'That Is Not Very American': A Microethnographic Discourse Analysis of a Chinese ESL Learner's Appropriation of Cultural Values at an Art Exhibition

This article is based on part of the discourse data collected from a 5‐month ethnographic study about how first‐year learners of English as a second language (ESL) socially interact with their native‐speaking peers in a college town in the U.S. Midwest. The data were collected from participant observation at an art exhibition at the research site. The analysis focuses on a video‐recorded event when an ESL learner from China, Joe, had a negotiated meaning‐making opportunity about the cultural values of art appreciation with his native‐speaking friend, Carmen. The data corpus warrants an analytical framework that focuses on the contextualized interpretations of the smallest meaningful units, and thus the researcher employed microethnographic discourse analysis. The findings suggest that local campus communities are the venues where cultural values are contested, negotiated, and appropriated among ESL learners and their native‐speaking peers. The study also shows that microethnographic discourse analysis is an effective tool for revealing the hidden and unmarked cultural constructs such as “what it means to be American.”

This article is based on the data collected from a 5‐month ethnographic study of five newly arrived learners of English as a second language (ESL) and their 22 native‐speaking peers' social interactions in out‐of‐class situations. The objective was to investigate how these ESL students learn the English language and U.S. culture[1] outside of the classroom. The theoretical framework was built upon Gumperz's ([6] ) interactional sociolinguistics, which focuses on how people interact with each other as a speech community, and Lave and Wenger's ([13] ) idea of legitimate periphery participation. The data sources include field notes, interviews, diaries written by the participants, artifacts collected from the participants, and participant observations. I used microethnographic discourse analysis drawn from Bloome, Carter, Christian, Otto, and Shuart‐Faris ([1] ) to analyze the transcriptions of the participant observations, which formed the major part of the data corpus.

This article focuses on one of the video recordings of participant observation obtained from the study. The 30‐minute video clip recorded a critical case (Mitchell, [15] ) when a Chinese ESL learner, Joe, negotiated the ideologies of “what it means to be American” with his native‐speaking peer, Carmen, at an art exhibition. From the findings, the researcher concludes that culture is not only what is shared and learned; it is also what is valued and devalued, and what is perceived as right or wrong and good or bad. Native speakers who are accustomed to such knowledge often naturalize it.

For international students who have just arrived in a foreign country, knowledge about cultural values is invaluable because what counts as legitimate participation in their new speech community relies on such knowledge. In another video‐recorded event, Joe said, “I think I learn about English. Its important thing is about communication.” Joe often expressed frustration in academic reading and writing because he did not have a chance to use what he called “high form” in daily conversations. To Joe, what mattered most was the competency to communicate with his dorm mates and friends in the college community because being able to participate in those conversations signifies a legitimate group membership, which was desirable among newly arrived international students like Joe. By analyzing how Joe negotiated cultural ideology[2] with Carmen, this article aims at denaturalizing the cultural assumptions of Americanization and empowering ESL learners to problematize the hidden and unmarked cultural practices while studying in the United States.

Gumperz's ([6] ) interactional sociolinguistics, which is the theoretical framework used in this study, is derived from Dell Hymes's ([9] ) ethnography of communication. Both Hymes and Gumperz underscored the critical role of context and culture, and they both objected to a linguistic formalism that foregrounds grammar and structure rather than language‐in‐use. Their new paradigm involves the concepts of speech community, communication, and collectivities through which people construct meaning by interacting as a group in a community. The meaning‐making process emerges from a combination of language (or semiotics), the interlocutors, purpose, and context.

Because neither Hymes nor Gumperz focus on language learners, for the purpose of my study I sought additional theories specifically dealing with ESL learners and their learning through social interactions. The seminal work of Lave and Wenger ([13] ), which studied how apprentices in various work environments moved from the periphery to the center, foregrounds the need to understand how learners become legitimate participants in a community. Using the logic of inquiry of interactional sociolinguistics, their study provides perspectives on learning through apprenticeship, in which ESL learners construct knowledge in the local community through social interactions. Lave and Wenger stress that, in order to have significant impact on their self‐efficacy, academic achievement, and social engagement, SL students' social participation must be legitimate. This study relies on Lave and Wenger's theory of legitimate peripheral participation as a supplementary framework to the interactional sociolinguistics of Hymes and Gumperz.

This study aims to unveil the discursive meaning construction processes of ESL learners. Although there are other theories about meaning making in the process of teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL)—for example, Krashen's ([11] ) affective filter hypothesis and Schmidt's ([18] ) noticing hypothesis and incidental learning—these theories foreground the acquisition of the target language in form and function and background the social construction of meaning in the learning process, and therefore were not chosen to contribute to the logic of inquiry of this study.

This section reviews the literature on out‐of‐school learning among ESL students. Eggins and Slade ([3] ) recorded casual conversation at dinner parties, workplace coffee breaks, and family gatherings. Using such variables as age, generation, gender, socioeconomic background, ethnicity, and nationality, the researchers underscore that casual conversation is an essential step for the social construction of reality and such construction is context‐dependent (p. 16). Strong ([21] ) conducted a study in the residential learning community. Using qualitative methods, Strong investigated undergraduate students' interactions with faculty in dormitories. Fourteen undergraduate science majors participated. According to Strong, residential community brings positive learning experiences to students (p. 25). His findings suggest that the residential learning community is conducive to student learning. In a qualitative study of 56 first‐generation minority students' social interactions at a Christian college, Ecklund ([2] ) found that these students needed a sense of “home” because of the unfamiliar cultural environment around them and thus tried their best to build social relationships on campus, helping them construct legitimacy as participants in the local community (p. 172). Similar to Ecklund's study about building relationships on campus, Sandoval‐Lucero, Maes, and Klingsmith ([17] ) used focus interviews to investigate 22 African American and Latino students' campus engagement and how such engagement related to successful learning outcomes. The results showed that obtaining work‐study jobs, feeling connected in and out of the classroom, building relationships with faculty and staff, and joining social clubs and organizations were conducive to achieving success (p. 529).

The above‐mentioned studies conducted on and off campus suggest that out‐of‐class learning opportunities are highly significant in assisting students to learn. The findings across studies show consistently that out‐of‐class literacy practices are critical in shaping the learners' language use. Based on the overarching claims drawn from these studies, I formed the following research questions: (1) What kinds of learning opportunities exist in out‐of‐class settings for college ESL learners? (2) How do ESL learners negotiate for a chance to know more about English language and culture in naturalistic occurrences? (3) How is cultural ideology revealed in the social interactional process? This study aims at answering these questions and is intended to show how out‐of‐class experience complements the work of English language teachers working closely with college ESL learners.

The research site was a 4‐year liberal arts college in a rural town in the U.S. Midwest. The closest major city is 90 minutes away by car. None of the first‐year international students had a car. They were required to live at the dormitories, so their closest conversational partners were mostly dorm mates and classmates. I was the only full‐time ESL instructor at the college at the time of data collection. For one semester I observed the out‐of‐class learning patterns of the five first‐year ESL students and their 22 native‐speaking peers residing at the dormitories. The five first‐year ESL students were identified as English learners by the placement tests conducted by the international admission office.

The focal participant, Joe, was a 21‐year‐old male from China. Joe was an art major at the time of data collection and several examples of his work were handpicked by his professor for an exhibition at the college. On the day of the exhibition, Joe was anxious about the popularity of his work. He arrived at the art building early in the morning and observed how his artwork was received. He noticed that one of his favorite pieces, Mona Lisa (Figure [NaN] ), was not receiving attention from the audience. He was curious as to why. When some friends arrived, Joe asked them why his Mona Lisa was not well received. By discussing his Mona Lisa with his friends, Joe negotiated the cultural ideology[3] of what it means to be a piece of good art, which also reflects the naturalized cultural assumptions of what it means to be American. One of Joe's friends, Carmen, who was a native‐speaking first‐year student from Minnesota, tried to explain to Joe why his Mona Lisa was not well received.

I have chosen this event because I deemed it a critical case (Mitchell, [15] ) that encompassed a significant interactional moment about language learning. As such, the chosen interactional moment warrants a detailed discourse analysis, a technique that focuses on the analysis of the smallest meaningful units, because each meaningful unit in a language learning “moment” can be the manifestation of a learning attempt being initiated or taking up by the participant.

In order to effectively represent the data, I transcribed the conversations between Joe and Carmen according to Green and Wallat's ([5] ) interactional units and Bloome et al.'s ([1] ) message units. With reference to Green and Wallat, an interactional unit (IU) is “a series of conversationally tied message units. Which message units tie to form an interaction unit depends on consideration of verbal aspects of the message and cues to contextualization” (p. 200). In other words, an IU is a series of dialogues that are coherently connected with a topic or theme that is mutually acknowledged by the interlocutors. Bloome et al.'s message units (MUs) are the smallest meaningful units, which are the constituents of an interactional unit. Employing microethnographic discourse analysis by breaking down an utterance into IUs and MUs helped me analyze how Joe and Carmen construct conversation with contextualization (verbal and nonverbal) cues.

In this section, I first represent the data in microethnographic discourse maps and then I discuss the findings with reference to the IUs identified in the map.

In this IU (Table [NaN] ), Joe initiated a discussion topic with Carmen by asking a question (MU 1). He then explained what he believed the Chinese way of art appreciation was like (MU 7–9). He believed that the cultural assumption of what counts as a good piece of art involves the “details” (MU7). From MU 10 to MU 17, Joe expressed his frustration with the American audience who did not pay attention to his Mona Lisa. His tone of disappointment demanded Carmen to give him a response. Carmen referred to the values of “individualism” (MU 17) and “creativity” (MU 23) and pointed out that Joe's Mona Lisa was not aligned with these American values. In addition, she established an intertextual link (Kristeva, [12] ) between text one (the drawing of Mona Lisa) and text two (relying on the past; MU 25). Then, from MU 30 to MU 36, Joe rebutted Carmen's aesthetic values and said that “skills” (MU 36) were more valued. Joe used the conjunction but in MU 30 to provide a counter‐thought to Carmen's proposition. Then, from MU 37 to MU 44, Carmen criticized Joe's way of doing art as “not very American” because being American meant being creative rather than minding the details. IU 1 demonstrates how a conflict arose between Joe and Carmen due to the naturalized cultural assumption of what it means to be a good piece of art. From the data, it is important to note that what it means to be American is not based on a dictionary definition. Rather, it is a fluid definition, which was contested and negotiated between Carmen and Joe in situ. This finding supports Brian Street's ([20] ) contention that culture is a verb—it is always changing and living. As shown in this IU, what it means to be American is socially constructed. With reference to Carmen, being American means not attending to details and following authority, but having creativity and personal identity. Joe did not agree to or acknowledge Carmen's proposition by verbal or nonverbal cues, which means that this interpretation was one‐sided. Joe's absence of response could be interpreted as a disapproval of Carmen's proposition.

Microethnographic Mapping of IU1

• 3 Note
• 4 The transcription protocol is based on the Jefferson Notation (Jefferson, 10), with modifications created by the researcher in accordance with the logic of inquiry of the study.
• 5 IU = interactional unit, MU = message unit.

In IU2 (Table [NaN] ) Joe continued to defend his interpretation of aesthetic values (MU 45–56). He established multiple intertextual links to the “skills” (MU 55) he had mentioned in MU 36. By repeating what he believed to be the right way of art appreciation, Joe was not only explaining himself to Carmen, he was defending his own cultural practice. Carmen softened her tone (MU 60–70) when explaining the conflicting values of the cultural ideologies of collectivism and individualism (MU 60).

Microethnographic Mapping of IU2

• 6 Note
• 7 The transcription protocol is based on the Jefferson Notation (Jefferson, 10), with modifications created by the researcher in accordance with the logic of inquiry of the study.
• 8 IU = interactional unit, MU = message unit.

From both IUs, Joe and Carmen appeared to be discussing cultural ideologies with reference to Joe's drawing. However, by analyzing the tonal change and other nonverbal cues, it is evident that Joe and Carmen were arguing about which way was the appropriate way of doing art. Carmen valued creativity and criticized Joe for relying on authority. Joe thought that technique was more important and that his “skills” as manifested in Mona Lisa should be appreciated. When confronted with this, Carmen referenced individualism and collectivism. Although the dichotomy of individualism and collectivism was referenced, it was not necessarily the best approach to explain the differences in aesthetic values expressed by Joe and Carmen. Joe referenced the Chinese as paying more attention to skills, which do not necessarily have anything to do with collectivism. Carmen said that everyone was supposed to be like everyone else (MU 62) in collectivism. If Joe had been conforming to collectivism, he would have chosen a famous Chinese painting to draw. The fact that he chose a Western painting indicates that he cared about his audience's reaction. His audience would more likely be Americans, and so he chose a Western painting to imitate. He believed that his technique would impress Americans. Therefore, Carmen's choice of using the collectivist–individualist dichotomy to explain their differences does not appear to be accurate. These categories may be useful in politics and sociology, but in the one‐on‐one conversation between Joe and Carmen the specific responses and explanations are of greater interpretive value.

In MU 55, Joe said, “Maybe we Chinese pay more attention to your skills.” By using the pronoun we Joe was implying that Carmen represented them. It is worth noting that Joe and Carmen used words like Chinese and American to explain their differences, as if each of their arguments was strengthened by having a group to back it up. Why couldn't Joe's preference for drawing Mona Lisa be an idiosyncratic choice? It is also possible that there were Americans who would appreciate Joe's Mona Lisa but they just happened to be absent from that exhibition. Carmen could have pointed this out. It is interesting that they both attributed their differences in aesthetic values to cultural differences, and overlooked idiosyncratic preferences and the variations of cultural values. For Joe, the drawing of Mona Lisa was not merely a “production.” It was a representation of self, and therefore when Carmen criticized Mona Lisa as “relying on the past” and “not very American” Joe was hurt and became emotional. According to Song ([19] ), being an American means sharing a national culture, that is, American solidarity, one largely defined in racial, ethnic, and religious terms (p. 31). Based on the meaning that was socially constructed by Carmen in this critical event, being American means having more freedom to create new things, less emphasis on details, and being more individualistic. This definition can be interpreted as a small part of the American solidarity defined by Song. Though Carmen's version of American solidarity is an individual opinion, it can be a voice for many Americans who share the same belief in a particular way of life. In Joe's first year's experience of American life, Carmen represented the voice of Americans. They should both have been aware that each merely represented a possible voice of their home cultures. There could be Americans who liked Joe's Mona Lisa and there can be Chinese artists who are more creative than others. Understanding that cultural preferences fall in a wide spectrum is an essential and important lesson for both Joe and Carmen.

Toward the end of Joe and Carmen's conversation, Joe showed Carmen another piece of his artwork, titled “Breakthrough,” and said it was more American. It shows a dancer with wings trying to break out of darkness. About this piece of work, he commented, “So it's more American. This one” (video‐recorded). Through this short conversation, Joe constructed his understanding of what it meant to be American[4] and aligned another drawing to proclaim himself as more American. Being American seemed to be a critical learning target for Joe. Perhaps this is the case for many ESL learners from China.

When analyzing how Joe and Carmen engaged in this learning event, I found that learning in a naturalistic occurrence was inherently different from learning in a classroom. In a traditional ESL classroom, an ESL learner interacts with the teacher, classmates, and the textbook or learning materials. The ESL instructor often has a lesson plan and an agenda about what is to be taught. Learning is therefore contrived and planned. In naturalistic occurrences, the ESL learner can take agency to voice his or her own ideas with less control. Also, there is a “ping‐pong” pattern that is recorded in the event. When Joe and Carmen were arguing about what was the appropriate way to do art, they took turns to fight for what they believed was right. During the ping‐pong process, they negotiated for a chance to understand each other's perspectives and therefore broadened their own cultural horizons.

By showing Joe and Carmen's negotiation of cultural values, educators and researchers should know better about how to make use of similar dialogues in the classroom to create learning opportunities for ESL learners. For instance, an ESL instructor may invite native speakers to the classroom and let the ESL learner and the native speakers discuss the work of the ESL learners. It is essential for the instructor to highlight that, whereas attributing to cultural stereotypes could be tempting, it may not explain cultural differences accurately.

Researchers may also investigate the potential benefit and risk of having such cross‐cultural conversations with or without the guidance of an instructor. One of the significant contributions of this article is to show how learning actually occurs in naturalistic settings. Many ESL lessons in the United States are confined to textbooks and grammar. There is a huge gap between how learning occurs in real life and how learning is framed in the classroom. ESL learners may be confused about how to connect what they learn in the classroom to real life. By showing this conversation between Joe and Carmen, I echo Hull and Shultz's ([8] ) contention that bridging the in‐ and out‐of‐school literacy is critical for enhancing the learning experience of students, especially international students, and that the time is ripe for us as educators and researchers to pay close attention to the gap between what is expected in school and what is actually happening outside of school.

The findings of this study contribute to our understanding of how “being American” can be socially constructed in an out‐of‐school event. In out‐of‐school events, the epistemology is entirely different from classroom learning. Joe's understanding of what it means to be American is not based on a textbook or the Internet. It is based on the negotiated meaning resulting from the discourse between him and Carmen. Joe learned that being American means being creative and having a distinct individual personality, which, although it may be only a small part of the reality, is important to Joe because it is his very own personal experience at an American college. Similarly, many ESL learners construct their own definitions of what it means to be American with their native‐speaking friends in out‐of‐school contexts, and such learning, though infused with biases, should not be overlooked. It is important to counsel ESL learners when being challenged to be more American. Learners who are not ready to be assimilated may feel hurt or disappointed when being judged as “not very American.” Any native speaker should be thoughtful of the assumption of an ESL learner's intention to be Americanized. Also, cultural stereotypes such as individualism and collectivism should be referenced cautiously because such stereotypes may not accurately explain the differences between two individuals.

This article drew data from a dissertation project and many other data sources not shown due to limitation of space. I spent a year interacting with all the participants and therefore had a deep understanding of their social interactions in out‐of‐class situations. I hope to continue the study with the participants so as to see how the ESL learners will change in their out‐of‐class social interactional patterns with native speakers. In the following paragraphs, I discuss the limitations of the study and recommendations for researchers, administrators, and faculty.

One of the limitations of the study is the fact that it was conducted in a rural area. Due to the rural location, over 90% of the people in the college town are White. As such, there was a power structure between Whites and non‐Whites in the local community. This may explain why Carmen, a White native speaker, could assume an elevated role over Joe, the Chinese ESL learner, and why she criticized his work as not valuable. In addition, ESL learners were often viewed as substandard students because they needed remedial language classes. In the local community, English was valued over any other language, and ESL students were supposed to be assimilated because nativeness was much preferred over foreignness. There was an obvious hierarchical structure between nativeness and nonnativeness, Whites and non‐Whites, regular local students and ESL learners. This hierarchical structure is likely due to the rural location of the college and the 90% Whiteness of the community. Thus a study undertaken in a college or school located in an urban area with a diverse population might have significantly different findings.

Another limitation of the study has to do with the complex power structure within the college. The stakeholders pertaining to the ESL students are the international office and the ESL program. The director of the international office makes decisions about the ESL program structure, hiring of faculty and staff for the ESL program, and the kind of courses to be included in the ESL program. There was no designated ESL director. I was the first full‐time nonnative‐speaking ESL instructor in the program (there was a native‐speaking adjunct). I did not have power and control over the program, and as a nonnative ESL instructor I had to make a case to appeal to ESL students, who would rather have taken classes from the native‐speaking adjunct (Lee, [14] ). The ESL students preferred the native‐speaking adjunct academically because they wanted the native pronunciation. However, I found that they were more willing to share their personal struggles with me after class. Some would visit my office after class to talk about adjusting to U.S. culture. So if this study were conducted by a native‐speaking researcher, I believe the results would be significantly different. I believe that the ESL students were willing to talk about deeply rooted cultural values with me because I share the nonnative and non‐White identities with them.

For any ESL program director, ESL instructor, or educational researcher, this article could be used as an example to teach ESL learners to grasp chances to socially interact with their native‐speaking peers. In fact, Joe, who was actively seeking opportunities to communicate with native‐speaking peers, showed great improvement in oral proficiency after 1 year of study.

The findings of this study shed light on some practical implications in ESL education inside and outside of the classroom. For ESL instructors who engage in conversations with their international students, cultural conflicts similar to those between Carmen and Joe could arise. It is critical for an ESL instructor to discover the hidden bias about assimilation that may lurk in his or her attitude toward international students. Some ESL instructors take it for granted that international students want to be assimilated and become more American. However, one should be cautious about the emotional reaction and the willingness of the learner. Many learners, like Joe, may resist assimilation especially when confronted with cultural conflicts about ideologies that are deeply rooted in their consciousness. It is important to avoid assumptions about their preferences and let them make their own decisions.

Also, any ESL instructor should have critical consciousness (Freire, [4] ) for analyzing in‐class and out‐of‐class practices that may have oppressive tendencies. It is important to know that, though international students may have made a decision to study in the United States, the decision to be assimilated is theirs and it cannot be rushed. It is also critical for ESL educators to carefully counsel the international students who may feel lost after having cultural conflicts with other native speakers. ESL educators should guide international students to research studies about assimilation and cross‐cultural communications. They may also consider forming discussion groups to unpack some of the microaggressions (Sue, [22] ) that they experience on a daily basis.

It is crucial to understand that culture is a verb (Street, [20] ). Culture is something that is living and changing all the time. Cultural stereotypes can be formed and reinforced by referencing dichotomies such as individualism and collectivism without carefully analyzing the discourse. And therefore ESL educators, native speakers, and ESL learners should bear in mind that refereeing such dichotomies could reinforce cultural stereotypes. Education about the variations within each cultural group should be given. Counseling services should be provided to ESL learners when they are being attacked as not American.

This article echoes Hull and Shultz's ([8] ) call for more studies about out‐of‐school learning. It demonstrates how an ESL learner from China, Joe, negotiated for a chance to learn about American ideologies of individualism and creativity by talking to his native‐speaking peer, Carmen. The findings suggest that Joe and Carmen had a conflict not only about how to do art but also about each other's cultural values, and that each was fighting for a space in which to represent his or her own voice and sense of self through a discussion of Joe's Mona Lisa.

At the college level, establishing social relationships with native‐speaking peers is critical for newly arrived ESL learners in order to feel socially accepted, to experience a sense of belonging, and to establish legitimate identity as part of the community. Newly arrived ESL learners often feel a sense of insecurity due to unfamiliarity with the language, culture, and environment. I often hear that newly arrived ESL learners want to be more “American.” But there is no explicit definition of what it means to be American, and these ESL learners have to negotiate socially with their peers in naturalistic settings to deconstruct this desire. Social negotiation is often followed by resistance when ESL learners feel that their cultural values are contested. This study shows that campus communities, where ESL learners socialize with their peers, are venues where cultural ideologies are indeed contested, negotiated, and appropriated. It also shows that microethnographic discourse analysis is a powerful means to expose the hidden and unmarked cultural assumptions that exist in these campus communities.

Yin Lam Lee‐Johnson is an assistant professor in teaching English as a second language at Webster University, in St. Louis, Missouri. Her research interests include discourse analysis, second language acquisition, and anti‐oppressive education. She is dedicated to becoming a voice and advocate for nonnative‐English‐speaking teachers and immigrants in the United States.

Graph: Joe's pencil drawing of Mona Lisa captured in the video recording