produced categories, positionings and 103  roles taken up by the participants in the course of constructing a professional identity as FSL teacher. The question of how identity is produced requires a methodological approach that demonstrates how ground-level analysis of the participants? talk-in-interaction may be connected with a consideration of larger social contextual factors. In so doing, I draw on the larger tradition of discursive psychology (D. Edwards & Potter, 1992, 2005; Potter & Wetherell, 1987) in my approach to confidence and attend to identity construction based on participant-relevant analysis of talk (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998; Drew, 2006; Heritage, 2005; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974) ? specifically membership categorization analysis (MCA) (Baker, 2004; Hester & Eglin, 1997; Sacks, 1972) and positioning analysis (PA) (Bamberg, 1997, 2004b; Talbot, Bibace, Bokhur, & Bamberg, 1996). A discursive psychology approach and MCA are elaborated in Chapter 5 while PA is laid out in Chapter 6.   The concept of indexicality (e.g., Ochs & Taylor, 1992; Silverstein, 2003) provides another important analytic resource for understanding how identity is constituted through the relations that emerge in interaction. Indexicality involves a number of processes which indirectly associate language or linguistic forms with social phenomena, such as identities. These indexical processes include: (a) overt mention of identity categories and labels; (b) implicatures and presuppositions regarding one's own or others' identity position; (c) displayed evaluative and epistemic orientations to ongoing talk, as well as interactional footings and participant roles; and (d) the use of linguistic structures and systems that are ideologically associated with specific personas and groups. (Bucholtz & Hall, 2010, p. 21) These indexical processes make relevant ideological structures, the beliefs and values related to what is being talked about ? which in this study pertains to learning, teaching and using French 104  as a second language. Indexicality is thus crucial to the way in which language is used to construct identity positions by highlighting the connection between discursive practices and identity formation (Bucholtz & Hall, 2010). It is these linguistic resources employed by the participants in their identity work that I will focus on in the analyses represented in subsequent chapters.   Transcription  Reflexive awareness about the generation and use of recorded data must extend to equally reflexive transcription practices (Bucholtz, 2000). A conception of ?transcription as theory? (Ochs, 1979) means that ?[h]ow we transcribe doesn?t just reflect our theories of language, it also shapes them? (Du Bois, 1991, p. 71). It is the researcher who decides what parts and elements of the data will be transcribed, which aspects will be excluded from the transcription, and how the information will be displayed in the transcript. Transcription must therefore be recognized as an interpretative component of data analysis (Bucholtz, 2000). For example, the decision to transcribe a particular strip of discourse speaks to the significance the recording has for the analyst, which in turn implies that the excerpt is being interpreted from a particular point of view. At the same time, the transcript is a representation of an instance of talk and therefore involves decisions as to how conversational elements (style, non-verbal actions, multilingual talk, interlocutor relationships, etc.) are represented in the transcript. The distinction between these two processes often gets obscured since ?decisions of interpretation often involve decisions of representation and vice versa? (Bucholtz, 2000, p. 1441).   Given the substantial amount of both audio and video recordings collected for the present study, I decided to begin with a loose transcription, alternating between transcribing certain 105  accounts verbatim and summarizing others. As patterns or significant incidents of identity work became evident, I re-transcribed each interview more closely based on Jeffersonian transcription conventions (Jefferson, 2004; see also ten Have, 2007), attending to discursive detail that I determined was relevant for my analysis (Bucholtz, 2000) (see Appendix G for transcription conventions used in this study). Discursive elements such as pronoun choices, hesitations, code-switching, pauses, stress, intonation, and the sequential organization of the text were paramount in my interpretation of what was being said. With regard to representation, providing a detail-rich transcription of the data means that my role in the interactions is fully represented. Participants? accounts were analyzed in their original language (Pavlenko, 2007) and accompanied by an English translation when represented in the discussion for analysis, keeping in mind that translation itself constitutes a level of interpretation and analysis (Nikander, 2008).  With regard to the orthographic representation of pronunciation I draw on Bucholtz? (2007) perspective that transcribing is ?a socioculturally embedded linguistic and metalinguistic practice? and that representational differences in transcription are a product of the situatedness of the task rather than a sign of inconsistency or error on the part of the analyst (p. 785). Such an approach recognizes the dynamics at play as data are ?entextualized? or extracted from one social setting and recontextualized into a range of other settings (Bauman & Briggs, 1990; Briggs, 2003), particularly as concerns researcher reflexivity. Consequently, transcriptions provided in subsequent chapters represent a particular version of social interaction, the interpretation and representation of which is shaped by my own background, linguistic and otherwise, as well as the research agenda itself. Speech which was heard to vary from what is typically referred to as standard language was only transcribed as ?marked? if it was seen to 106  function as a discursive resource for the speaker. Phonetic transcription of pronunciation is based on the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) (Pullum & Ladusaw, 1996).   Finally, in line with an ethical approach to audio-recorded data (K. Richards, 2003), access to transcripts was made available to focal participants. One participant expressed an interest in receiving a transcript of our interview interactions and was sent copies electronically. There has been no follow-up communication from the participant.    Researcher position  The concept of reflexivity acknowledges that doing research ?involves participating in the social world ...and reflecting on the products of that participation? (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007, p. 15). My theorization of the data as collaboratively constructed in interaction with my participants means that my role as researcher informs both the data generation process as well as the analysis of the present study. As discussed earlier, the action of recruiting participants for this study assigns these participants a particular identity, for example, FSL teacher on professional development abroad. Given that I have a role in this interaction, the categorization of the teachers also produces a categorization of me, as researcher and other potentially related identities such fellow L2 teacher, L2 user of French, teacher educator, sojourn participant, and so on (Potter & Hepburn, 2012). This means that my role as researcher in itself constitutes a significant analytic resource for the interpretation of the data and that this interpretation must take into account not only who produces the data but also for whom those data are produced. It is in this sense that my experiences, actions, and roles have to be acknowledged as informing the research process. The discussion and analysis in Chapter 5 offer an elaboration of this.   107  Confidentiality   Keith Richards has made the point that language education researchers should be very aware of ?how small and interconnected [their] world can seem? and recognize that the rich detail of case study must be reconciled with the ethical considerations of doing research (2011, p. 210). In this study, data have been modified to the extent that participants? confidentiality is safeguarded and their identity protected. Steps taken to ensure confidentiality in the representation of the data include omitting or altering certain characteristics about the participants as well as the omission of direct names of institutions or educational jurisdictions in British Columbia. It also includes avoiding the use of certain data excerpts for analysis which have the potential to identify a particular participant.     Quality and rigor In this study, the notion of ?quality? (Roulston, 2010) is not taken as an assurance that findings represent a particular ?truth? but, rather, that I have engaged in the research process in an ethical, informed, and rigorous manner to ensure that the findings presented are based on claims which are sufficiently warranted in the eyes of my participants and the readers of this study. This involves ensuring that the research and analytic process were undertaken and documented in an orderly and clear manner, that the grounding of claims has been demonstrated by the researcher, and that the argument being made is coherent and plausible.  An effective means of demonstrating rigor is through discourse analysis ?which can work to generate, warrant, and elaborate...claims in demonstrable and data-near terms? (Talmy, 2010a, p. 131). Analyzing data as discourse usually involves making different claims about the same topic or experience where these different versions are ?worked up by each participant differently 108  to achieve different or similar functions? in that setting (Wood & Kroger, 2000, p. 76). In this study rigour is sought through an emphasis on varied, rich data through triangulation as discussed earlier in terms of multiple methods, and by privileging participants? perspectives. In constructionist research this includes foregrounding the co-constructed nature of the data and researcher reflexivity by way of detailed transcriptions and contextualized representation of extracts in the discussion of research findings (Roulston, 2010). Coherence, as an analytic criterion, speaks in part to the ?search for particularity? (Stake, 2000) typically associated with case studies and the idea that the case in itself is of foremost interest in both its peculiarity and ordinariness? (p.437). Plausibility, conversely, looks to outside work to justify findings, often by referring to ?prior claims made in the literature? (p. 174). In the present study this criterion becomes relevant with regard to participants? understanding of confidence, treated here as a discursive resource in identity construction, a perspective not commonly found in relevant literature thus far but with potential relevance to other SA studies potentially pointing to similar findings.   Conclusion  In this chapter, I have outlined the design of the study as a qualitative multiple case study, described the research sites and participants of both research phases, and discussed methods for data generation as well as my general approach to data analysis. I have concluded this discussion with a brief consideration of my position as researcher, the issue of confidentiality, and the quality of the research process and findings. In the next two chapters I embark on the analysis of the data ? a large-scale examination of questionnaire responses generated by the entire cohort, followed by case analyses of the identity work of the seven focal participants in this study.   109  CHAPTER 5: AUTHENTICITY IN FSL  Role, or what one is supposed to do, and investments, or what one believes and thinks, are often at odds. The two are in dialogic relation and it is this tension that makes for the ?lived experiences? and the social practices of teachers.  (Britzman, 1994, p. 59)    Introduction  In this chapter I attend to the first research question I have proposed for this study: How are experiences and knowledge from abroad represented by the teacher participants as authentic resources in constructing an identity as FSL teacher?   To answer this question, I consider how my participants oriented to authenticity based on an analysis of their responses to a single questionnaire item. My focus is on participants? characterizations of their sojourn experiences in terms of confidence in relation to language expertise, which is articulated in their responses with a clear orientation to the language ideology of the ?native speaker.? The purpose of this chapter?s analysis, then, is to demonstrate how participants? orientation to authenticity in terms of ?native speakerness? ultimately informs the production of an FSL teacher category. As noted earlier, the notion of authentic resources in the research question is taken from linguistic anthropology (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005) to refer to discursive strategies or means of authenticating participants? membership in the identity category of FSL teacher.   The primary data source for this chapter comprises 63 written responses to a questionnaire I administered at the conclusion of the two-week study abroad in Vichy, France. Typically questionnaire research does not take into account how participants? responses are designed for the questions they are aiming to answer (Brown, 2001, 2009). In this study, however, I do just that. This approach to construing questionnaire data as ?recipient designed? (Sacks et al., 1974) 110  provides a novel understanding of questionnaire data as participation in social practice (cf. Talmy, 2010b). It also provides insight on the identity work involved in questionnaire research (e.g., in terms of identity categories), specifically, for this study, contributing to an understanding of second language teacher identity construction.    I begin the analysis with a discussion of the open-ended question prompt, which came from the post-questionnaire I administered at the conclusion of the Vichy sojourn:  29) Has participation in the program increased your confidence as a French language teacher?  As noted above, a central feature of my analysis is the recipient design of the 63 responses participants provided to this question, that is, the way in which these answers were manifestly shaped by and formulated with an orientation to the question, how it was asked, and who asked it. Such a perspective on questionnaire data entails considering them as a form of situated social action, a co-construction that is jointly accomplished by researcher (as author/asker of the questionnaire item) and research participant (as answerer). This conceptualization also balances the analytic focus between what the content of the answer is, and how it has been formulated (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995; Talmy, 2010b).   My discussion of the question prompt briefly considers confidence in relation to the research literature and then attends to the assumptions embedded in the questionnaire prompt and the general uptake of these by the participants as manifested in their responses. This allows me to demonstrate my approach to the participants? interpretation of confidence and FSL teacher identity in light of their displayed orientation to these assumptions within the context of this research activity. Next I briefly introduce membership categorization analysis (MCA) and then 111  represent my analysis based on a selection of 22 questionnaire responses.14 The focus is on the way confidence functions as an indexical resource of language expertise with a manifest orientation to a ?native speaker? standard. Following the analysis, I discuss the production of the ?FSL teacher? category with a review of participants? interpretations of the question prompt based on their descriptions of the sojourn?s impact on their level of confidence as ?French language teachers.? This includes a consideration of participants? overwhelming orientation to language expertise and what this means in terms of legitimacy as FSL teacher, as well as the implications that the production of this category of ?FSL teacher? has for especially ?non-native speaker teachers? in the FSL professional community.  The question  It is important to note that the questionnaire data that I analyse in this chapter were all responding to a particular question, one which, among the entire set of questions, most clearly addressed the construction of FSL teacher identity (see Appendix D.2 for post-questionnaire items). This is because the question ?Has participation in the program increased your confidence as a French language teacher?? (see Figure 5.1 below) failed to specify how exactly confidence Figure 5.1 Questionnaire item #29 of the post-questionnaire.                                                  14 The responses analysed in this chapter were chosen because of their representativeness of the entire data set. Responses not represented here either include similar types of accounts or are too brief to offer further insight into the discursive action being performed.    112  was to be understood in relation to practices relevant to French language teaching. In this sense, prompt #29 constituted a pivotal site for teacher identity construction in that it presented my participants with several options in taking up the identity category of ?French language teacher.? Specifically, having gained more confidence as a result of the sojourn could be interpreted as pertaining to teaching French or to learning French, or a combination of both.   Another reason for choosing this particular questionnaire item is that narratives from participants? travel journals, completed during the same time frame as the questionnaires, demonstrated noticeable attention being given to the issue of confidence. As a substantial literature in conversation analysis attests (Goodwin & Heritage, 1990; Sacks & Schegloff, 1979; Sacks et al., 1974), questions uniquely shape both the content and design of their answers. This is as true of questionnaires as it is of talk. Clearly, the question in item #29 itself introduces the notion of confidence and associates it to program participation and, by extension, French language development. In other words, I as author of the question have contributed to the ?emergence? of confidence as a salient theme in the data. My interest in confidence derives from relevant research literature on second language (L2) teaching, where those studies that reference confidence typically do so in terms of language expertise. This is especially the case in studies examining teachers who are socially identified as ?non-native speaker teachers? (e.g., Braine, 2010; Golombek & Johnson, 2004; Kamhi-Stein, 2000; Pavlenko, 2003b). For this reason, I will briefly consider the construct of confidence in this literature before moving on to the analysis of the question itself.  As discussed in Chapter 2, the development of language skills is viewed as a primary concern of the ?NNST,? with teachers? confidence ?mostly dependent on his or her degree of language competence? (Murdoch, 1994, p. 258). Language development has been treated as a 113  priority component of L2 language teacher education with the view that language competence directly leads to professional confidence and thus, good teaching (see also Berry, 1990; Cullen, 1994; Lange, 1990). Salvatori (2007) has taken up this emphasis on L2 teachers? language development in his study with ?non-native teachers of FSL? by focusing on L2 teachers? general lack of comfort and confidence in their French proficiency, describing it as ?the elephant in the living room.? Salvatori found that participants were reluctant to ?admit to others their insecurities about their language proficiency? (pp. 163-4), an apprehension that he associated with teachers? hesitation to improve their language through interaction with native and expert speakers. This ultimately resulted in a lost opportunity to elevate their level of confidence as FSL teachers (see also Seidlhofer, 1999). In my own study, this apprehension around language expertise manifested itself in the form of a tension in participants? accounts about being (or not being) confident as a teacher of French (see below).   Confidence, long studied as a personality trait, usually in connection with individuals? judgements about their ability to perform certain tasks (Blais, Thompson, & Baranski, 2005; Trow, 1923), is also associated with metacognitive processes related to learning (Kleitman & Stankov, 2007). In SLA, self-confidence is understood in relation to successful language development (Gardner, Tremblay, & Masgoret, 1997), combining lack of anxiety with sufficient communicative competence (MacIntyre et al., 1998). Being confident as an L2 user is attributed to successful interaction and positive L2 experiences with expert or ?native speakers,? while increased expertise in L2 is seen to result from greater confidence as L2 user (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), 1999; Shrum & Glisan, 2009). Accordingly, confidence has mostly figured as an unquestioned indicator of language expertise, defined in terms of an ?inner sense of control? (Kanno & Stuart, 2011, p. 11) or as a fear of being judged 114  (Salvatori, 2007), that is, as direct expressions of participants? mental attitudes and affective characteristics.   In my own study, participants also viewed confidence and language expertise as closely connected, which is why I decided to focus on this question prompt in my analysis. However, confidence as it relates to language expertise and L2 teachers was, in this study, considered from a discursive constructionist perspective (Potter & Hepburn, 2008), one in which what is conventionally taken to be a ?psychological? phenomenon, was viewed as social action rather than the true revelation of an actual inner mental state (Benwell & Stokoe, 2006). I approached references to confidence as a discursive resource which participants used to mediate the tension produced in their orienting to language expertise. The benefit of taking such a perspective is that the resources participants employed to make sense of the question prompt are the same resources that I, as analyst, then used to ?make out what actions and activities [were] being produced? (Hester & Eglin, 1992, p. 250). And these resources are key to interpreting the way in which participants? affirmations or negations of ?being more confident,? notably in relation to self-perceived language expertise, served as a means of accomplishing a particular teacher identity.  Assumptions: Recipient design and preference  An important aspect of interpreting participants? responses as recipient designed is that the question must be taken into account in order to understand how participants? responses align with the research task set out by the researcher. A significant analytic feature of the questionnaire prompt is that it incorporates some of the well-established assumptions about study abroad alluded to above and in Chapter 2: the idea that an increase in confidence indicates successful language learning, which in turn can be interpreted as an expected result of study abroad. 115  Participants? orientation to these assumptions in their responses is made relevant through the procedures they used to construct their answers in response to the question. For the analysis here this involves a consideration of preference organization, the affiliative function of a response. This in turn, relates to recipient design, the way in which an interaction is ?constructed or designed in ways which display an orientation and sensitivity to the particular other(s) who are the co-participants? (Sacks et al., 1974, p. 727). From this perspective, a response to a questionnaire may be conceived as an interaction between researcher and research participant, and the data as collaboratively produced (Drew, 2006). Although the responses analysed here do not represent ?talk? per se, we can say that the action of offering an answer to the question prompt indicates that an interaction between me and my research participants has taken place. Understanding this research activity in terms of an action sequence (Seedhouse, 2004) allows us to interpret the question-prompt as the initiating action insofar as it actually receives an answer, while the answers can be taken to represent the responsive action (Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 2008). The overall organization of my participants? responses thus serves as an analytic device, referred to as preference (Sacks, 1972, 1992). The notion of preference is based on the idea that when several courses of action are possible in a conversational event, one particular responsive action is typically expected or ?preferred.? The preference structure manifests itself in a type of response and also in the manner in which this response is produced in the interaction (J. M. Atkinson & Heritage, 1984). Generally, preferred responses are articulated directly with little hesitation, whereas a dispreferred response is usually delayed, indirect and often accompanied by an excuse or justification of some kind (Sacks et al., 1974; Sue Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 2008). In order to establish what counted as a preferred response in my data, I examined participants? orientation to the questionnaire prompt, in this case a polar (i.e., yes/no) question, by considering 116  the type of action that was being accomplished in their responses. I found that a yes-answer constituted a preferred response because it aligned with the expectation that study abroad leads to successful language learning (i.e., language development) as well as with the idea that increased confidence is directly linked to improved language expertise. A no-answer, by contrast, represented a dispreferred response because it failed to align with expected language development as an outcome of study abroad. The distribution of preferred versus dispreferred responses from my participants is represented in Table 5.1 below.  Table 5.1 Distribution of responses based on preference structure. Preferred responses include an explicit, direct yes-answer with or without an account. All remaining answers are categorized as dispreferred responses.   affirmative negative Language (5) 5 - Pedagogy (24) 17 7 DELF (34) 21 13 Total (63) 43 20   The frequency of affirmative answers accounted for more than two thirds of the total number of responses and thus clearly pointed to respondents? orientation to the prompt-embedded assumptions about confidence as indexing language development as an expected outcome of study abroad. The majority of these answers included a direct ?yes? or exclamatory upgrades such as ?most certainly? and ?absolument,? with only two yes-answers constituting mitigated responses (Caffi, 1999), ?yes, somewhat? and ?sure.? In contrast, most of the negative responses involved mediated or indirect no-answers, in almost every instance accompanied by an account. There were five explicit no-responses; only one of these was offered without an account. The others were accompanied by accounts which served to soften or mitigate the no-117  answer, suggesting that the respondents were well aware that an affirmative answer was preferred in response to the prompt, as in the following example:     29) Has participation in the program increased your confidence as a French language teacher?     Response 115  not exactly. Somewhat ? but I have also felt very aware of my inadequacies.  The lack of commitment to a clear ?no? is accomplished through hedging and a qualification. The respondent?s concluding reference to ?inadequacies? can be taken as a justification for why s/he was not able to provide an affirmative answer to the question prompt.  Given this preference organization, I was therefore able to analyze affirmative responses as displaying participants? alignment with the research activity and with me as researcher. Asking participants to provide an answer on a research questionnaire involves a categorization of the recipient of that answer, in this case of me, as researcher (Goodwin & Heritage, 1990). At the same time, it also involves a categorization of those completing the questionnaire, notably as research participants (in responding to the question) and as FSL teachers on study abroad (in that the design of the question is relevant to their professional participation in the sojourn). So while the question prompt was designed with the participants? categorization in mind (Potter & Hepburn, 2012), participants? responses were also interpreted as designed specifically for a particular audience. In other words, the preference organization evident in the responses allowed me to assume that my participants designed their responses in such a way that these would ?fit? me, as a recipient of those responses (ten Have, 2007). Consequently, I approached the answers that participants provided for me as constituting individual instances of identity construction                                                  15 Response extracts are numbered consecutively from 1 to 22 to facilitate referencing throughout the analysis. The numbers are not attributable to specific participants or participants? responses as answered on the questionnaire forms. 118  which I have analyzed in terms of membership categorization (MCA), which I briefly describe next, before moving into the analysis of participants questionnaire answers.  MCA  MCA (Sacks, 1972, 1992) investigates how people produce, use, and interpret (i.e., hear or read) descriptions, claims and activities in particular ways. It is a way of analysing how people ?make sense? of the world (Hester & Eglin, 1992) by considering how descriptions are occasioned and recognized in connection with people and events (Baker, 2000) ? the way that talking about teaching might allow us to recognize someone as a teacher or how a reference to one?s inadequacies in French may project an identity as L2 learner.    There are three main ?sense-making? resources in MCA. Membership categories usually refer to a person, place, or activity (Baker, 2000) and are used to understand descriptions of what people do and think. Talk about FSL teaching, for example, may include descriptions such as explaining communicative language teaching, why grammatical accuracy should be emphasized in the classroom, or a preferred means of assessing students? L2 French proficiency, all activities that are bound to and thus produce the membership category of ?FSL teacher.? In this sense, membership categories are inference-rich ? they constitute ?common-sense knowledge... about what people are like, how they behave, etc.? (Schegloff, 2007, p. 469). This common-sense knowledge is contained in a second ?sense-making? resource, category-bound activities or predicates. These are the qualities, attitudes, or activities that attach to membership categories to varying degrees. Talk that includes a description about teaching grammatical concepts allows us to associate this activity with the membership category ?FSL teacher.? Explaining the distinction between the pass? compos? and the imparfait tenses in French to a group of students, for 119  example, consequently enables us to recognize the person offering this explanation as an incumbent of the membership category of ?FSL teacher.?   In my analysis, the various activities, attitudes, and attributes  described by my participants? in the questionnaire responses (e.g., finding teaching resources, learning new expressions, being more confident, etc.) provide insight into how the teachers? interpret the identity category of ?French language teacher? in the questionnaire prompt (Baker, 2004). The ability to recognize a particular category in association with a category-bound activity engages a third analytic resource, membership categorization devices (MCD?s). These are locally produced inferential frameworks that allow the hearer or reader to interpret a particular category in terms of other, related categories. The term ?FSL language education? serves as a categorization device that might include ?FSL teacher? but possibly also ?FSL student.?  Based on this analytic approach, I have considered participants? responses as individual displays of membership categorization work. As such, each response provides insight into the kind of ?French language teacher? identity the participant was constructing in accounting for increased confidence. In the next section, I consider participants? responses as addressing the issue of confidence with a focus on the production of the category of FSL teacher.   The Analysis  The main purpose of the analysis is to demonstrate how the tension in the production of the ?FSL teacher? category manifests itself, how it gets negotiated, and how this negotiation indexes an orientation to authenticity in terms of ?native speakerness.? The analysis below examines 22 responses which are seen as representative of the entire data set. Responses not