‘Fish in the river’: Experiences of bicultural

bilingual speakers

BETTINA HEINZ

Abstract
This hermeneutic phenomenological study describes, analyzes, and in-
terprets the lived experience of eight proficient bilingual individuals
in the United States. Common themes of speaking one’s native lan-
guage and English as one’s second or third language are described.
The essences of participants’ first-language communicative experiences
ranged from feeling more at home and comfortable (‘Fish in the river’)
to feeling challenged and uncomfortable (‘A test of skills’). Despite
these individual differences, an awareness of the interplay of language,
identity, communication, and culture emerged as the structural essence
of this lived experience. All participants expressed how speaking one
of the languages available to them reflects and creates culturally condi-
tioned aspects of identity as well as aspects of identity related to psy-
chological constructs such as self-esteem and confidence. The findings
support basic assumptions of the Communication Theory of Identity
and of Ethnolinguistic Identity Theory and point to the need to integrate
these two theoretical perspectives.

1. Introduction

The arrowmaker is preeminently the man made of words. He has consummate

being in language; it is the world of his origin and of his posterity, and there is
no other. But it is a world of definite reality and infinite possibility. (N. Scott
Momaday, The Man Made of Words, p. 11–12)

For those residing and moving in and in between two symbol systems, the
experience of using two or more languages constitutes a vital aspect of their
lives. Despite centuries of scholarship on issues of language, communication,
and culture, much remains to be explored. The impetus for this particular study
derives from the author’s life experience. A proficient bilingual, this author

Multilingua 20–1 (2001), 85–108 0167–8507/01/0020/085

Walter
c de Gruyter
86 B. Heinz

uses her first (German) and second language (American English) in everyday
life. Going back and forth between two languages and two cultures has made
the author realize that her sense of self and identity vary depending on the
language used. These observations have aroused the author’s curiosity as to
whether other humans who regularly and proficiently communicate in two lan-
guages feel differently when they do so, and if so, how. As Van Manen (1990)
explains, it is the extent to which one’s experience could be common experi-
ence that qualifies it as a starting point of a phenomenological inquiry.
There is no work that approaches bilinguals’ experiences from a phenomeno-
logical perspective. This is somewhat surprising since one of the strengths of
phenomenology is that it offers an understanding of communicative processes
in the accounts or words of the people themselves. Hecht (1993), Hecht, Col-
lier, and Ribeau (1993), and Orbe (1994) strongly argue for interpretive ap-
proaches to communicative phenomena involving language, culture, and iden-
tity which allow scholars to explore the individuals’ in-group assumptions
about identity and communication. Interpretive designs allow for an explo-
ration of the motivational and affective aspects of language attitudes, a research
need identified by Cargile, Giles, Ryan, and Bradac (1994).
The purpose of this interpretive inquiry is to describe, analyze, and interpret
how proficient bilinguals in bicultural contact experience language. In particu-
lar, this study looks at how these individuals experience speaking their first
and second language. This hermeneutic phenomenological study is designed
to contribute to an understanding of the complex relationship among language,
communication, culture, and identity and to further the understanding of in-
tercultural and interethnic communication. In particular, this study seeks to
determine the ‘essence’ of proficient bilinguals’ language experiences. A key
concept in phenomenology, essence, has been defined as ‘that what [sic] makes
a thing what it is (and without which it would not be what it is); that what
makes a thing what it is rather than its being or becoming something else’ (Van
Manen’ 1990: 177).
Clearly, bilingualism merits continued scholarly attention. Human migration
continues to occur at an accelerating pace worldwide (Weiss 1992). More and
more individuals live in two or more cultures, and in the United States, more
and more individuals speak not only their first but a second or third language.
In the United States, according to the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education, 32 million people were bilingual (English and another language)
in 1993, with projected increases in that number. Worldwide, the use of two
or more languages within one community has been the rule rather than the
exception (Gal 1979). Although the number of bilingual speakers worldwide
can only be estimated, such estimates usually suggest that one half or more
than half of the world’s population is bilingual (Kandolf 1997). Globally, in-
ternational study, interethnic marriage, and interethnic adoptions are on the
 ‘Fish in the river’ 87

rise. Recent figures (Lamphere 1992) show a total of 419,000 international stu-
dents in the United States. Global markets and telecommunications also link
individuals from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds and increase the
number of individuals encountering the experience of being bilingual in bicul-
tural contact. Studies of these individuals’ experience thus could contribute to
an understanding of a phenomenon that is affecting more and more individu-
als.

Literature review

Another aspect of the global village development is an increased emphasis on

ethnic and cultural identity. Hecht, Collier, and Ribeau (1993) point out that
ethnicity and identity play a vital role in the everyday life of individuals living
in culturally diverse societies. Social, economic, and political factors have led
to an emphasis on learning more about intercultural and cross-cultural commu-
nication and on trying to understand what constitutes an individual’s cultural
or ethnic identity, and what role communication plays in this process.
Communication scholars suggest that identity is a communicative, interac-
tional process (e.g., Brunn 1994; Goffman 1959; Garfinkel 1963; Gumperz
1977, 1982; Hecht 1993; Hecht, Collier, and Ribeau 1993; Tracy and Naughton
1994). Central to this study is the Communication Theory of (Ethnic) Iden-
tity (CTI) proposed by Hecht (1993) and Hecht, Collier, and Ribeau (1993)
as a framework for interpreting previous research and guiding future stud-
ies on self, identity, ethnicity, and communication. This theory differs from
previous conceptualizations of identity in that it goes beyond individual and
societal constructions of identity to present the interactional aspects of iden-
tity. In 1991, Hecht and Ribeau used this framework to investigate how ethnic
identities were enacted through communication. Hecht, Collier, and Ribeau
(1993) study African American identity and communication and articulate how
African Americans define themselves and membership in their group as well as
how they perceive intra- and inter-ethnic communication based on this theoret-
ical framework. As Hecht, Collier, and Ribeau (1993) conclude, CTI provides
‘a framework for understanding ethnic identity and intra- and interethnic com-
munication’ (1993: 172). The authors suggest further testing of this theory in
communication research. One of the theoretical contributions the present study
seeks to make is the testing of CTI assumptions. If CTI assumptions are valid,
they should be reflected in the experiences of bilingual individuals.
Tracy and Naughton (1994) also emphasize the importance of the process
of communication in the establishment of identity and define identity as ‘self
in situation’ (1994: 282). These contemporary conceptualizations of identity
reflect the move away from earlier understandings of self based on invariant
88 B. Heinz

personality traits (Berger and Bradac 1982) toward a new view of self (identity)
as at least partially constructed within social interaction.
Scholars examining the communicative process of identity call for inclusion
of ethnicity, ethnic identity and ethnolinguistic identity in such studies (Beebe
and Giles 1984; Hecht and Ribeau 1991). In addition to drawing on CTI as-
sumptions, this study also relies on Ethnolinguistic Identity Theory (ELIT)
(Beebe and Giles 1984). ELIT incorporates concepts of Communication Ac-
commodation Theory (CAT) as proposed and developed by Giles and others
(Beebe and Giles 1984; Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977; Giles and Coupland
1991; Giles and Johnson 1981). CAT is a major communication model relat-
ing identity and communicative ability and was originally developed to account
for the way in which people converge or diverge in speech. According to Beebe
and Giles (1984), bilingual code-switching, that is, shifting from the use of the
native language to a second language or vice versa, can be investigated within
this framework.
Convergence is traditionally conceptualized as a speaker’s desire for social
integration and divergence as a speaker’s desire to promote social distance
(McCann and Higgins 1990). According to McCann and Higgins (1990), CAT
studies have shown that self identity needs, activated by contexts and other par-
ticipants, influence the production of communication behavior. A bilingual’s
language choice (first vs. second language) could be interpreted as a manifes-
tation of desired convergence or divergence in that speaking the language of
the majority culture would be a convergent and speaking one’s first or native
language a divergent behavior (Giles and Coupland 1991). The advantage of
CAT theories is that they offer frameworks that combine sociolinguistic and
social psychological perspectives. The occurrence of a speech shift can thus
be conceptualized as both an intrapersonal and an interpersonal phenomenon
(Beebe and Giles 1984). Scholars continue to call for a broader theoretical base
for speech accommodation theories that will allow incorporation of the com-
plex aspects of communication documented in recent years (Beebe and Giles
1984).
ELIT was developed to refine CAT in the interethnic context and to gener-
ate a social psychological theory of language and ethnicity (Beebe and Giles
1984). The theory combines aspects of CAT with the concept of ethnolinguistic
vitality, according to which a number of factors contribute to a group’s ability
to behave and survive as a distinctive and active collective entity in intergroup
settings (Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977; Sachdev and Bourhis 1990). Sta-
tus, group size, and support are related positively to a group’s ethnolinguistic
vitality (Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977). A group’s language affects its eth-
nolinguistic vitality, which may in turn affect group members’ identities. For
example, a member of a group with low ethnolinguistic vitality characteristics
may be less likely to identify as a group member through the use of that group’s
 ‘Fish in the river’ 89

language. A theoretical contribution the present study seeks to make is to test

the validity of ELIT assumptions.
Based on Giles’s work, Meyerhoff and Niedzielski (1994) suggest that a
model depicting an individual speaker’s identity as a result of and factor in
communicative events needs to take into account interpersonal and intergroup
aspects. Meyerhoff and Niedzielski (1994) also suggest that speakers can con-
sciously adjust their identities depending on the immediate communicative sit-
uation. Studies on ethnicity vary greatly, but most agree with Barth (1969) that
ethnicity is a subjective rather than objective process used by individuals to
define themselves and their communication with others (Gudykunst and Ting-
Toomey 1990). When identity is conceptualized as a communicative process,
the centrality of language in this process becomes apparent. Social scientific
literature documents the effect of language on identity. Humans use language
to make claims to identity, for example, to reveal educational level or ethnic
origin (Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977; Giles and Johnson 1981; Lippi-Green
1994; Marley 1993; Meyerhoff and Niedzielski 1994; Pakir 1993), and lan-
guage plays a major role in the development of social identities (Etter-Lewis
1991; Gudykunst 1989). In particular, individuals have been found to use lan-
guage to reclaim ethnicity, maintain ethnicity, claim group identities, indicate
artificial or real sympathies with speakers, and reinforce aspects of social iden-
tity (e.g., Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey 1990; Marley 1993; Pakir 1993). In
his study on the experience of Native Americans, Brunn (1994) concludes that
the meanings of one’s existence exist within the language one uses in every-
day activities. Etter-Lewis (1991) examines the oral history of black women’s
life stories and finds that they use Black English to express intense emotions
or emphasize important events regardless of educational level attained. In this
context, Etter-Lewis (1991: 44) considers language to be the ‘primary vehicle
through which past experiences are recalled and interpreted’.
But the relationship between language and identity is not unidirectional.
Researchers suggest that identity greatly affects language and communication
(Chomsky 1972, 1975; Paikeday 1985). Gao, Schmidt, and Gudykunst (1994)
link Giles’ construct of ethnolinguistic identity with ethnic identity by arguing
that individuals who identify strongly with their ethnic group should perceive
greater ethnolinguistic vitality than those who identify weakly with their ethnic
group. Marley (1993) finds that affective values, such as attachment to one’s
first or native culture and tradition, were the primary reasons for maintenance
of a non-dominant language in a bilingual setting.
Bilingualism necessarily involves the presence of at least two different eth-
nic and/or cultural identities. Like identity, culture is an interactional process
(Weiss 1992). Researchers have begun to document the complex relationship
between language and culture (Marley 1993; Pakir 1993; Weiss 1992). Pakir
(1993) examines how humans absorb cultural values through another language.
90 B. Heinz

The relationship among identity, language, and communication established in

the preceding discussion is of even greater importance in the case of bilingual
interactants. It would be impossible to review all of the literature on bilin-
gualism here, but it is important to note that language, culture, and identity are
markers of assimilation (Delgado 1994), and thus a bilingual person’s language
behavior is likely to make a strong statement about his or her degree of assimi-
lation and ethnic identity. The complexity of the phenomenon of language use
and language choice bilinguals experience is further illustrated by the obser-
vation that language does not carry universal roles and values (Hymes 1972).
Research in second and foreign language acquisition shows a wide spectrum of
language proficiency and choices. Individuals may acquire full proficiency in
both a native and second language, lose ‘native’ proficiency in both, or become
proficient in only one language (Paikeday 1985).
Much research on bilingual experiences examines how individuals learn sec-
ond languages, or what methods or techniques can be devised, tested, and
implemented to improve second language proficiency. The dynamics of this
communication experience are different from the experience a more perma-
nently biculturally situated bilingual individual may experience, and transfer
of knowledge between these areas should proceed only carefully. Beginning
second language learners are more strongly affected by a host of factors such
as second-language anxiety, classroom anxiety, culture shock, major lifestyle
changes, and perhaps the experience of being a refugee or migrant. Since all
of these factors are likely to affect an individual’s perception and expression of
identity, it seems more appropriate to select individuals who are not as much
affected by these factors for this study.
Based on the preceding discussion, these research questions guide this in-
quiry:
RQ1: What is the essence of the first-language experience for a proficient
bilingual speaker?
RQ2: What is the essence of the second-language experience for a proficient
bilingual speaker?
RQ3: What do these essences reveal about the interplay of language, culture,
communication, and the construction of identity?

Methods

Phenomenology, as conceptualized by Martin Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty, is

the underlying philosophy and methodology for this study. In its insistence on
the primordial experience of Being, it allows scholars to focus on the essence
of a particular experience of Being, in this case, of Being within two symbol
systems. As a philosophy, phenomenology stresses the centrality of language
 ‘Fish in the river’ 91

(Dreyfus 1991; Heidegger 1962; Heidegger 1967; Langer 1989). Given the
primacy of language, phenomenology is an appropriate perspective from which
to approach proficient bilingualism. The goal of phenomenology is to gain a
deeper understanding of everyday experiences (Van Manen 1990), in this case,
the understanding of the everyday language use of proficient bilinguals.
Lindlof (1995) and Patton (1990) recommend purposive sampling rather
than random sampling. Specifically, theoretical construct sampling and max-
imum variation sampling techniques (Lindlof 1995) were used in the present
study. Theoretical construct sampling leads to participant selection based on
criteria stemming from the properties of the phenomenon under study (Patton
1990). Criteria for selecting participants in this study were: (1) Participants had
to be born in a country other than the United States; (2) Participants had to have
learned a native or first language other than English; (3) Participants must be
highly proficient in their native (first) language and English; (4) Participants
must use both languages in their everyday world; (5) Participants had to be
highly educated so that they could easily articulate their experience.
The goal of maximum variation sampling is not to generalize, but to describe
the structural essence emerging against a variety of backgrounds (Lindlof
1995). Thus, participants selected were (1) from different language and cultural
backgrounds rather than from one particular background; (2) of male and fe-
male sex; (3) of various ages, ranging from 29 to 62; (4) of various professions
(although all of them were university-educated); and (5) in different situations
as far as their professional and personal language use is concerned. The inter-
view guide (Patton 1990) was combined with an interview schedule (Lindlof
1995) to customize the interview as recommended by Patton (1990). Aspects
of the interview schedule (writing out all questions in advance and asking par-
ticipants the questions in the same order) were blended with aspects of the
interview guide (asking participants other questions as they arose and allowing
new topics to be introduced) into an interview protocol. Interview questions
were based on Lindlof’s (1995) recommendations for question design and use.

Description of protocol

Participants in this study are eight bilingual adults (four women, four men)
who met the selection criteria outlined above. This sample size, although small,
is acceptable for in-depth interviews (McCracken 1988), and interviews were
conducted until the information provided by participants began to appear re-
dundant. The participants were volunteers recruited from the faculty, staff, and
student pool at a Midwestern university. The participants met with the author
for one-hour, in-depth interviews conducted in English at a location of their
choice. Given the interplay of language and identity that is the focus of this
92 B. Heinz

study, the fact that English was the interview language is likely to have an
effect. However, the influence of this appeared to be weaker than the com-
pounded effects of using multiple interpreters and transcribers, had interviews
been conducted in the native language. Participants were interviewed according
to an interview protocol (see Appendix). The interviews were tape-recorded,
and notes were taken throughout the interviews. Immediately following the in-
terviews, the author recorded her impressions about the interview. Interviews
were transcribed the day of the interview. The author thanked participants after
the interview and later sent them a thank-you letter and a copy of the study.

Analysis of data

The goal of data analysis in phenomenology is to make explicit the ‘struc-

ture of meaning of the lived experience’ (Van Manen 1990: 77). Following
the examples set by other phenomenologists (e.g., Orbe 1994; Van Manen
1990), the author first gathered descriptions of the participants’ lived experi-
ences through the interviews. A hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry con-
sists of three parts: (1) description, (2) analysis, and (3) interpretation. Thus,
the first step was to describe the participants’ lived experience. Each transcript
was read three times in search of phenomenological themes, using the selective
highlighting approach. Phenomenological scholars using this approach ‘listen
or read a text several times and ask, “What statement(s) or phrase(s) seem
particularly essential or revealing about the phenomenon or experience being
described?” ’ (Van Manen 1990: 93). These statements are then circled, un-
derlined, or highlighted. The next step was to reflect these themes in writing
and to label them. Incidental themes were distinguished from essential themes
by looking at each thematic statement and testing whether it seemed essen-
tial to the phenomenon. Anecdotes were selected to illustrate the phenomenon.
The technique of reduction was used to arrive at the structural essence of the
phenomenon (for a detailed description of reduction as a phenomenological
device, see Van Manen 1990: 185). Finally, the description and analysis of the
phenomenon were interpreted in light of the author’s own presuppositions and
the theories described earlier in this paper.

Participants

Eight bilingual or multilingual individuals participated in this study. Except for

two participants, who are colleagues, participants did not know each other. The
participants came from the native countries of Chile, Cuba, Libya, the People’s
Republic of China, Spain, and Sweden. Four men and four women participated.
 ‘Fish in the river’ 93

The ages of the participants ranged from 28 years of age to 62. The participants
have been living in the United States for time periods ranging from three years
to 26 years.

Results

First language experience

The first research question was designed to explore the essence of the first
language experience of these individuals. Several themes emerged.
‘Fish in the River’ – The first, and strongest theme, which was articulated
in considerable depth and with considerable emphasis by most, but not all of
the participants, was that the first language remains the most comfortable or at
least a very comfortable language. Participant B, who speaks English at home
with his spouse but Spanish at work, said:
I still prefer Spanish. I do have a very large vocabulary in English because I read
a lot but I’m still not sure about some pronunciations and things like that, and
Spanish is that language that I still feel more comfortable in.

Participants related the perception of being more comfortable in the native

language to the perception of being freer and uninhibited, as Participant B did
here:
I think, yes, I do feel freer, and I know that I’m using the right word within the
right context. I’m never unsure of myself, you know, if I’m using the right word.
With English, sometimes, I do have that tension still, when I’m not quite sure if
that’s the most appropriate word. And I would say that the experience for me is
like fish in a tank, you know, in a kind of aquarium, uh, speaking English, and I
am fish in the river speaking Spanish. So I don’t have any inhibition, I can just
swim very freely.

Participant F, who communicates more frequently in her first language, vol-

unteered that interference from English is not a problem. Participant A related
the feeling of being more comfortable due to the higher degree of proficiency,
which also allows her to be more open within a conversation. These participants
related the experience of being comfortable to the high linguistic and commu-
nicative competency they experience in speaking their first language, including
not only mastery of the vocabulary but also the ability to interpret and com-
municate nonverbal messages and familiarity with sociolinguistic conventions.
Some indicated that this proficiency may change. Participant G noted, ‘I still
feel very comfortable speaking Chinese to Chinese’, revealing the idea (‘still
feel’) that there may be a point in time at which this will no longer be the case.
94 B. Heinz

Participant E noted that while professionally, he felt more comfortable speak-

ing English because he was trained in English, he does still feel ‘comfortable’
speaking his native language.
‘A test of skills’ – However, for some participants, speaking the first lan-
guage is far from a comfortable experience. These participants find themselves
uncomfortable speaking their first language because they lack the professional
or technical vocabulary relating to their area of expertise in their first lan-
guage, because they are no longer fluent in their first language, or because
native speakers are puzzled about their origin given their accented or English-
influenced speech. Participant D stated:
I am more comfortable in English, as it may seem to you, because I’ve been here
for a long time, and, uh, because I went to college here and therefore most of
education and training, particularly in the technical area, is in English . . . it is
really a test of skills for me to be able to use Arabic exclusively.

Participant H, who does not have as much opportunity to speak her first
language, noted that when she is speaking her first language, she sometimes
has to think ‘cause some words come in English [her third language], or maybe
in Spanish [her second language] or sometimes I construct sentences in an
English way which is really funny, so then they make fun of me’.
‘The language of emotions’ – Participants expressed the opinion that speak-
ing the first language is an experience that has emotional overtones, while
speaking English is perceived to be more of an intellectual or functional ex-
ercise. Some mentioned that they are much more aware of connotations and
associations of individual words within their first language. Some participants
noted that the emotional meaning of cusswords is only felt in the first language.
Experiences such as reading poetry or the Bible, cannot be replicated in another
language, they said.
Participant B observed:
If I read poetry in [first language], I feel for the rhythm, for everything that is there
in the poem. When I read poetry in English, I understand, you know, it’s more an
intellectual exercise than an emotional one. Uh, so for me, to read poetry really
means to read it in (first language) . . . Words have much more meaning. Words in
English do not have the same meaning. I don’t know if anybody else experience
that.

Participant E verbalized a similar experience and added that once, when he

was asked to interpret a translated poem, he went back to read the original in
his first language and then transferred the emotional value of the poem into
English words. This participant noted that ‘there are certain words that still
don’t sound real in English in a sense’. This participant, who is a psychologist,
also shared his observations about some of his bilingual clients:
 ‘Fish in the river’ 95

What I often find is, sometimes, if a client is bilingual, who may have started
talking to me in Spanish when they are talking about something that is really
very difficult for them to deal with, sometimes they may use English as way of
distancing themselves a little bit with that, and then, perhaps later, they would go
back to Spanish. But I have noticed that, and perhaps I do the same.

Participant G observed that her native ‘Swedish is a much more emotional

language’. Although Participant D did not explicitly comment on speaking his
first language as an emotional experience, he did make the following statement,
which could be considered indicative of the same theme: ‘When I pick up a
poetry book or one of the books, truly classical Arabic it kind of brings in a lot
of feeling of, boy, . . . why didn’t I keep up with it?’

Second language experience

Research Question 2 was designed to describe the second (English) language

experience of the participants. Four main themes emerged.
‘The narrow path’ – For some participants, worries about lack of proficiency
led to a feeling of insecurity when they speak English. These feelings can be
experienced as vague concerns or as strong restraints. Participant A said that
she is often ‘not very comfortable in English because sometimes I don’t know
the exact meaning of the words and I’m worried maybe I make mistake or
something like that’. Participant B made the following statement, ‘With En-
glish, sometimes, I do have that tension still, when I’m not quite sure if that’s
the most appropriate word’. For Participant F, speaking English poses much
difficulty:

The way I talk in English, it’s like, it’s completely different, completely different.
I feel like, like, a child or like a teenager . . . I’m secure in [first language], and I
can give you adjectives, a hundred adjectives for, I mean, I got to say the same in
a hundred ways. In English, it’s like I have to use this path, and it’s very narrow,
and it’s always the same, and I don’t like that.

Participant E noted that he is conscious of his rate of speech and similar

factors

. . . because you know I’m concerned about perhaps they have difficulty under-
standing me or you know my pronunciation, pronunciation of certain words, so
I’m more deliberate, uh, at times . . . there is a self-consciousness in certain situa-
tions that I have that I don’t have in Spanish.

He also perceives himself to be more proficient at interpreting others’ non-

verbal messages when they are speakers of his first language. At the same time,
96 B. Heinz

Participant E noted that he feels pretty competent in both languages: ‘I know

my English is not perfect, far from it, but I can express myself in English fairly
well.’ Four participants noted feelings of insecurity when joking or using other
forms of humor in English. A representative statement was made by Partici-
pant B: ‘I feel freer, you know, in terms of joking around, and you know, and
the irony, the sarcasm, . . ., I feel that’s better understood than when I do it in
English.’
‘First second nature’ – For other participants, however, speaking English is
marked by security and confidence rather than insecurity; this is sometimes
linked to discussion of professional topics.
Participant D stated ‘English is almost, odd as it may seem, is a first nature.
Maybe first second nature’. Participant H, for whom English is the third lan-
guage, said that speaking English means having no language problems. Speak-
ing her second language is not problematic either, but is associated with nega-
tive emotions because that language was imposed on her through governmental
policy. Participant H also notes no problems in proficiency or security in speak-
ing English. She observed a difference in speaking English, however, related
to display of personality traits: ‘I think I’m more outgoing when I speak, when
I’m speaking English . . . I think this thing about being Swedish, I mean, you’re
more shy or whatever, well, you’re not supposed to, you’re supposed to be more
humble’. She also noted that it is easier for her to discuss emotions in English,
due to cultural constraints on the discussion of feelings.
‘An intellectual exercise’ – Some participants see speaking English as an
exercise of language skills. Participant B called reading poetry in English an
‘intellectual exercise’. Participant C described speaking English as a ‘function.
I mean, you’re functioning in this language. You just make it workable. So, I
try to, to communicate clearly, get understood, and get myself understanding
others’. Participants D and H, notably, described speaking the first language as
a test of skills.
‘Part of your old culture’ – Participant B noted that the frequent use of ges-
ture that he associates with his native language and culture carries over into
the way he speaks English. Participant C said his traditional cultural behavior
patterns affect the way he communicates in English:

Well, for example, to show modesty. Uh, in this country, in this culture, that is,
modesty is not something that is greatly appreciated. If you say, ‘Oh, . . . you speak
English very beautifully’, uhm, that’s a compliment. As a typical Chinese, he or
she will say, ‘Oh, no, no, no. I not speak English good at all, still a long way to go,
still a lot to learn’. As an American, you will say, ‘Thank you, I know it’. (Laughs).
That’s a totally different thing. For me, I’m still somewhere in the middle. I will
not be really excited and say ‘thank you’. Uhm, but at the same time, I’m not
saying, ‘Sorry, my English is really poor’, at this time. I did it ten years ago when
I first came . . . It’s somewhere that uh, you’re having part of your old culture still
 ‘Fish in the river’ 97

there . . .
Participant E stated that he has become more aware of how certain com-
municative behaviors are interpreted cross-culturally. His cultural tendency to
touch the conversational partner or to shake hands several times during a con-
versation could be interpreted as patronizing behavior in U.S. culture, he said,
and he tries to adjust his behavior. For some participants, the subject of the
conversation determines the feeling of security and confidence. Participant A
observed:
It depends on the subject. If we’re talking about, like, fuzzy sets or groundwater
contamination, I feel very comfortable because I know the terms so well. But if
we’re talking about American culture or some of the slangs, I lose my confidence
because I don’t know much about those kinds of subjects.

The interplay of identity, language, culture and communication

Research Question 3 was designed to uncover how language, culture, com-

munication, and notions of identity intersect and affect each other when pro-
ficient bilinguals speak their first or second language. Again, several themes
emerged.
‘Becoming a Chinese again’ – All participants described how speaking a
particular language leads to variations in the identity traits participants perceive
in themselves and reflect to others in interactions. Some participants described
how speaking their first language, usually with native speakers of their first lan-
guage, re-establishes or re-manifests their cultural heritage and aspects of their
identity. Participant F said she is strongly aware of the difference in identity
she presents depending on whether she speaks Spanish or English: ‘I don’t like
to talk in English, because I think that my image is not my real image. I’m
another person in a second language.’
Participant C described his experience in the following way:
When you’re really in the Chinese context, that is, the environment, you know, the
conversational partners, or whatever, you tend to become a Chinese again. That is,
the way you talk, the level of tone you use, the respect you have to show or the
respect you expect, from the other party . . . that should be Chinese.
Some participants say the interplay of culture, language, and identity man-
ifests itself in differing communication behaviors. While phenomenological
studies are not designed to establish causal relationships, some of the partici-
pants think of this particular relationship as causal. Cultural differences affect
the communication practices and thus the notions of identity projected by Par-
ticipant A. She observed that she talks less with Americans, and more guard-
edly, than with Chinese conversational partners. In a similar vein, Participant
98 B. Heinz

B noted that ‘the words in English, they don’t have any meaning. If I want
to really get mad, I speak Spanish’. Participant C commented that ‘language
grows out of . . . Without a good cultural background and understanding, then
the language is really awkward’. Speaking the native language with other native
speakers gives some participants a strong ingroup feeling that is positively val-
ued. A shared symbol system allows participants to communicate by sending
less obvious messages: gestures and verbal exchanges may be reduced, because
the amount of shared cultural knowledge is greater. Participant C described this
experience as a feeling of increased intimacy:

Speaking Chinese to a Chinese, you feel a little closer. You feel insider. You feel
one of the ingroup. Rather than, you know, being aloof and cold and, you know,
objective.

For Participant G, it is precisely the interrelationship between language and

identity born out in communication that offers advantages to bilingual speak-
ers, ‘I really think it helps to have, to know, more than one language, because
what you can’t say in one language, you may feel totally comfortable saying in
another language’.
‘Catching a sort of alarm’ – An important part of their experience as na-
tive speakers of a language other than English is the response of native English
speakers when they witness the participants communicating in a different lan-
guage. These responses may be positive or negative, depending on how Mid-
western majority culture values the cultural and ethnic background of a partic-
ipant. Discrimination, application of stereotypes, and misunderstandings may
ensue. Awareness of the potential responses of native English speakers also
affects the behavior (verbal and other) of the participants, they said.
Participant E explained how at times, his English-speaking friends may be
confused by the apparent emotionality of his Spanish conversations. He re-
ferred to this as ‘catching a sort of alarm’ in the eyes of his English-speaking
friends, until he explains to them the (usually trivial) topic of conversation. Par-
ticipant F described her experience speaking her first language amidst English
speakers as positive on campus, but negative off-campus:

People at the university, some of them, I think, they think that it’s very nice to
speak Spanish and the language. But you go shopping, it’s different. We do that
[speaking in first language] on purpose because we want to see how racist people
can be. And we talk very loud . . . and some people . . . they look at us like ‘Look
at these people, foreign, foreign people’, or maybe it’s kind of typical, but I feel
sometimes that they don’t like us. Whereas in Europe, you talk German or French
or whatever, and is normal. But here, is not normal. That somebody, is in your
store trying to talk Spanish. And way we talk, sometimes they are listening to us,
and they really like the sometimes I really like to do that because of the people in
 ‘Fish in the river’ 99

the store but I, I don’t know how to explain that but sometimes I need to talk in
Spanish to, to be myself.

Participant H suggested that native English speakers who observe her speak-
ing Spanish may think she’s crazy and are likely to presume that she is talking
about them ‘because they don’t understand. That’s the first thing. They think
that we’re talking about them’. Participant E observed that he sometimes en-
counters the expectation that because he speaks with an accent, he may not
be understood. For participant G, who is Swedish, the response to her use of
her first language or identification of her accent is often associated with stereo-
types: ‘The immigrant Swedes at the turn of the century . . . they think it’s
very neat that you have an accent, and you’re supposed to be the Helga with
the blond braids’. Participant D, who frequently deals with the public at large
and who is concerned about the existence of stereotypes concerning Arab–
Americans, said he often tries to figure out the responses of native English
speakers: ‘You always wonder . . . what do those people think? You know, ex-
actly what do they think? And, it’s a continuing puzzle, that you really never
get a handle on, and uh, so from that sense, I don’t, I don’t try to hide who I
am, but I try to deal with people as one of them.’
‘Where does this guy come from?’ – Speaking the first language involved
challenging questions of identity when other first-language speakers observe
these interactions or take part in them. Other first language speakers may ques-
tion the participant’s group membership, social status, and language profi-
ciency based on their first language performance.
Participants vary strongly in their emotional responses to the loss or partial
loss of cultural origin speech markers. Participant G considers herself first a
world citizen and does not think of herself in ethnic or cultural labels: ‘I feel
more like a world citizen, and that’s the way I want my kids to feel, too. And
I think they do that already.’ While it is nice to belong to a culture, Partici-
pant G said, she feels totally comfortable with any other ethnic group. She
has relatives in the Midwest who consider her American, and relatives in Mo-
rocco, her husband’s native country, who consider her Moroccan. ‘So I feel
like I have, I belong to a lot of different societies.’ Participant H is ambivalent
and appears somewhat offended about the response to her first language per-
formance, which she says is slightly affected by the frequent use of English:
‘cause this summer it was like, “Oh, you speak Catalan pretty well”. I’m like,
“What do you mean, I speak Catalan pretty well?” “Well, you’re American
aren’t you?” Ugh. “No!” Ah, and then they’re like “OK, forget it.” ’ Partici-
pant F, who said she does not feel nor want to feel part of U.S. society, noted
that her feeling of belonging to her native country is threatened. A regular part
of her and her spouse’s communicative behavior is to criticize Americans, she
said, ‘We love to criticize Americans. I don’t know why . . . Maybe it’s part of
100 B. Heinz

because in that way, we have more power, because we deal with racism, and
that way we criticize, we take power’.
‘Depending on the context’ – For most participants, the choice of language
is not determined by their emotional or intellectual preference, but by prag-
matic and practical considerations. Two obvious factors are whether the par-
ticipant’s significant other speaks the same first language or not and whether
the participant’s work situation calls for the use of English or for the use of the
first language. In addition to these factors, however, all participants appeared
to be extremely sensitive to communication context. In general, they tended to
spontaneously specify for each question whether they were referring to conver-
sations with speakers of their first language or English speakers, and in what
kind of situation. All participants stated that they shift their language use to ac-
commodate the conversational partner’s needs or desires, whether the partner
expresses these needs or not.
Participant G, who speaks English as a common second language with her
husband and family, sometimes speaks Swedish with her daughter, to whom
speaking Swedish is like ‘speaking a secret language’. Similarly, participant
C said he and his wife will switch to English if their daughter has trouble
understanding a concept in Chinese. Participant C said: ‘I don’t have a strong
preference . . . but in the Chinese setting, I still want to use Chinese. In the
setting where English is the predominant language, of course, I use English.’
He showed how he adjusts his native dialect depending on the regional origin
of another native Chinese speaker, and how he sometimes speaks Chinese or
uses a few Chinese words to accommodate American friends learning Chinese.
In his profession, participant C encounters many international students. If he is
certain that a student is from mainland China, he will begin the conversation
in Chinese and continue to use Chinese unless the student switches to English.
If the student is from another country in which Chinese is spoken, such as
Malaysia, Taiwan, or Hong Kong, he will begin the conversation in English
but switch to Chinese if the student switches. Participant D routinely replied in
English to conversational starters by an Arab student made in Arabic because
he thought it important for the student to improve his English skills.

Summary

With regard to speaking one’s native language, participants described various

essences of lived experience. These included the notion of being more or at
least being comfortable in one’s first language (‘Fish in the river’), being un-
comfortable in one’s first language (‘A test of skills’) and experiencing one’s
first language as richer in emotional overtones and associations (‘The language
of emotions’). Some of these themes are contradictory, and are thus not shared
 ‘Fish in the river’ 101

by all participants. They appear, however, to be fundamental structures of the

bilingual experience for groups of participants.
With regard to the experience of speaking English as a second language, four
themes emerged from the interviews with the participants. Some participants
associated speaking English with the constraints stemming from lack of profi-
ciency or cultural knowledge (‘The narrow path’), to others, speaking English
has become second nature (‘Second first nature’). Participants also described
speaking English as an exercise of language abilities rather than the emotional
experience associated with speaking one’s native language (‘An intellectual
exercise’) and noted that they thought cultural patterns of their native cultures
were likely to affect their communication behavior in English (‘Part of my old
culture’).
One theme embedded in all of the participants’ responses related the inter-
play of notions of identity, language, culture and communication (‘Becoming a
Chinese again’). Explicitly or implicitly, participants expressed how speaking
one of the languages available to them reflects and creates certain culturally
conditioned aspects of identity as well as aspects of identity related to psycho-
logical constructs such as self esteem and confidence. Participants either de-
scribed experiences related to this phenomenon in the emergent themes of the
problematic of identifying one’s origin (‘Where does this guy come from?’)
and of being subject to stereotypes associated with specific cultural or eth-
nic groups (‘Catching a look of alarm’). All participants also described what
emerged as the theme of ‘Depending on the context’, which refers to the par-
ticipants’ awareness of and attention to their conversational partners’ language
needs and desires and the communication context. This heightened sensitivity
could be attributed to the increased cognitive flexibility (Sachdev and Bourhis
1990) and heightened sensitivity (Genesee and Bourhis 1982) more recently
associated with bilingualism.
The results of this study clearly confirm the basic premise of the theory that
‘identity is inherently a communicative process and must be understood as a
transaction in which messages are exchanged. These messages are symbolic
linkages between and among people that, at least in part, are enactments of
identity’ (Hecht 1993: 78). Participants in this study are aware that identity is
a communicative process, although they do not necessarily use this vocabulary
to express this idea. The themes of ‘Becoming a Chinese again’, ‘Catching a
look of alarm’, and ‘Where does this guy come from’ particularly demonstrate
this idea, which appears to be a fundamental structure embedded in these par-
ticipants’ experiences.
The results support the theory’s assumptions that identities have individ-
ual, enacted, relational, and communal properties (Hecht, Collier, and Ribeau
1993). Participants spoke about individual perceptions of identity by describ-
ing self-perceived personality traits or the relevance of cultural or ethnic labels;
102 B. Heinz

they addressed identity in an enacted frame by describing how others’ percep-

tions of their identity changes with language use; they confirmed relational and
communal aspects of identity by placing identity into communicative context,
receiver language needs, and cultural setting. The data also confirmed the fol-
lowing assumptions: identities are both enduring and changing; identities have
both content and relationship levels of interpretation; identities involve both
subjective and ascribed meanings; identities are conversational codes and de-
fine membership in communities; identities have semantic properties expressed
in core symbols, meanings, and labels; and identities prescribe modes of ap-
propriate and effective communication. Participants also described identities
in affective, cognitive, and behavioral terms; however, a spiritual dimension as
suggested by Hecht, Collier, and Ribeau (1993) did not emerge in this study.
This study thus not only supports the theoretical framework of CTI, but it also
demonstrates that the theoretical dimensions proposed by Hecht, Collier, and
Ribeau work well in investigations of communication, language, culture and
identity.
However, based on the preceding findings, it appears valuable to integrate
notions of ethnolinguistic vitality into the framework more explicitly. Theo-
retical observations of ELIT are strongly reflected in the participants’ descrip-
tions of their experiences. Ethnolinguistic vitality, sometimes even explicitly
addressed by participants, clearly affects these individuals’ language choices
and their attitudes toward their language choices. For example, the Castilian
Spanish speaking participant is used to encountering adequate or high regard
for the Spanish language within Europe. In the Midwest, however, her Span-
ish is responded to in the context of Spanish as a migrant worker’s language,
or a minority language. Awareness of this difference influences her choice of
language and her attitude toward her own language. For the native Catalan-
speaking participant, Spanish is associated with negative emotions because the
language was imposed upon her in the context of Franco’s dictatorship. There-
fore, she prefers speaking either her native Catalan or English, her third lan-
guage, although she frequently speaks Spanish. The data thus not only confirm
the theoretical underpinnings of ethnolinguistic identity theory, but stress the
need to explicitly incorporate these into CTI.
Although participants for this study were purposely selected individuals who
are highly educated in both languages and who have attained a high level of
proficiency in their second language, most participants are still concerned about
proficiency issues. For many participants, it is the proficiency issue that appears
to be the key in the presentation and manifestation of identity and in ideas of
one’s self-concept. This is an area that would merit further investigation, per-
haps combined with an investigation of proficiency-oriented structures of expe-
rience among monolingual speakers. Although it appears important to consider
the affective and cognitive dimensions of language use in investigations of the
 ‘Fish in the river’ 103

language experience of bilinguals, it appears equally important to keep in mind

that practical issues have a great impact. For many proficient bilinguals, speak-
ing or not speaking their native language is not so much a matter of choice but a
matter of practicality. Significant others may or may not speak their native lan-
guage, which invariably restricts a great portion of one’s language experience
to one language. The same applies to professional language requirements. On
the other hand, the choice of significant other and work environment may per-
haps be considered a manifestation of one’s affective and cognitive dimensions
of identity.
Giles, Ball, Gasiorek, Korytkowska, and Young (1989) studied the language
and value dynamics in the case of Polish emigrés. Their findings document the
complexity of interactive effects between ethnic identification, value systems,
and language choices. The authors suggest that ethnic values and language ‘are
more likely to be symbiotically-related in a subjective sense rather than exist
as seemingly dichotomous entities in current caricatures of them’ (1989: 115).
The findings of this first phenomenological inquiry strongly attest to such a
symbiotic relationship and stress the need to construct more complex theoreti-
cal frameworks.

Limitations and future research

Although a sample size of eight individuals for in-depth interviewing is ac-

ceptable, access to more individuals’ experiences and reflections would be rec-
ommended. For this study, individuals who have reached a high educational
level were purposely selected so that participants would be able to easily artic-
ulate their experience. Although this is not a limitation of the study, extensions
of this project may want to include interviews with less-educated individuals
to examine whether the fundamental structure of the experience is similar for
these individuals. The participants provided rich data on the use or non-use of
ethnic and cultural identity labels and perceptions of their own sense of iden-
tity or self. Due to space limitations, not all of these data could be presented
in this article. All participants were extremely aware of the communicative
context, as expressed in the theme ‘Depending on the context’. They reported
adjusting their behavior depending on the context and distinguished between
various communicative contexts. This is important because the study of context
in language and communication has been identified as one of the prime issues
in the area of language and communication studies (Ray 1995). Although it is
probably impossible to neatly sort out and determine the influence of language,
culture, identity, and communication in this research area, these investigations
are warranted by the importance of these issues to individuals’ lives. Their
complexity is intriguing, but should not daunt further research efforts.
104 B. Heinz

Bowling Green State University

 ‘Fish in the river’ 105

Interview protocol

1) First, tell me a little bit about yourself. Where are you from originally?
Probe: So, is this the country where you were born and raised?
2) What language was your first language?
Probe: Was this the language you spoke when you were growing up?
3) When did you learn American English?
4) So, tell me, during a typical day, when do you use your first language, and
when do you use American English?
5) Do you prefer either language?
Probe: Do you have any specific reasons for preferring one over the
other? Can you give me any example?
6) Describe your communication style when you speak with others in your first
language. Communication style refers to the way you interact with others
in conversations. For example, some people are very calm, some talk fre-
quently and take charge, and others tend to do more listening. Or some like
to support what they are saying, and some are frank, while others tend to be
more tactful.
7) Describe your communication style when you speak with others in Ameri-
can English.
8) How do you perceive yourself when you talk to others in your first lan-
guage?
Probe: What feelings do you associate with talking in your first language?
What images or thoughts do you associate with talking in your first lan-
guage?
9) How do you perceive yourself when you talk to others in American English?
Probe: What feelings do you associate with talking in American English?
What images or thoughts do you associate with talking in American En-
glish?
10) How do you think others perceive you when you communicate with them
in your first language?
Probe: So, these others are people from your native culture or . . .
11) How do you think others perceive you when you communicate with them
in American English?
Probe: So, these others are people from your native culture or . . .
12) How would you describe yourself?
Probe: Do you identify yourself in cultural/ethnic terms?
How?
National identity?
Ethnic/racial affiliations?
Cultural affiliations?
13) Is there anything you’d like to add? Anything I didn’t touch on?
 106 B. Heinz

14) In conclusion, I’d like to get just a little bit of demographic information.
Age:
Occupation:
Length of stay in United States:
Do you plan to stay in the United States?

References

Beebe, L. M. and H.Giles

1984 Second language acquisition theories: A discussion in terms of second language
acquisition. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 46, 5–32.
Berger, C. R. and J. J. Bradac
1982 Language and Social Knowledge. London: Edward Arnold.
Brunn, M.
1994 Ethnohistories: Learning through the stories of life experiences. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Cargile, A. C., H. Giles, E. B. Ryan, and J. J. Bradac
1994 Language attitudes as a social process: A conceptual model and new directions.
Language and Communication 14(3), 211–236.
Chomsky, N.
1972 Language and Mind. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
1975 Reflections on Language. New York, NY: Random House.
Delgado, F. P.
1994 The complexity of Mexican American identity: A reply to Hecht, Sedano, and
Ribeau and Mirande and Tanno. International Journal of Intercultural Relations
18(1), 77–84.
Dreyfus, H. L.
1991 Being-in-the-World: A commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time, Division I.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Etter-Lewis, G.
1991 Black women’s life stories: Reclaiming self in narrative texts. In S. B. Gluck
and D. Patai (eds.), Women’s Words: The Feminist Practice of Oral History. New
York: Routledge, 4–58
Gal, S.
1979 Language Shift: Social Determinants of Linguistic Change in Bilingual Austria.
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Gao, G., K. L. Schmidt, and W. B. Gudykunst
1994 Strength of ethnic identity and perceptions of ethnolinguistic vitality among
Mexican Americans. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 16(3), 332–341.
Garfinkel, H.
1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Giles, H., P. Ball, B. Gasiorek, M. Korytkowska, and L. Young
1989 Ethnic identification, language and values: The case of Polish emigrés. Journal
of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 10(2), 107–116.
Giles, H., R. Bourhis, and D. M. Taylor
1977 Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In H. Giles (ed.), Lan-
guage, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press.
 ‘Fish in the river’ 107

Giles, H. and N. Coupland

1991 Language: Contexts and Consequences. Buckingham, Great Britain: Open Uni-
versity Press.
Giles, H. and P. Johnson
1981 The role of language in ethnic group relations. In J. Turner and H. Giles (eds.),
Intergroup Behavior. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Goffman, E.
1959 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Double Day.
Gudykunst, W. B.
1989 Cultural variability in ethnolinguistic vitality. In S. Ting-Toomey and F. Ko-
rzenny (eds.), Language, Communication and Culture: Current Directions. New-
bury Park, CA: Sage, 222–243.
Gudykunst, W. B. and S. Ting-Toomey
1990 Ethnic identity, language and communication breakdowns. In H. Giles and W.
P. Robinson (eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Psychology. Chichester:
John Wiley and Sons, 309–327.
Gumperz, J. J.
1971 Language in Social Groups. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
1982 Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: University Press.
Hecht, M.
1993 2002 – A research odyssey: Toward the development of a communication theory
of identity. Communication Monographs 60(1), 76–82.
Hecht, M., M. J. Collier, and S. Ribeau
1993 African American communication: Ethnic identity and cultural interpretation.
Language and Language Behaviors (Vol. 2). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hecht, M. and S. Ribeau
1991 Socio-cultural roots of identity: A look at black America. Journal of Black Stud-
ies 21, 501–513.
Heidegger, M.
1962 Being and Time. Translated by J. Macquartie and E. Robinson. New York: Harper
and Row.
1967 Sein und Zeit. Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Hymes, D.
1972 Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz and D.
Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communica-
tion. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 35–71.
Lamphere, A.
1993 Fall sees record enrolment of international students. The Scarlet, Oct. 22, p. 4.
Langer, M. M.
1989 Merleau-Ponty: Phenomenology of Perception: A Guide and Commentary. Lon-
don: Macmillan.
Lindlof, T. S.
1995 Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub-
lications.
Lippi-Green, R.
1994 Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminating pretext in the courts.
Language in Society 23 (2), 163–198.
Marley, D.
1993 Ethnolinguistic minorities in Papignon: A questionnaire survey. Journal of Mul-
tilingual and Multicultural Development 14(3), 217–236.
108 B. Heinz

McCann, C. D. and E. T. Higgins

1990 Social cognition and communication. In H. Giles and W. P. Robinson (eds.),
Handbook of Language and Social Psychology. Chichester, England: John Wiley
and Sons Ltd., 13–32.
McCracken, G.
1988 The Long Interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Meyerhoff, M. and N. Niedzielski
1994 Resistance to creolization: An interpersonal and intergroup account. Language
and Communication 14 (4), 313–330.
Momaday, N. S.
1997 The Man Made of Words. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Orbe, M. P.
1994 ‘Remember, it’s always whites’ ball’: Description of African American male
communication. Communication Quarterly 42 (3), 287–300.
Paikeday, T. M.
1985 The Native Speaker is Dead! Ontario, Canada: Paikeday Publishing.
Pakir, A.
1993 Two tongue tied: Bilingualism in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and Multi-
cultural Development 14 (1/2), 73–90.
Patton, M. Q.
1990 Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ray, G. B.
1995 Back to the future: The study of context in language and communication. The
LSI Gazette. Language and Social Interaction Division, Speech Communication
Association, October.
Sachdev, I. and R. Bourhis
1990 Bilinguality and multilinguality. In H. Giles and W. P. Robinson (eds.), Hand-
book of Language and Social Psychology. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons,
293–308.
Ting-Toomey, S. and F. Korzenny (eds.)
1989 Language, Communication and Culture: Current Directions. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Tracy, K. and J. Naughton
1994 The identity work of questioning in intellectual discussion. Communication
Monographs 61 (4), 281–302.
Van Manen, M.
1990 Researching Lived Experience. New York, NY: State University Press.
Weiss, T.
1992 A conceptual framework for intercultural/international communication. Paper
presented at the annual Eastern Michigan University Conference on Languages
and Communication for World Business and the Professions, Ypsilanti, MI.