Gee’s theory of D/discourse provides a very useful tool for examining discourse and social practice that emphasize the interconnection between language, language learning, social identity and social context. The term ‘discourse’ has been typically used to denote interactions and sequences of utterances between interlocutors. Gee (1989, 1996, 1999, 2007), however, proposes to make a distinction between ‘discourse’ and ‘Discourse’ – with a capital D. This distinction proposes recognition of the interconnectedness of social relations, contexts, social identities and particular instances of language use.
‘Discourses’ with a capital ‘D,’ that is, different ways in which we humans integrate language with non-language ‘stuff,’ such as different ways of thinking, acting, interacting, valuing, feeling, believing, and using symbols, tools, and objects in the right places and at the right times to enact and recognize different identities and activities, give the material world certain meanings, distribute social goods in a certain way, make certain sorts of meaningful connections in our experience, and privilege certain symbol systems and ways of knowing over others. (Gee, 1999: 13)
In other words, language among other symbolic expressions of thinking, feeling and doing and props can be used to identify oneself as a member of a ‘socially meaningful group or network’ (Gee, 2007). This is how we signal what role we are playing within this group. Gee (2007: 113) highlights that here language and grammar are as important as ‘saying(writing)–doing–being–valuing–believing combinations’. In his works, Gee (1999, 2007) refers to extra linguistic factors combinations with a capital D in the word ‘discourse’ whereas considering ‘discourse’; lower case as part of the ‘Discourse’, which is always more than ‘just language’.
Interestingly, Gee (2007) makes a connection with Bakhtin’s (1981) concept of ‘hybridity’, suggesting that ‘what Discourse we are in is often a matter of negotiation, contestation, and “hybridity”’. Gee (2007) points out that Discourses are often mixtures of ‘several historically distinct’ Discourses. According to Gee (2007), Discourses can ‘capture’ people to speak throughout history (Fleck, 1979; Gee, 1992) or people can ‘capture’ Discourses to make strategic choices, maneuver or simply survive (Bauman & Briggs, 2003; Giddens, 1984). It is important to note that many factors limit these notions and contestations of discourse, including the historical and cultural setting, the economy, the joint histories of the groups or individuals, power relations and many more. It is theorized in the present book that the ‘agency’ that takes place, often happens within these spaces. In spite of limitations, adolescents can negotiate their positions, values and future projections.
In this manner, Discourses can be perceived as ‘identity kits’ or ‘forms of life’ (Gee, 2007). As people form numerous theories about their reality, ‘cultural models’ can distinguish what is common sense, what is typical, what is normal and what is not. Gee claims that certain cultural models prevailing within certain social groups are likely to affect our agency, basically providing some limitations or boundaries. It is not to suggest that these discourses are set in stone, the opposite is true. Discourses that constitute each person change as our life trajectories change. In some cases, certain Discourses can be in opposition with each other (Gee, 1989: 7) and cause tension between values, beliefs, attitudes, language choices and ways of being in the world. As this book shows, this issue becomes critical for adolescent immigrants and their families. Gee’s theory implies that ‘meaning’ in a language is situated. It is bound with people’s experiences and ‘perceptions relative to the Discourse they are presently using language within’. In this perspective, ‘words mean only as they are situated within a Discourse and they take on other meanings if they are situated differently within that Discourse or another Discourse’ (Davies & Harré, 1990: 346). ‘Discourse’ is therefore about ‘the creation and limitation of possibilities, they are systems of power/knowledge (pouvoir/savoir) within which we take up subject positions’ (Pennycook, 1994: 128). As Kramsch (2011) suggests, there is a link between ‘discourse, ideology, and identity’ particularly in language learning and teaching as has been shown by Young (2009: 1), who argues: ‘Discursive practice is the construction and reflection of social realities through actions that invoke identity, ideology, belief, and power’. If culture is being gradually seen as discourse and the production of meaning, ‘the development of intercultural competence is not only a question of tolerance towards or empathy with others, of understanding them in their cultural context, or of understanding oneself and the other in terms of one another’ (Kramsch, 2011: 3).
This book contributes to this discussion by integrating the complexity of a socio-historical context and discourses operating within these contexts with adolescents’ agency and parental roles. It attempts to unravel some of the discourses present in their lives through an exploration of children’s small stories or narratives in which children often relate to the particular people, situations or places. These small stories and narratives along with ethnographic observations provide snapshots of their lives. This book further problematizes the notion of interviews as inauthentic ways of gathering information because narratives and small stories can be unexpected, spontaneous and rich (see De Fina, 2016b). This study also acknowledges the importance of parental involvement in contexts outside the home in children’s negotiations of their ethnolinguistic identities. In this way, the present study makes a contribution to the area of multilingualism, pointing to the importance of family external opportunities for language maintenance (sometimes the only opportunity). It is, however, evident that it is not only parental ideologies or socio-historical contexts and their discourses that shape children’s competencies, but also the kind of future they plan for themselves and their families. Agency is thus key to their socialization practices.
Some scholars have critically viewed ‘socialization’ as over deterministic and goal-oriented toward adulthood (Rogoff, 2003; Zentella, 2005). As Duranti et al. (2012) note, the same criticism applies to the concept of ‘enculturation’. This view often depicts children as passive recipients of ‘socialization’ practices aimed at the transmission of local norms and culture. For example, Boas (2004: 144) claims that children naturally conform to ways of acting, thinking and speaking. However, what this conceptual framework implies is that cultural knowledge is ‘reproduced through imitation and internalization without modification’ (Duranti et al., 2012).
Similarly to this, scholars such as Bourdieu and Passeron (1990) believed that educators instill and inculcate knowledge and learners internalize implicit and explicit practices of a given habitus, gaining different types of cultural or social capital. It is, however, important to note that both Bourdieu and Passeron saw these pedagogic outcomes as oppressive – as ‘symbolic violence’. This is in strong opposition to Boas (2004) who sees cultural transmission as smooth and fruitful and not oppressive. Ochs and Schieffelin (2011) note that the term ‘socialization’ in ‘language socialization’ differs from these usages and draws inspiration from Sapir’s understanding of language and culture with language the driving force of socialization. He also argued for conceptual and behavioral independence of individual and culture in ‘Culture, Genuine and Spurious’ (Sapir, 1924: 114): ‘The major activities of the individual must directly satisfy his own creative and emotional impulses, must always be something more than means to an end’.
This leads to notions of agency and its importance for LS where ‘novices participation in communicative practice is promoted but not determined by culturally informed persons’ (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011). Duff (2012: 413) notes, for example, that agency and identity are closely related in the contexts of second language (L2) learning – ‘learners are not simply passive or complicit participants in language learning and use, but can make informed choices, exert influence, resits […] or comply, although their social circumstances may constrain their choices’. LS studies document the social and communicative positionings of children and other novices in different activity settings and