RtICELT 2016 Conference Proceedings (Final.Ed.)

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Jasso-Aguilar, R. (1999). Sources, methods and triangulation in needs analysis: a critical perspective in a case study of Waikiki hotel maids. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 27-46.Munby, J. (1980). Communicative syllabus design: a sociolinguistic model for defining the content of purpose-specific language programmes. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Nunan, D. & Lamb, C. (1996). The self-directed teacher: managing the learning process. Oakleigh: Cambridge University Press.Orr, T. (Ed.). (2002). English for specific purposes: case studies in TESOL practice series. Virginia: TESOL Inc.Reeves, N. & Wright, C. (1996). Linguistic auditing. Adelaide: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Richards, J. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Oakleigh: Cambridge University Press.Richterich, R. & Chancerel, J. (1988). Identifying the needs of adults learning a foreign language. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 151

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Meta-analysis of Researches in Language and Literature at Ifugao State University (IFSU), Cordillera Administrative Region, Philippines: An Input Towards Research-based Pedagogy Jeng jeng M. Bolintao, PhD [email protected] College of Education and Arts, IFSU Main Campus, Nayon, Lamut, Ifugao, Philippines Alma C. Binwag, PhD [email protected] of Advanced Education, IFSU Main Campus, Nayon, Lamut, Ifugao, Philippines Leudane L. Loñez, PhD [email protected] of Criminology, Computing and Health Science, IFSU Main Campus, Nayon, Lamut, Ifugao, PhilippinesAbstractResearch plays a major role in the pedagogical aspect of tertiary education/highereducation, especially in preparing students for their careers. As a means of achievingsuccess in learning indifferent subject areas, language and literature serve as a strongbasis for improving the teaching-learning process.Higher education institutions (HEIs) are doing their best to further advance research-based language and literature teaching in tertiary education. In this study, researchconducted in language and literature of IFSU, Nayon, Lamut, Ifugao of the CordilleraAdministrative Region (CAR), Philippines was investigated.Both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection were used. Theconducted researches as inputs in the study were meta-analyzed according to differentstrands and themes, namely: topics, methodology/approaches, discipline, andcongruency.Findings disclosed that DepEd teachers focused on topics in reading, mostly used thedescriptive method, and emphasized language, and all researches pointed onimproving quality of education, which is one of the goals of the agency. StatePathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 152

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”university and colleges (SUC) instructors’ topics were equally distributed in all the fociof the university’s research agenda, was crafted based on the National HigherEducation Research Agenda, and focused on instructional materials, used descriptivemethod, and concentrated on language.Keywords: meta-analysis, language, literature, research-based pedagogy, highereducation institutionsIntroductionGraduate students today are expected to produce quality researches and outputs intheir fields of specialization. Meta-analysis can be understood as a form of surveyresearch in which research reports, rather than people, are surveyed (Lipsey andWilson, 1993).Neill (2006) added that meta-analysis is a statistical technique for amalgamating,summarizing, and reviewing previous quantitative research. By using meta-analysis, awide variety of questions can be investigated, as long as reasonable bodies of primaryresearch studies exist`.Graduate education is at the apex of the educational system. In the field of education,graduate studies is one of the most effective means of improving the capacities ofeducational professionals who aim to contribute to the continued improvement ofteaching and learning in classrooms, delivery of student services, and management ofeducational programs. Graduate education is also one of the most effective means ofdeveloping capacities related to doing research that will improve educational theoryand practice in the many different aspects of the educational process (CMO No. 53, s.2007).As specifically stated in the NHERA 2009-2018, research is the ultimate expression ofan individual’s innovative and creative powers. The higher education sector shallensure that the academic environment nurtures and supports Filipino research talents.Research is one of the main functions of the higher education sector. As such,universities in particular are expected to lead in the conduct of disciplined-based,policy-oriented, technology-directed, and innovative/creative researches that arelocally responsive and globally competitive.Furthermore, NHERA also highlighted that graduate education in priority disciplinesshould be strengthened. Similarly, it recognizes that graduate education plays a criticalPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 153

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”role in producing the experts needed to revitalize research in the country as well asproduce a bulk of research outputs needed for development, education and policyformulation. Hence, there is a need to strengthen graduate programs in prioritydiscipline.With the aforementioned premises, this study was conducted to meta-analyzeresearches of the graduate students researches on language and literature according tothe different strands and themes, namely: -topics, methodology/approaches,discipline, and congruency. Result served as a baseline data towards a research-basedpedagogy in the College of Advanced Education of the Ifugao State University, theonly HEI in the province of Ifugao.MethodThis study made use of both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection.The qualitative part was utilized to align the topics, methodology, discipline, andcongruency of the researches to the research agenda of the agencies where thestudents came from. The quantitative methods were purposely used to the determinefrequency of researches on different strands/themes. An inventory of the graduatesand researches was made.Research Data and LocaleThe research data were the theses of the graduates of Master of Arts in Teachingprogram in English and Filipino from the school years1998 – 2016 of the graduateschool, now the College of Advanced Education (CAE) of Ifugao State University,Main Campus, Nayon, Lamut, Ifugao, Philippines.Data Gathering ProcedureThe researchers requested the list of graduates from the Office of the Registrar todetermine the number of graduates per year from the school year 1997 - 1998 to theschool year 2015 – 2016. With this list of graduates, the researchers searched for allthe manuscripts of the graduates filed in the CAE office and in the University Library.Out of the 62 graduates, only 50 manuscripts were retrieved. These papers were thenreviewed and analyzed based on topics, methodologies/approaches, disciplines, andcongruency to the research agenda. The inventory of the researches was the basis ofthe results and discussion.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 154

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Results and DiscussionTopicsResults in table 1 revealed that of the 38 students, 16 dealt with reading as theirresearch topic, including reading comprehension, reading proficiency, readingreadiness, and reading performance. This finding implies that the teachers might havefound students’ difficulties in their reading abilities, hence most of their studies wereon this topic. As Lyon & Chhabra (2004) postulated, to prevent reading failure,educators must understand and act on scientific evidence because students who donot learn to read will have difficulty mastering academic content, succeeding inschool, and fulfilling their life potential. The school’s fundamental responsibility isthus to ensure that all students read proficiently.Table 1Distribution of Research areas by DepEd studentsResults revealed that topics researched by students from State Universities andColleges (SUC)were distributed in the different foci of the university research agendaas shown in table 2, with instructional materials development using computer assistedinstruction as the highest. The findings addressed NHERA’s objective ofPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 155

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”producing/adapting education technologies and developing education programs incutting edge fields such as ICT materials and Science (NHERA 2, 2009-2018).Table 2Distribution of research areas by SUC studentsMethods UsedThe figure below shows that out the 38 researches, there were three methods used.From these three methods, the descriptive method was the mostly utilized with 81%,followed by experimental and qualitative methods, which had 13% and 6%,respectively. These results means that the studies conducted were quantitative. Figure 1 Methods used by DepEd students Page | 156Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Likewise, figure 2 shows that instructors from SUCs used the descriptive method astheir predominant research method with 83% and the experimental method with17%. These results means that students were more acquainted with the descriptivemethod. These findings could also signify that their researches call for this method;hence, was mostly utilized. Figure 2 Methods used by SUC studentsDisciplineMost of the researches conducted by DepEd graduate students were under thelanguage discipline with a 80%, and 10% were for both literature related andbehavioral research. Thus, there is a need to increase DepEd graduate students’knowledge of literature and behavior areas in order to balance learning as a result ofquality of education.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 157

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity” Figure 3 Disciplines studied by DepEd studentsOn the other hand, figure 4 showed 92% of researches by DepEd students werelanguage related researches, while only 8% were on literature. These results could bedictated by the fact the curriculum is based more on language subjects than onliterature. Nevertheless, the curriculum should not be the sole basis not to deal withliterature as an area of study by the graduate students. Figure 4 Disciplines studied by SUC students Page | 158Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”CongruencyThe findings showed that based on DepEd Order No. 24, s. of 2010, graduatestudents from DepEd first put emphasis on the topics that raise the proficiency levelof children already in school with 79%, second was in improving DepEd’s internalefficiency through the development of IMs with 18%, and lastly, in increasingparticipation rate by reaching the unreached children with 3%. Based on general areasof basic education research, the students’ researches all fall on improving quality ofeducation as one goal of the agency. Figure 5 Congruency of DepEd’s students researches to the DepEd’s research agendaSimilarly, Figure 6 showed that all the topics were equally distributed in all the foci ofthe agenda of the graduate school of Ifugao State University, which was anchoredwith the National Higher Education Research Agenda for 2009-2018.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 159

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity” Figure 6 Congruency of SUC students researches to the SUC’s research agendaConclusionThe study highlighted the result of the meta-analyzed researches of the students in theCollege of Advanced Education of Ifugao State University. It was found out thatteachers from the DepEd focused on topics in reading, used the descriptive method,and emphasized language. All researches were made to improve the quality ofeducation. Results also revealed that students from State Universities and Colleges(SUC) research topics were distributed in the different foci of the university researchagenda with instructional materials development using computer assisted instructionas the highest, used descriptive method, and concentrated on language.The findings serve as the baseline data for the faculty of the College of AdvancedEducation in their research pedagogy. It is then highly encouraged that the advisersshould see to it that their advisees focus on varied areas of research topics. It is alongthis line that the mentors should emphasize to their mentees qualitative andexperimental studies to quantify or verify the results of the previously conductedquantitative researches.Furthermore, all researches in the different programs should be meta-analyzed todetermine the extent of congruency of researches to the research agenda of the agencywhere the students are affiliated.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 160

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”ReferencesCommission on Higher Education (CMO) No. 53, s. 2007Department of Education Order No. 24, s. 2010.Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment. American Psychologist, 48, 1181 – 1201.Lyon, G.R & Chhabra, V. (2004). The Science of reading research. What Research Says About Reading, 61 (6).National Higher Education Research Agenda 2 (NHERA 2) of 2009 – 2018Neill, J. (2006). Meta-analysis research methodology.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 161

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity” The Multimodality in a Philippine TV Interview: The Communicative Role of the Non-Verbal Gestures Anne Elizabeth Apolona Gumiran De La Salle University-Dasmarinas,PhilippinesAbstract [email protected] article fairly analyzes the multimodality in an interview on a Philippine primetimeTV show. It primarily focuses on the facial, hand, body as well as their prosodicfeatures and particular functions with high regard to their turn management andfeedback purposes to be analyzed through the 3.3 version of MUMIN coding schemeof annotation. The coding scheme adapted involves manual annotation of the non-verbal gestures with communicative functions of the participants which include twointerviewers and an interviewee. This study also aims to compare the differentfunctions played by the common non-verbal gestures between and among theparticipants of the discourse. The analysis revealed that a particular functional valuemay be attributed by different descriptive features and vice versa depending on thecontributions of the interlocutors in a face-to-face interaction. Furthermore, it wasbrought into light that factors such as the conversational setting and the relationshipthat exists between and among the participants of the discourse contribute to and areseen to have an impact on the production of the non-verbal gestures and theirfunctions. Hence, based on this finding, it is suggested that a similar study be done totake into consideration the varieties of the aforementioned factors (i.e. formal orcasual setting, personal or impersonal relationship between the participants) as well asthe semiotics present in the non-verbal gestures of the participants.Keywords: multimodality, non-verbal gestures, feedback, turn-managementIntroductionKress & Leeuwen (2001) described the concept of multimodality as constructing andcommunicating meaning through different modes. According to Kipp (2001), thesemodes may be visual which involves gestures and images or auditory which involveswords or dialogue acts etc. He also furthered that it “has become a crossroad wheremany disciplines meet” (p.1). One of the common grounds of these disciplines isthere nonverbal gestures in the study of psychology, medicine, sociology,anthropology and linguistics which display meaning and purpose.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 162

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”In analyzing the nonverbal gestures, the researchers have to consider recording videoswhich are the principal data of the study (Kipp et al, 2014; Wood and Kroger, 2000)regardless of the discipline conducting the research. This kind of data allows them toplayback the gestures for further analysis. Furthermore, though researchers from thedifferent disciplines have varied aims or objectives for studying these, they all needparticular tools in analyzing multimodality that will annotate their multimodal input(Kipp, 2014; Allwood, 2007). Different annotation tools are made available and someof these are ANVIL (Kipp, 2001), MUMIN (Allwood, 2000), MultiTool (Gunnarson,2002) and NITE (Bernsen et al, 2002) mentioned in Allwood (2000, p. 8). Thesecoding schemes aid the annotators in analyzing and examining the nonverbal gesturesin different face-to-face interaction and institutions. According to Kipp (2014), “alltools were developed in a specific research content but are generalizable to a certainextent” (p.1); hence, these can be used by researchers of different contexts. In spite ofthe tools’ generalizability, researchers could also choose the most appropriate amongthese that will best support their research purpose and process.Consequently, adapting one of the tools aforementioned, this study primarily aims toannotate the functional values of the communicative nonverbal gestures in a shortvideo clip of an interview on a Philippine TV network using the MUMIN codingscheme of annotation. Furthermore, it also aims to compare the functional features ofthe common gestures between and among the participants in the face-to-faceinteraction.MUMIN Coding Scheme of AnnotationEstablished in the Nordic Network in Multimodal Interfaces, MUMIN codingscheme is one of the tools utilized in the analysis of modalities. Hand gestures, facialdisplays and body postures of an interpersonal interaction are used to describe itsfunctional values but with high regard to the three communicative purposes such asturn management, feedback and sequencing (Allwood, 2007 p. 3; Allwood et al, 2006).Originally, according to Paggio (2008), it is not designed to be embedded in acomputer application for an automatic annotation unlike NITE1, MultiTool andANVIL2 but its results can be interpreted through an application such as ELAN3.1 Natural Interactivity Tools Engineering2 Annotation of Video and Language3ELAN or EUDICO Linguistic Annotator, developed by Max Planc Institute, is a software application that aids theannotator to create annotation for audio and video data.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 163

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Prior to the classification of the communicative functions of gestures, the annotatorsfirst acquire the data to be analyzed from the media corpus. This data includes thelanguage and gestures that are functionally relevant. The current scheme categorizesthe different gestures regarded as descriptive attributes, as to facial display, bodyposture, hand gestures and semiotic categories. Facial displays include the generalface, eyebrow movement, eye movement, gaze direction, mouth openness, lip positionand head movement. Hand gestures, conversely, involve handedness and handmovement trajectory. Then, body posture includes the inclination of the interlocutors’torso towards the other participants. Aside from the above mentioned gesturedesignation, a category built on Charles Pierce’s theory is added. This semioticcategory includes indexical deictic, non-deictic, iconic and symbolic, which arerelevant to all the gestures.Upon identifying relevant gestures in the corpus, the annotators analyze it andassociate each to its particular communicative function. Turn management, feedbackand sequencing, as the identified communicative purposes of the expressions or thefunctional attributes, have various dimensions classified by different features.Feedback involves two dimensions namely give and elicit which are attributed bythree descriptors: Basic, acceptance and emotion or attitude. The dimensions of turnmanagement, on the other hand, include turn gain, turn end and turn hold. Turn gainis done when the participant either accepts or takes an unoffered turn. Turn end ischaracterized by completing, offering, or yielding (i.e. releasing the turn that is underpressure). Lastly, sequencing’s dimensions involve open, continue and end. Thesedimensions are signaled by ‘sub-dialogues’ such as “By the way,” for open sequence,expressions such as first, second and then for continue sequence; and “Okay. That’sit!”, “That’s all” for end sequence (Allwood, 2007; Paggio, 2008). The tables fromAllwood (2006) below summarize the multimodal functions of turn management,feedback and sequence and their particular dimensions.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 164

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Table 1Feedback. Behavior Attribute Behavior Value Basic Contact/ Continuation Perception Understanding (CPU) Acceptance Contact/ Continuation Perception (CP) Turn Yield Emotion Turn Offer Turn Complete Happy Sad Surprised, and othersTable 2 Behavior ValueTurn Management Turn Take Turn Accept Behavior Attribute Turn Yield Turn Gain Turn Offer Turn Complete Turn End Turn Hold Turn Hold Behavior ValueTable 3 Open sequenceSequencing Continue sequence Close sequence Behavior Attribute SequencingPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 165

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Review of Related Studies Employing the scheme similarly used by the present study, Allwood et al (2007) explored multimodality, specifically the non-verbal gestures in short video clips in Finnish, Danish and Swedish, explaining MUMIN coding scheme of annotation comprehensively. The study has become remarkable for its results verifying the reliability of the scheme particularly the functional attributes namely feedback, turn management and sequencing. Utilizing the same framework, Koutsombogera & Papageorgiou (2011a; 2011b) and Koutsumbogera et al (2009)’s studies also examined the multimodality of Greek and Icelandic TV interviews. Koutsombogera & Papageorgiou (2011a) examined the issues on the nonverbal expressions, particularly the effect of the situational and conversational setting to the behavior of the participants in the Greek TV interview. On the other hand, Koutsombogera & Papageorgiou (2011b) limited their study by focusing on the iconic gestures annotated in the face-to-face Greek TV interview. Lastly, comparative analysis wasemployed by Koutsumbogera et al (2009) to compare two different interviews of twodifferent cultures namely Greek and Icelandic. This cross-cultural analysis further examined how the turn management of the interlocutors in one interview differ or are similar to one another. One recommendation given by Koutsumbugera & Papageorgiou (2011a) is to analyze and examine interactions that are casual instead of formal and structured to affect and dictate the nonverbal gestures of the participants which become the basis of the researcher of the present study for considering the former type of interaction. Moreover, the studies aforementioned limit their research by excluding prosodic features in the annotation process. In this paper, these features will be considered as part of the non-verbal, taking into account (Lyons, 1977; Wood and Kroger, 2000; Esser, 2006) that these can also have an effect to the interlocutors other than what is verbally expressed. Say for instance; an interlocutor takes the turn that is not offered by talking louder than the other who is still talking. Thus, this can be annotated under turn gain.MethodologyParticipantsThere are three participants in the discourse namely Kris Aquino, Boy Abunda andBimby Aquino-Yap. Kris Aquino and Boy Abunda, will be referred to as IR1 and IR2in the recorded data, wherein IR stands for interviewer. On the other hand, BimbyAquino-Yap, as the interviewee will be referred to as the IE in which it meansPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 166

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”interviewee. These participants are engaged in a casual, face-to-face televisedinterview.Materials The data is gathered through video recording the December 24, 2014-episodeof Aquino and Abunda Tonight. It is a 15-minute primetime show on a Philippine TVnetwork, ABS-CBN, in which the discourse, a face-to-face interview, can be labelledas structured but casual. It is considered structured because the interviewers follow apre-defined sequence of questions; but casual in a reason that the participants’ are notrestricted with any formal conventions due to the nature of the show per se. Thevideo recording was used to capture the non-verbal gestures of the participants and ,the prosodic features of their verbal contribution at the same time.. The focus of theanalysis and annotation will include the time IE is greeted until the tag line of theshow is said by IR1 and IR2 which is a total of 10 minutes of interaction.ProcedureAnnotation ProcessFor preliminaries, the annotators noted the descriptive features of the interlocutors’non-verbal gestures (to be referred to as NVGs in this study) in the recorded video.The video is examined unmute so as to mark as well the prosodic features of theparticipants’ verbal contribution. However, it should be noted that not all the NVGsof the participants are considered for analysis; but only those with communicativefunctions related to either turn management or feedback (See Appendix C). Gesturesas such are identified by Allwood (2001) in Allwood, as the ones that are “… intendedas communicative by the communicator (displayed or signaled), or judged to have anoticeable effect on the recipient” (p.2). Conversely, since prosody does not fall underany pre-defined categories, it will be taken as a different category itself under thedescriptive features in which the attributes will include loudness, stress and others.Moreover, since the data is video recorded, only those gestures which appeared on thescreen are taken into consideration. After manually marking the descriptive features ofthe interview, the categorization for their functional attributes is done following theMUMIN coding tools. The total number of the NVGs of each participant is noted aswell as the descriptive and functional features that are least and three of the mostattributed by their gestures. Moreover, there are instances encountered by theannotators that one NVG can be annotated under different descriptive attributes atthe same time. In this case, the more notable attribute is considered.After the whole annotation process is done, the most and the least attributeddescriptive and functional features of each participant are analyzed and compared.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 167

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”These results are used to discuss the similarities and the differences between andamong them and its relation to the feedback and turn management in the discourse.ResultsAnnotation outputThe annotation revealed that there are total of 366 NVGs in the interview in which30% are functional in terms of Turn management and 39.3% in terms of Feedback.165 of it are contributed by IR1, 84 NVGs by IR2 and 117 NVGs by IE. Theannotators also identified the numbers of the features, both descriptive andfunctional, that are three of the most and least attributed. IR1’s most attributeddescriptive features are prosody, general face and body posture which are 12.1%,15.8% and 13.3% respectively. Turn End, Turn Gain and Feedback-Emotion, on theother hand, are the top three most annotated in functional features which are 31.5%,9.7% and 21.8% respectively. Conversely, the least in descriptive and functionalfeatures are mouth openness which is 1.2% and feedback of eliciting acceptance, 4.2%respectively.IR2’s three of the most attributed features in functional is somehow similar with IR1except for its Turn Gain. Three of the most ascribed in his functional features includeTurn End, Feedback-Emotion and Turn Hold. Of his 84 NVGs, 23.1% is Turn Hold,19% is Feedback-Emotion and 19% is the Turn End. The least in the features includeFeedback-Elicit Accept which is only 3.6% of the totality of his annotated NVGs. Interms of descriptive features, three of the most attributed are Prosody, Headmovement and General face which are 10.7%, 17.9% and 16.7% respectively.Meanwhile, mouth openness and eye movement are the least with no annotated NVGat all.Lastly, IE’s top three functional features include Turn Hold, Feedback–GiveAcceptance and Feedback – Emotion. In his 117 NVGs, 19.7% is his Turn Hold,17.8% his Feedback-Give Acceptance and 25.6% his Feedback–Emotion. The mostattributed descriptive features, on the other hand, are somehow similar with that ofIR1’s top namely prosody, with body posture and general face having the samefrequency. Of his NVGs, 15.4% is his prosody and 12% of it is body posture andgeneral face. IE’s least annotated attributes is constituted of mouth openness which is2.6% for descriptive and Turn Gain which is 2.6% of his functional features.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 168

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”AnalysisTable 8 (See Appendix B) presents the least and the most annotated functional anddescriptive features of the participants in the face-to-face TV interview. The tablefurthers that the three participants share a similar functional feature which isFeedback-Emotion characterized by different descriptive features (i.e. general face,eyebrow movement, eye movement and others). It is also notable that IR1 and IR2both have Turn End as one of their most annotated functional feature. The onlydifference between theirs is that, IR1 has Turn Gain and IR2 has Turn Hold which isalso quite recognizable to be parallel with their verbal contribution to the exchange(See Appendix D). Turn Hold is common between IR2 and IE. Lastly, IE’sfunctional attributes include Feedback Give Acceptance. If it to be analyzedthoroughly, IR1’s functional features are quite active or more aggressive compared tothe other two participants which are somehow passive. The latter are more onproviding feedbacks [emotion] and holding their turns.On the other hand, in terms of their descriptive attributes, IR1 and IE both have thesame set of annotated descriptive features namely General Face, Prosody and BodyPosture. IR2 share two similar features with the other participants except for his HeadMovement.In terms of the least attributed features, the three participants have Mouth Opennessin common but with Eye Movement for IR2. Mouth openness is part of the leastbecause there are nonverbal gestures in which this feature becomes a part of thegeneral face. In functional attributes on the other hand, IR1 and IR2 are similar inwhich the feature that they have in common is Feedback-Elicit Acceptance.Meanwhile, IE’s least is Turn Gain.Lastly, the annotation output clearly shows that, though the participants share similarmost annotated functions; some are not attributed by similar descriptive features. Thesame thing goes with the descriptive features. Though one participant or two sharesimilar descriptive attributes, these are not used by a participant in terms of functionin the same way that the other did. Nonetheless, the participants somehow share thesame descriptive features at times that are attributed to the same communicativefunctions.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 169

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”DiscussionTurn ManagementThe frequency of the annotated features reflect on the role of the participants in theinteraction. As previously noted, IR1 and IR2 have similar most attributed functionalfeatures and the one with the most significant number is Turn End. Of the threeparticipants, they are the ones completing and offering the turn most of the time. Asinterviewers, they are the ones who are knowledgeable of the flow; thus, lead theinteraction. They are guided by a pre-defined structure such as the series of questionsto be asked to the interviewee. In addition, according to Allwood (2007), “turnmanagement regulates the interaction flow and minimizes overlapping speech andpauses” (p.4). This is quite observed with IR2 but not particularly with IR1.When IR2takes the turn in talking, he usually uses nonverbal gestures such as tilting his headwhen offering a turn to IE, nodding when accepting a turn and raising a hand whenholding his turn. IR1 on the other hand uses prosody most of the time to gain herturn which is reflected in the annotation output. On the other hand, one of the mostattributed functional features of IE is Turn Hold. As the interviewee, what he does isto respond and to think of what will he say about the question given to him by theinterviewers upon accepting the turn. His role also gives him tendencies to prolong orhold his turn since he is unknowledgeable of the flow of interaction, he can eithertake the turn upon being offered or hold it. His turn gain is mostly characterized byhis verbal contribution, hence, it’s one of the least features that he has.FeedbackThree kinds of Feedback are identified in the annotation process and these includeEmotion, Elicit and Give Acceptance. Of the three, Emotion is the most attributedfunctional feature of each participant. This is affected by different factors such as theconversational setting and the relationship of the participants. Because it is casualrather than a highly controlled and institutionalized interaction, the participants arenot restricted in giving feedbacks in relation to showing emotions. Moreover, theyreact as natural as possible especially IR1 and IE because of the personal relationshipthat exists between them. Neutrality is observed in IR2Lastly, Feedback in eliciting acceptance was annotated as the least and is ratherevident in the participants’ verbal exchange more than their nonverbal gestures.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 170

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”The Gaps in the Communicative FunctionThe participants may have similar most attributed descriptive features but if it is to bedeciphered; it is notable that their communicative functions vary. For instance, IR1and IE have prosody in common. However, IR1’s prosody is mostly annotated as afeature used to gain or take a turn. IR1 tends to speak louder than the otherinterlocutor simultaneously speaking with her in which she is given the leeway due tothis behavior. Compared to IE, prosody is mostly used to hold the turn such asslowing or prolonging what is being said or putting emphasis to words. IR1’s motivefor taking the turn is to lead the interaction while IE’s is to try to give emphasis towords that he says.Another feature that the participants have in common is Handedness. ThoughHandedness and Trajectory are mostly interpreted as having semiotic features, someof the hand gestures indicated have other functional values. IR1 used handedness toend a turn, to provide a feedback of emotion (i.e. clasping of hands when feelingpleased together with the facial display), eliciting an acceptance and holding a turn.IR2 used handedness somehow similarly to IR1 except for he also used it to giveacceptance. Lastly, similar to the former, IE used handedness to provide feedback ofemotion and also to hold a turn.Though there are similarities in terms of the functional values, a noticeable differencestill exists between IR1 and IR2. As aforementioned, IR1 appears to be more activeand aggressive in taking turns and providing feedback compared to the other twoparticipants who somehow appeared to be passive. Taking the most attributedfunctions into consideration, IR1 takes the turn most of the time and providesfeedback too much compared to IR2 who held his turn and appeared to be straightfaced most of the time; hence, appeared to be the most neutral. IE, on the other hand,occasionally provides a feedback of emotion and most of the time holds his turn andgives acceptance only.ConclusionsConcisely, the analysis of the results of this study tells that nonverbal gestures aid theparticipants in providing feedback and managing their turns. However, with theconsideration of the prosody as part of the descriptive features annotated, it furthertells us that turns, at times, are not smoothly gained and offered but also taken whichcauses overlap of the participants’ verbal contribution to the exchange. Furthermore,Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 171

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”it is also concluded that a particular communicative function can be achieved throughthe employment of different nonverbal gestures.Furthermore, it is also observed that factors such as the kind of relationship that existbetween the participants, setting and the kind of conversation that the participants areengaged into also played roles in the production of the nonverbal gestures. They arenot restricted with any formality conventions; hence, they produce nonverbal gesturesnaturally. This can also be an opportunity for another paper focusing on howparticipants create identity in casual conversations through their nonverbal gestures.Moreover, since the study also limited its scope to the analysis of the nonverbalgestures with communicative functions, the occurrence of the semiotic type ofgestures, though considerable, is not discussed or analyzed. Hence, it is suggested thatthis area be further studied. A similar study on multimodality is also done byKoutsombogera & Papageorgiou (2011) focusing only on the iconic gestures.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 172

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”AppendixAppendix ATable 4. The descriptive attributes of the participants’ nonverbal gestures. Descriptive Features IR1 IR2 IEGeneral Face 26 14 14Eyebrow movement 19 5 5Eye movement 206Gaze direction 11 8 10mouth openness 203lip position 45 7head movement 19 15 7handedness 10 5 6body posture 22 4 14prosody 20 9 18semiotic features 30 19 27TOTAL 165 84 117 TOTAL NVGs 366Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 173

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Table 5.The annotated functional features of IR1’s nonverbal gestures. Turn Feedback Feedback Feedback Turn Turn TOTAL end Emotion Give Elicit gain hold Acceptance AcceptanceGeneral Face 5 20 1 26Eyebrow movement 16 2 1 19Eye movement 2 2Gaze direction 1 22 6 11mouth openness 1 12lip position 12 1 4head movement 62 10 1 19handedness 14 4 1 10hand 0movement/trajectorybody posture 20 2 22Prosody 12 16 1 20TOTAL 52 36 12 7 16 12 135**NOTE: The table only contains the NVGs with communicative functions; hence,the ones that do not have communicative functions are excluded.Table 6. The annotated functional features of IR2’s nonverbal gestures. Turn Feedback Feedback Feedback Turn Turn TOTAL end Emotion Give Elicit gain hold 5 14 14 Acceptance Acceptance 8 5 0General Face 8Eyebrow movement 0Eye movementGaze directionmouth opennessPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 174

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”lip position 1 45head movement 4 10 1 15handedness 1 11 25hand 4 0movement/trajectorybody posture 4Prosody 21 33 9 TOTAL 16 16 11 4 3 15 65*NOTE: The table only contains the NVGs with communicative functions; hence,the ones that do not have communicative functions are excluded.Table 7. The annotated functional features of IE’s nonverbal gestures. Turn Feedback Feedback Feedback Turn Turn TOTAL end Emotion Give Elicit gain hold Acceptance AcceptanceGeneral Face 13 2 1 14Eyebrow movement 12 5Eye movement 5 1 6Gaze direction 10 10mouth openness 1 23lip position 41 27head movement 5 27handedness 5 16hand 0movement/trajectorybody posture 52 4 1 11 14Prosody 1 4 7 24 18TOTAL 6 30 16 12 3 23 90*NOTE: The table only contains the NVGs with communicative functions; hence,the ones that do not have communicative functions are excluded.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 175

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Appendix BTable 8. The most and least annotated functional and descriptive features of theparticipants in the TV interview. Functional attribute Descriptive attribute Most Least Most LeastIR1 Turn Gain Elicit General Face Mouth Turn End Acceptance Body Posture openness F-Emotion ProsodyIR2 Turn End Elicit General Face Mouth Turn Hold Acceptance openness & F-Emotion Handedness eye movement Head MovementIE F-Give Turn Gain General Face Mouth Acceptance Handedness Openness Turn Hold F-emotion ProsodyAppendix CFigure 1. General Face annotated with Feedback-emotion. The speaker is saying:“Make me come, what?”Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 176

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Appendix DInterview Transcription of the dataIR1 = Kris; IR2 = Boy; and IE = Bimby1 Boy: BIMby, welcome to [the] –2 Kris: [WELcome(!)]=3 Bimby: =Hi mom! Hi!=4 Kris: =and Hi: ?=5 Bimby: Hi Ninong Boy.6 Boy: Hi [Bim-]7 Kris: [Okay,] wait. Kanina: we were talking about it. When we're older whatare you going to give to Ninong Boy?8 Bimby: =<Big mansion>. And you big mansion and medicine. medicine ((pointingto Boy and Kris))9 Kris: O::h (.h a HA↑ .hhh) papa- pagagamot niya tayo, medicine. Inasahan na niyatalaga na may karamdaman tayong dalawa. Pero big ma::nsion, why a big ma:nsionfor Ninong Bo:y? because?=10 Bimby: =Becau::se–11 Kris: =What? [Ask –]12 Bimby: [He's my] ma::nager!13 Kris: =TARAY! Dahil manager ka:::!=14 Boy: =Alam ko, he prays for my health, he prays for me every night I cannot ask formore. At u:h>I never did I do an interview dito po sa Aquino and Abunda Tonightna tumitingin ho ako[sa tanong]<15 Kris: [satanong], ye:s=16 Boy: =Pero tonight I will [stick]17 Kris: [to the questions.]18 Boy: [to the questions.]=19 Kris: =WA:it, wait,What do you pra:y? When we pray every ni:ght? An...ForNinong Bo::y, what do you sa:y?20 Boy: [Yeah]21 Kris: [Please] Go:d=22 Bimby: =Please make [Tito Noy],23 Kris: [A::h, Tito: No:y first.]24 Boy: [Ah, Ano:-]25 Kris: [SOrry ha:?] [In order kasi e::]Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 177

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”26 Bimby: [Yeah, >because Tito: Noy’s fi:rst,<]27 Boy: [Right.]28 Kris: [I know,]first Tito No:y, NAMAN! OH, Tito No::y.29 Bimby: (.)Please bless Tito Noy to be a good president,30 Kris: (0.1)And then?=31 Bimby: =And then please make him [a]32 Kris: [what? Please make him?]33 Bimby: (0.3) That’s the only thing I pra:y(.)34 Kris: Then, [good friends]35 Boy: [good friends. Why?]36 Kris: [Tapos? >what about your prayer for NinongBoy<]=37 Bimby: =and Ninong Boy(0.3)38 Kris: for Ninong Bo:y?39 Bimby: (.) is a <good health> –40 Kris: To have good health and?41 (0.4)42 Bimby: and –43 (2.3)44 Kris: what else?45 Boy: >The mansion you will give m:e<=46 Bimby: =Yea::!=47 Boy: =Yea:!=48 Kris: =Yes=49 Boy: =[Thank] you Bi:mby.50 Kris: [Okay,]=51 Boy:=[Alright]=52 Kris: =What about for me:, what do you pray fo:r?53 Bimby: To make you a good mom.54 Boy [O:::h.]55 Kris: [O:::h.]56 Kris: Am I a good mo:m?57 Bimby: ((Nods))58 Boy: O:h. [You’re-]59 Kris: [Really?]60 Boy: [Yea:h]Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 178

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”61 Kris: Why:?62 Boy: Yea:h, [why-]63 Bimby: [It makes] you come <uhm> (.)64 Kris: What? Make me come what?65 Bimby: Make you come early=66 Kris: =Yea:::h67 Bimby: You!68 Kris: Aye( ), kasi nagpupuyat ako sa shooting. Ikaw kasi e:::69 Boy: Oh [yeah]?70 Kris: [‘Di mo ako binibigyan ng cut [off!]71 Boy: [I’m] – I’m really [guilty,]72 Kris: [Oo:::]=73 Boy: =So dahil diyan let me apologize to you because I was late, I did not come ontime,74 Kris: He was late [no:]?75 Boy: = [yeah]76 Kris: =[Yeah]77 Boy: =[BUt Kuya Josh,] what do you pra:y? And how do you [pray for – ]78 Bimby: [Good vocabulary!]79 Kris: =[Yea::h]80 Boy: [Wow]=81 Kris: =[To give] your Kuya Josh a good [vocabulary.]82 Boy: [OKay, next,] let’s talk about your movie, PraybeytBenjamin. How was it? How was it working with, uh, [Ti –]83 Kris: >[Tito Vice]<84 Bimby:(.) IT’S GREA::T!85 Boy: Have you okay, tell us [more about it.]86 Kris: [ .h a HA↑ HA HA ]87 Boy: [more about it.] Ma – how [does it –]88 Kris: [Why was it great] to workwith Tito Vice? Because?=89 Bimby: =<Becau::se>=90 Kris: =What?91 (2.7)92 Bimby: We’ve known each other for a long time!93 Kris: They’ve >kno:wn each other for a long time< a:nd?=94 Bimby: =<a:nd>=Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 179

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”95 Kris: =Wha:t?=96 Boy: =>So it’s easy to work with someone you’ve known for a long time<]97 Kris: [Oh yea I know.]=98 Boy: =[Of course]99 Kris: [.hh HA HA H A, Tawa –]100 Boy: Oo kaya:. [What else?]101 Kris: [E What about Tita Alex?] Why was it fun to work with he:r?Kasi:?=102 Bimby: =Because=103 Boy: =She is?104 Bimby: <She is>=105 Kris: =What? What.106 (0.2)107 Boy: She’s sexy:?=108 Kris: =I think she’s also oka:y. Okay?109 Bimby: (.) <Okay>110 Kris: She’s sexy and?111 Bimby: (.) Smart,112 Kris: =and smart!113 Kris: [Wo::w!]114 Boy: [Wo::w!]115 Boy: [Sexy and smart!]116 Kris: [SExy na,[SMart pa!]117 Boy: [Okay, wha-] what about Dir. Wen Deramas, Bimby? How was itworking with Direk?=118 Bimby: =It’s super gre:at!=119 Kris: =Because?120 Bimby: <be:cau::se:>=121 Kris: =What? Why do you like Direk?=122 Bimby: =He’s fu:nny::=123 Kris: =He’s funny and he’s fast.124 Bimby: Yea:: (.)125 Kris: >Because Dir. Chito, what’s wrong when you watched my shooting?< What?It was?126 Bimby: (.) It was <kinda: s:lo::w.>=127 Boy: =O:::h. Dir [Wen is fast]=128 Kris: [Yea, Dir. Wen, fast.]=Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 180

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”129 Boy: [So, different styles, diba]?130 Kris: [Ye:s.]=131 Boy: =Directors are slow, they take time. =>And then there are directors that arefast.<=132 Kris: =OKA::y,>I invited your Papa to watch [tomorrow.<]133 Bimby: Yea::? but he’s going [to his province,]134 Kris: [his province.]So what’s your wish for him for Christmas?135 Bimby: (.) To be a goo:d (.) <P-A-P-A>,136 Kris: =To be a good papa and?137 Bimby: If, if Tita May and <P-A-P-A> get married, I want them to >never breakup<=138 Kris: =So they should have a [happy life.]139 Bimby: [Yea]=140 Kris: =Diba:: so no fighting fighting=141 Bimby: =yea::=142 Kris: =O::h >nice he wishes them [happiness!<]143 Boy: [of course!]=144 Kris: =Because >diba once you break up it’s okay to [move on?<]145 Boy: [Of course!] Para sa maspermanenteng relasyo:n=146 Kris: =Yes! Move on diba:? SO: me, Will you allow me?=147 Bimby: =Yes:=148 Kris: =to move on?=149 Boy: =Will you allow mom to fall in love with someone?150 Bimby: =Yes::=151 Boy: =Why?=152 Kris: =When?=153 Boy: =When? Why?=154 Bimby: (.) When I’m- (.) uhm, <eleven>=155 Kris: =A:h, when you’re 11?=156 Boy: Ah, wow. That’s [sobrang]–157 Kris: [Forward years!]=158 Boy: =Forward years=159 Kris: =Oo. So when you’re 11?160 Bimby: <Y::e:s=161 Kris: =But diba: si ano: Yaya GIRbaud is getting married in 2015?=Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 181

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”162 Bimby: =Yes(!)163 Kris: Yaya Girbaud is getting married in 2015.=164 Boy: =Okay, [so:] –165 Kris: [December 2015.] What’s your wish for yaya?=166 Bimby: =Happy life!=167 Kris: =And?=168 Bimby: =Good husband!169 Kris: A:::y, <good husband.> What’s the name of her [future husband?]170 Bimby: [KUYA JEZREEL!]=171 Kris: =Kuya [Jezreel.] O:::h↓172 Bimby: [JEZreel]=173 Kris: =A::h↑, Kuya [Jezreel.] Sorry naman. Jezreel.174 Boy: [Jez-reel. Yes.]175 Bimby: Jesrel or Jezreel.=176 Kris: =Jezreel.=177 Boy: =O::h, that’s the way you pronounce it. [Jezreel, Okay? And↓…]178 Kris: [OKay, and what about for Ryzza?]You have a gift for her?179 (3.0)180 Kris: =Don’t you have a gift for Ryzza?=181 Bimby: =Yeah=182 Kris: =What?=183 Bimby:=iPad Air 2.=184 Boy: =[Wow!]185 Kris: [iPad Air 2]=186 Boy: =Are you used to be close friends?187 Bimby: Yeah!=188 Boy: =A::h, yeah, but a:h, what about your girlfriend?=189 Kris: =Yes. Can I talk about Ivanna?=190 Bimby: =<NO:::! YOU: [SAID IT MOM! ↑> You said it!] ↑ ((pointing to Kris))191 Kris: [I’m so so::rry! ↑ I’m so:rry.]=192 Boy:=O:::h, baby. Yeah.=193 Kris: =I thought [wala na::]↑!194 Bimby: [Wala na::, ↑ yea:::h!]↑=195 Kris: =Wala na kayo, diba↑?196 Bimby: Yes, but don’t mention Ivannah°°.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 182

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”197 Kris: ..h a HA HA HA KAYO TALAGA↑! I-edit niyo yon ha:::! O::H, because youwant PRIvacy?198 Bimby: ((nods))199 Boy: =Oh, yea::h.=200 Kris: =Yes, okay.=201 Boy: Once nag-goodbye, you, diba:? Like, [did you –]202 Bimby: [No, I didn’t get goodbye.] Bye! Just bye.=203 Boy: =Bye(?) So it’s just a bye(,)=204 Kris: =Do you have a new girlfriend(?)205 Bimby: Mo:::m. Mo::m. Why did you say tha:::t?206 Kris: You have a new girlfriend? Do you::?207 Bimby: ((nods))208 Kris: Ye::s.=209 Boy: =He just doesn’t wanna talk about it. [He wants privacy.]210 Kris: [Oh, wag na:! Ye:s. See:]=211 Boy: =Would you like to play basketball when you grow older(?)212 (2.8)213 Bimby: Maybe.214 Boy: [Maybe::]215 Kris: [But?] (.)216 Bimby: (0.3) I need to practice mo:re.217 Boy: Yea::, [you need –]218 Kris: [Tama, practice.] Because if you’re gonna play basketball you’dbetter be as good as your Papa:.219 Bimby: Yea::h.220 Kris: [Ye::s]221 Boy: [After Praybeyt Benjamin], would you do another movie?222 (3.0)223 Kris: What? Gusto mo pa:?224 (0.2)225 Bimby: The day after next year.226 Kris: The day after [next year. Okay.]227 Boy: [next year. So that’s] another Metro [Manila Film Festival.]228 Kris: [January 2? ‘Di ko alam] e::.[a h H A H A]229 Bimby: [Mom!January two::?]=Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 183

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”230 Kris: =Ano ba::? Okay lang pag may shooting. Shooting ka ulit or I rest muna?((laughs))231 Bimby: <Very> very next year (.)232 Kris: O::h, very very [next year]233 Bimby: [BECause I need some time.]=234 Kris: =Some time for what?=235 Bimby: =Rest.=236 Kris: =And?=237 Bimby: =And=238 Kris: =Study.=239 Boy: =Study.=240 Bimby: =Study.=241 Kris: = [SIyempre].242 Bimby:[ BUt we don’t have school tomorrow and I have the (para::de.)]243 Kris: We:ll, tapos na the para::de.=244 Boy: =Tapos [na.]245 Kris: [We’ll be watching it tomorrow because today is 24.] It’s just ataping, diba::?=246 Bimby: =But the PARAde!=247 Kris: =Yea:::h, TAPOS NA! We’re [gonna watch –]248 Bimby: [The float, the float?] ↓=249 Kris: =Wha:t?250 Bimby: =The float. ↓=251 Kris: =a HA↑ H A H A HA↑252 Kris: Oka::y, >so please invite everybody<. Please invite everyone. Ayan, ayan.There↓. Invi:te.253 Bimby: Please watch The Amazing Praybeyt Benjamin and Feng Shui.254 Kris: (.) BONGGA! ↑255 Boy: [Okay]256 Bimby: [BECause] my mom said°257 Kris: =.ha HA HA H A TAMA:! Diba sabi mo ganon din [gagawin mo, diba?]258 Boy: [YEAh, >please watch PraybeytBenjamin and Feng Shui<]=259 Kris: =Because we’re watching both. We’re watching yours first then we’ll watchmi::ne.260 Bimby: Oka:y, I’m gonna be s° Just scr ( )°°261 Kris: Wha:t(?)Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 184

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”262 Bimby: I’m just gonna <screa::m°°>263 Boy: Ah, [you’re just –]264 Kris: [You’ll just SCRea:::m↑!] Diba, that’s part of the thrill – the screa:m.265 Boy: He’s just gonna scream with, ugh, Feng Shui. But with Praybeyt Benjamin [youwill just lau::gh.]266 Bimby: [Yea:h!]267 Boy: Oka::y.[That’s a good combination.]268 Kris: [Okay.]269 Boy: >MARAMING [SALAMAT!]<270 Kris: [Thank you because my greatest gift is having you and kuyaas my so:ns↓.] ((Bimby hugs Kris)) I love you::.271 Bimby: I love you, too, mom. ((hugs Kris))272 Kris: [Forever. A:men.]273 Bimby: [Amen. Amen.]274 Kris: Forever, A:men. WHat can you tell to all your fa:ns? Thank them.275 Bimby: I love you, fans! Thanks for all the support (.) [and love.]276 Boy: [and love.]277 Boy: >Thank you for the mansion.< Thank you for the meds. Oka:y?=278 Kris: =and for the [prayers]279 Boy: [I’ll really work harder for Bimby.]=280 Kris: =Ye:s.281 Boy: Maraming salamat, Bimby.=282 Kris: =Say thank you to Ninong Boy.=283 Bimby: =Thank you, Ninong Boy.= ((hugs Boy Abunda))284 Boy: (2.4) Thank you. Thank you very much. ((hugs Bimby))285 Kris: Ang sweet! Yea::h, <diba>. Thank you:. Thank you for not revealing mysecre::t.286 Bimby: Thank you for not revealing my secre:t.=287 Boy: =Not revealing my >secrets too: mu:ch!=<288 Kris: =Yea:::h.=289 Boy: =And the na::me,[ diba::? ]290 Kris: [No, >but that’s the ex <]291 Boy: Oh, that’s the e- [Oka:y, alri::ght. ]292 Bimby: [Mo:m,]293 Kris: [What?] What?294 Bimby: I’ll say it to: everybody <in> >this room< ((ponting to the floor)) but notai:r=Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 185

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”295 Kris and Boy: =A:::::h! a h H A HA .hh296 Boy: You, [guys, will know who she i:s] (.) [but not the whole country]297 Kris: [He can’t tell all of you:. ] [ Ye::s! ] Yeah, hindipwede i-Air. TAMA:::!298 Boy: [Oka::y. Tama:! ] >Suportahan po natin mga kaibigan angMetro Manila Film Festival, Feng Shui, Praybeyt Benjamin. Thank you, [MaramingSalamat!]<299 Kris: [I love you, Bimby::.]=300 Bimby: I love you, too, Mo:m!301 Boy: O::h, I love you, Bimby.302 Bimby: I love you, too, Ninong Bo:y.303 Boy: I love you::: ((hugs Bimby))304 Bimby: >Why were you late?< ((hugs Boy Abunda))305 Boy: I’m [<so:rry>. I was late] [because I was working. But I apologized to you,ri:ght? Sorry Bimby.]306 Kris: [Why were you late?] [.h ahA h HA HA HA .hhh]307 Boy: Oka:y. [Thank you very much!]308 Kris: [ Oo nga naman, diba?]=309 Boy: =Totoo! <Maraming Salamat, mga kaibigan. Magmahalan po tayong lahat.Magandang Gabi! Ito po ang< –310 Kris: Maligayang [Pasko!]311 Boy: [That’s right!]312 Kris: [Galing po sa –]=313 Boy: =Aquino!314 Kris: ((pointing to Bimby)) (1.5) WHat? You’re gonna say your name also:, ri:ght?[One more, o:h –]315 Boy:[Okay.]=316 Kris: =Coming from=317 Boy: =[Mula po.]318 Kris: [Maligayang Pasko!] [galing sa –]319 Boy: [No, wait.]320 Kris: [ () ]321 Boy: [Merry Christmas!] No, because [we have to say –]322 Kris: [Oh, you.]=323 Boy: =Okay, Maligayang Pasko po sa inyong lahat mula sa Aquino324 (2.6)Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 186

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”325 Bimby: And (Bimby)?=326 Kris: =And Bimby? .hh ha A h HA HA .hh AND ABUNDA!327 Kris: [TONIGHT!] ((claps))328 Boy: [TONIGHT!] ((claps)) References: Allwood, J., Cerrato, L., Dybkær, L. & Paggio, P. (2004). The MUMIN multimodal coding scheme. In: Workshop on Multimodal Corpora and Annotation, Stockholm. Allwood, J., Cerrato, L., Jokinen, K., Navarretta, C. & Paggio, P. (2007). The MUMIN Coding scheme for the annotation of feedback, turn management and sequencing phenomena. Multimodal Corpora for Modeling Human Multimodal Behaviour. Journal on Language Resources and Evaluation, vol. 41(3-4), pp. 273--287. Springer, Netherlands Hall, J. A. (2007). Nonverbal cues and communication. Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2007, p. 626-628. SAGE Reference Online. Web. 2 Jul. 2012. Jokinen, K., Navarretta, C. & Paggio, P.(2008) Distinguishing the communicative functions of gestures: an experiment with annotated gesture data. Machine Learning for Multimodal Interaction Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5237, 38-49. Kipp, M. (2011). Anvil: A generic annotation tool for multimodal dialogue. In: 7th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (Eurospeech 2001), Aalborg, Danemark. [available online: http://www.dfki.uni-sb.de/~kipp/research/index.html]. Kipp, M., Freiherr, L., Hollen, V., Hrstka, M. & Zamponi F. (2014). Single-person and multi-party 3d visualizations for nonverbal communication analysis. In: Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC).Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 187

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Koutsombogera, M. Ammendrup, S., Vilhjálmsson, H. & Papageorgiou, H. (2011). Nonverbal expressions of turn management in tv interviews: a cross-cultural study between Greek and Icelandic. In A. Esposito et al (Eds.): COST 2102 Int. Training School 2010, LNCS 6456, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 207–213.Koutsombogera, M. & Papageorgiou, H. (2009). Multimodality issues in conversation analysis of Greek tv interviews. Multimodal Signals: Cognitive and Algorithmic Issues. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5398, 40-46.Koutsombogera, M. & Papageorgiou, H. (2011). Iconic gestures in face-to-face TV interviews. In: E. Efthimiou and G. Kouroupetroglou (eds.) Proc. of the 9th International Gesture Workshop, p. 147-150.Kress, G. & Leeuwen, T. V. (2001). Multimodal discourse: the modes and media of contemporary communication. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.Liu, J. (2013). Visual images interpretive strategies in multimodal texts. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. (4), 6, p. 1259-1263.Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics 1. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press.Trouvain, J. (2014). Laughing, breathing, clicking – the prosody of non-verbal vocalisations. In: Nick, C., Gibbon,D. & Hirst, D. (eds.): Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2014, Dublin (2333-2042), 598-602.Van Djik, T. A. (2011). Discourse studies: a multidisciplinary introduction. 2nd ed. London SAGE publications, Ltd.Wood, L. & Kroger, R. (2000). Doing discourse analysis. SAGE publications, Ltd.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 188

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity” Identity, Diversity, and the Ownership of English: A Preliminary Discussion Nathan Thomas [email protected] King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi Christopher Osment [email protected] Darunsikkhalai School for Innovative Learning at King Mongkut’s University of Technology ThonburiAbstractIdentity, Diversity, and the Ownership of English examines the arguments from two Asianscholars, Yoo and Ren, in back-to-back publications in Applied Linguistics Journal(2014). The former believes that the ownership of English rightfully belongs tospeakers within the Inner Circle (Kachru, 1985) and is not concerned with the idea ofpossessing the language, while the latter fights for an ownership of English for allspeakers, native and nonnative. It was this back and forth exchange between thesetwo academics, with the most recent response by Yoo at the ThaiTESOL 2016conference, which inspired this work. This paper is A Preliminary Discussion that theauthors, who are open to ideas from other researchers, hope to continue in futurepublications. Topics addressed include: Ownership, use, and power; connotations ofterminology, specifically having to do with the Inner, Outer, and Expanding Circles; arationale for renaming and reclassification; insights provided by social identity theory;and finally, a proposed alternative framework that describes English language speakersby usage rather than geographical location.Keywords: Identity, diversity, social complexityIntroductionTo start the discussion, Yoo begins by addressing the numbers argument,acknowledging some of the field’s biggest names (Widdowson, 2003; Crystal, 2003;Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 189

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Norton, 1997) who support the idea of English belonging to any user of the language,native or nonnative, because it is currently used as an international language, and thereare more nonnative speakers of English than there are native speakers. He affirmsthat many teachers in the Expanding Circle feel empowered by this line of reasoning,allowing them to own English, as if it were some tangible object that could bepurchased, possessed, and possibly even traded or lost at some point. Yoo’s ownstance, however, differs and can be divided into three main arguments: 1) countries inthe Expanding Circle do not have local varieties of English that can be codified; 2)classroom instruction may suffer when teachers in the Expanding Circle becomeconcerned with ownership; and 3) nonnative teachers who have achieved native-likeproficiency are actually the only ideal teachers of English to EFL learners.Ren’s response comes shortly after, in the form of five questions: 1) What does theownership of English refer to? 2) Do the countries in each Circle have the samestatus? 3) Can local varieties of English emerge in the Expanding Circle? 4) Willhaving ownership of English bring about detrimental effects in the classroom? 5) Ifdevoid of the ownership of English, can local teachers still be identified as the idealteachers of English?Without drilling down into each question, as the original article serves that purpose,Ren (2014) believes that English as a Lingua Franca and its implications to languageteaching still requires more investigation, using Yoo’s original article as an example ofsome of the ‘skepticism and fallacies’ (p. 211) that the current literature contains. Theremainder of this article will build on the work of both Yoo and Ren, introducingconcepts from use and power, to social identity theory, as ways to further understandthis multifaceted topic.Ownership, Use, and PowerAs the debate rages on over the ownership of English–often with nonnative speakersat the helm–one would be hard pressed not to see that in ownership there is powerand opportunity. Power creates opportunity in communities where there is a sharedideology. In America, for example, to advertise local products, a company might usean actor with a local dialect to build a connection with the audience through a sort oflinguistic common ground. However, to advertise medicine, an actor with a standardPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 190

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”British accent might be used to appear more sophisticated, educated, and of a higherclass distinction. This hegemonic ideology in America is an example of how evenbetween native speakers of English, certain varieties afford different opportunities. Inthis example, one shows trust and closeness with the local community, albeit lackingintellect, while the other creates an image of prestige and class, although seemingdistant or foreign.Linguistic ideologies, like other ideologies, ‘are held by individuals and groups and theyare often not recognized by the individual or group as a powerful influence on theirown behavior’ (Mooney and Evans, 2015, p. 17). This subconscious filter on howboth individuals and groups are positioned, as well as what is correct and incorrectEnglish, is an interpellation (Althusser, 1971) occurring to and within both native andnonnative speaking groups. Kachru’s (1985) model, used by both Yoo and Ren as apoint of reference in their respective articles, is both dated and precarious as far asthis discourse is concerned, as it perpetuates an underlying ideology of linguisticsubordination (Lippi-Green, 1997).Connotations of TerminologyLackoff and Johnson (1980) contend that human behavior is influenced by languageuse–not meaning a particular language as opposed to others, but the representation ofideas within a language itself and the ways in which it is used–and that this usage is anindication of what people really believe, despite not verbalizing these judgments. Thefamiliarity and unassuming presence of certain lexical items such as Inner, Outer, andExpanding does not subtract from the negative connotations that emerge between agroup that is considered unmarked and two groups that are clearly marked in someway. Wolfram and Schilling-Estes (1998) describe this concept, declaring that ‘thespeech of socially subordinate groups will be interpreted as linguistically inadequate bycomparison with that of socially dominant groups’ (p. 6), relegating the speech ofthose Outer and Expanding groups as somehow lacking. It would seem that thesyntagmatic axis from which these words are placed runs in a descending orderaccording to the linguistic power (and ownership) of each group.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 191

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”From a prescriptivist point of view, English speakers in the Expanding Circleconsistently break the rules of convention, while those in the Outer Circle are stilldeveloping their own rules. The descriptivist side of the argument is more acceptingin terms of correctness in developing and dependent varieties. This is a time when theconcept of Global Englishes is growing in a whirlwind of heated debate, with mutualunderstanding as the proverbial lamppost from which its advocates are clinging.Therefore, Standard English is a difficult model to build (Trudgill, 1999) as speechcommunities themselves define what is acceptable and what is not, what is standardand substandard. Could it then be argued that a community of practice decidesownership as well? In agreement with Yoo’s argument, is there even a codified varietyto own? If not, it would seem many speakers seeking ownership are simply grasping atthin air. Nevertheless, who is qualified to make such claims and distinctions?Mooney and Evans (2015) address this predicament in saying:“We also have to be aware of the fact that arguments about language are oftenideological in the sense that they rely on certain assumptions about what is correct orstandard. The way that correctness is defined is itself an ideological act as well as away of exerting power.” (p. 40)“The notion that there is a correct form of English, discussed earlier, is an ideologythat has substantial repercussions (Lippi-Green, 1997) and those repercussions can beseen as the effects of the power of language.”This is not to say, however, that the writers of this article feel that any and all languageis acceptable regardless of how it is used. Creating a framework or even beginningsuch an undertaking is beyond the scope of this piece and is best saved for a laterpublication.RenamingThat being said, upon inspection of possible lexical items on the paradigmatic axis inwhich Inner, Outer, and Expanding occur, a renaming is needed. The reason for thisrenaming is that, as mentioned earlier, words, especially nomenclature, have the abilityPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 192

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”to allow people to be persuaded by ideologies that do not align with their actualbeliefs (Mooney and Evans, 2015). Outer gives the impression of being a dysphemismof users outside the Inner Circle, whereas Expanding works paradoxically as aeuphemism for English speakers within that faction lying outside of both the Inner andOuter Circles. While Kachru’s original naming might have been acceptable at thattime (1982, 1985), now, over 30 years later, globalization, the spread of English, andthe development of such diverse varieties of English makes terms like Outer andnonnative appear semantically derogated. An argument to call users Successful Users ofEnglish or SUE (Prodromou, 2008), although politically correct, lacks a grading ofspeakers based on types of usage. Nevertheless, it does reposition speakers accordingto proficiency and use, rather than ethnicity and location, which is what the proposedterms attempt to do. Some might argue that this reclassification is pedantic, but it isimportant to take into account the deictic nature and functions these labels generate;as to mislabel an entire group of people would be to repress and consider their speechinadequate at best. It would be of greater aid to learners for SUE’s to collaborate andrecognize the strengths and weaknesses of each person, especially in the case ofteachers of English. As elucidated above, people should not be thought of in areductionist manner or in exclusionary terms such as Inner and Outer Circle orExpanding Circle. People, and therefore teachers, are users of a language. Language ispart of who we are and how we identify ourselves, not about ownership. We do notsign papers for it and buy it. It is an organic and dynamic part of who we are and theculture we are immersed in.Social Identity TheoryAs Tajfel outlined in his social identity theory, the groups to which people belong arean important source of self-esteem (1979). Furthermore, Tajfel said that our groupsprovide us with a sense of social identity, that is to say a feeling of being a part of asocial world (1979). Language is part of our identity; it is often an unstated part ofidentity as is gender; nonetheless, it is a part of our psyche. “Belonging to a group islargely a psychological state which is quite distinct from being a unique and separateindividual … it confers social identity, or a shared collective representation of who oneis and how one should behave” (Hogg and Abrams, 1988). The us VS them or in-groupVS out-group dichotomy described by social identity theory evolves in three stages:Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 193

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Social categorizationWe categorize ourselves and others around us in order to understand where we standamong our own group, where others stand in their own groups, and where the groupsstand among each other. These categories inform our behavior as well as our linguisticchoices. Therefore, appropriate behavior and appropriate language are approved ordisapproved by the greater influence of the group we categorically belong to. In thecase of English, the intricacy of classification among users becomes heightened as itcan be difficult to determine who belongs to what group, or even groups, as users canoften feel between groups or a sense of belonging to numerous groups (McLeod,2008).Social identificationOnce we are aware of our assigned group, the identity of that group becomes part ofour being, and we begin to conform to the norms and linguistically, the languageusage of this group. Our personal identities, including accent, dialect, and varietyemanate from our social identities, making the significance of group membershipcrucial to the self-esteem of the individual, who internalizes the group as part of theself (Haslam, 2014). It is the group partisanship then that allows the individual to beas they are, since one’s personal identity is not only derived from, but also cannot beseparated from, the social identity (Jetten and Postmes, 2006). Naturally, we orientourselves with groups that make us feel good, whose views we respect and share.Social comparisonIn order to maintain self-esteem as an individual within a group, we must view ourown group favorably to other groups. Rival groups are then forced into competitionwith each other to sustain self-worth and preserve the value of their distinctcharacteristics. By searching for negative features to draw attention to in out-groups,in-groups enhance their own self-image. It can be suggested then that much of thedebate over ownership derives from what in-groups feel their identities are, and thenfeeling threatened by an out-group staking a claim to that identity. For an individualPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 194

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”who identifies with multiple groups there may not only be a case of linguisticcompetition, but also competing identities.One example might be a Korean male who has lived in America for many years,learning English and experiencing acculturation over that time. He lives, works, andsocializes among American people, speaking English within his community, andattempting to live as one of the locals in his neighborhood. Lines blur as we begin tohypothesize answers to the following questions:Can you speak Korean?Can you speak English?Would you identify yourself as a Korean?Would you identify yourself as an American?Would you identify yourself as a Korean speaker?Would you identify yourself as an English speaker?Do/did you ever visualize yourself as or compare yourself to a native speaking model?How would you feel if your English was ranked against such a model?Now, to increase the complexity of the argument, how would these answers change ifthe individual grew up speaking English in Korea with an American parent or care-taker, or at an international school, achieving native-like proficiency before moving tothe US? What if the person then moves back to Korea later in life? Geography, then,is irrelevant.Beyond OwnershipBrown discusses Singapore and other areas of South-East Asia related to Englishlanguage use. He says, “Singapore is in a unique linguistic situation.” He goes on toask these questions:Can people have no language as their native language?Can people be native speakers of more than one language?If people speak only one language, can anyone claim that they are not native speakers of thatlanguage?Is a person’s first language the one they acquired first in childhood, or the one they are currently mostconfident in, or the one they use most frequently, etc.? (Brown, 2002, p. 9)Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 195

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Considering Tajfel’s concepts of social identity and relating them to Brown’squestions, we are led beyond the commonly employed Inner, Outer and ExpandingCircle framework. Geographical location and classification breaks down when we askthese questions. The 2007 census data from the United States shows that over 55million people ‘spoke a language other than English at home’ (U.S. Census, 2007).More interestingly, of those 55 million respondents, close to 31 million of themindicated that they spoke English very well (very well, well, not well and not at all were thedescriptive options offered on the census form) (U.S. Census, 2007). RegardingEnglish in America, it is important to not forget the growing number of Hispanicsand other immigrants in the US who do not use English natively (Brown, 2002), andto consider where they might fit in such a model.Rather than reinforce in-group/out-group dichotomies and perpetuate the debateover which side provides a better model for students, we should acknowledge that thenative and non-native labeling, as well as ownership, is irrelevant. Teachers shouldwork together as Successful Users of English (SUE). Moreover, local teachers (non-native speakers) should recognize themselves as potentially ideal teachers, offeringinsights that native speakers cannot (Yoo, 2014).An Alternative FrameworkPerhaps, a better way to organize language use is to focus on the concept of being auser of a language and not an owner or simply a resident of a nation accepted asEnglish speaking. This would remove the geographically oriented circle model with itsovertones of colonialism. Below is a suggested means to identify language usagepatterns for individuals; a person’s geographic location and ethnicity are irrelevant inthis framework. How a person identifies himself or herself as a user of a languagebecomes the focus.Primary UserThis language is a user’s normal means of communication for everyday interactions,business, education, government, formal, and ceremonial purposes. Moreover, aPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 196

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”primary user was most likely born into a linguistic environment where this language isused or has been exposed to it for a prolonged period. Examples of this would be theclassic native speaker, or a child whose parents migrated to a novel linguisticenvironment prior to the child reaching the critical period of language acquisition, or aperson in a country such as Singapore where approximately 45 % of people identifythemselves as people who only speak English (Singapore Census, 2000). A primaryuser would identify his or herself with that language.Secondary UserThis language is used daily. It is often employed in education or business transactionswith multi-national staff or clients; however, it will most likely not be the language ofchoice for everyday interactions. It may share position as the language of ceremony orformal occasions with another language. Secondary users have probably been exposedto this language much of their lives and see it embedded within their linguisticenvironment; however, it will not be the only language around them. Anotherlanguage, their primary language, is probably their everyday means of communication,and most likely the language that a person would identify with.Tertiary UserThis language is used for specific purposes only such as higher education orinternational business. The primary language is the dominant language in theenvironment; the tertiary language is probably visible in the linguistic landscape assigns for multi-national brands, for example. Another language or languages are usedfor everyday communicative acts, ceremonial functions and the bulk of education. Atertiary user would not identify with that language.Quaternary UserA quaternary user is best described as a language hobbyist or enthusiast of a particularlanguage. An example of this would be a person who enjoys a particular country andhas learned some of the language in order to travel and enjoy the nation’s culture. Thelanguage of interest is probably not needed for everyday use in the country ofPathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 197

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”residence and is probably not highly visible in the linguistic environment. Suchindividuals would neither identify with nor consider themselves fluent users of thestudied language.Other ConsiderationsIt is difficult to address the idea of accent preference or a preference for an ethnicityor racial profile for a teacher. These issues go beyond the scope of this paper andrelate more to issues of acceptance of the other, understanding that native speakingEnglish countries have numerous individuals whose parents came from another partof the world and that primary users of English do not necessarily have blond hair andblue eyes. The apparent desire for a ‘white, native speaker’ displayed in many schooladvertisements is as much an aspect of marketing and students’ expectations as well.Time, and with it a change in attitudes, may prevail and allow for a greater acceptanceof users of English who are non-traditional, but are successful users and capable ofbeing effective instructors of English.In SummationThe above framework is proposed as a starting point only; however, it does have theadvantage of removing geographical location and undertones of ethnicity. It focuseson usage, and allows successful users of English to be accepted as primary speakers ofEnglish, based on their actual abilities without concern for their geographic locationand ethnicity. More discussion is needed and the authors welcome comments.ReferencesAlthusser, L. (1971). Ideology and the Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Towards an Investigation. In B. B. (trans), Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (pp. 127- 186). London: Monthly Review Press.Brown, A. (2002). English Language Myths: 30 Beliefs that Aren't Really True. McGraw-Hill Education (Asia).Bureau, U. C. (n.d.). https://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acs-12.pdf. Retrieved June 13, 2016, from Census.gov.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 198

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Census, S. (2000). Retrieved from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/publications-and- papers/population#census_of_population_2000Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press.Haslam, A. (2014). Making good theory practical: Five lessons for an Applied Social Identity Approach to challenges of organizational, health, and clinical psychology. British Journal of Social Psychology Volume 53, Issue 1 , 1-20.Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. Routledge.Jetten, J., & Postmes, T. (2006). Individuality and the Group: Advances in Social Identity 1st Edition. SAGE.Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk, & H. Widdowson, English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures (pp. 11-30). Cambridge University Press.Kachru, B. (1982). The Other Tongue. In English Across Cultuters . Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois Press.Lackoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an Accent. London: Routledge.McLeod, S. (2008). Social Identity Theory. Retrieved from Simply Psychology: www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.htmlMooney, A., & Evans, B. (2015). Language, Society, and Power 4th Edition. London and New York: Routledge.Norton, B. (1997). Language, Identity, and the Ownership of English. TESL Quarterly, 31(1) , 409-426.Prodromou, L. (2008). English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-based Analysis. Bloomsbury Academic.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 199

The 1st Rt International Conference on English Language Teaching (RtICELT) 2016 Proceedings “Diversity our Identity”Ren, W. (2014). Can the expanding circle own English?: Comments on Yoo’s ‘Nonnative teachers in the expanding circle and the ownership of English’. Applied Linguistics, 35(2) , 208-212.Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In W. G. Worchel, The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Trudgill, P. (1999). Standard English: What it isn't. In Standard English: The Widening Debate. London and New York: Routledge.Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.Wolfram, W., & Schilling-Estes, N. (1998). American English: Dialect and Variation. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Yoo, I. W. (2016). Empowering Local Teachers: Why the Issue of English Ownership Is Irrelevant for Us. Thailand TESOL 2016 Conference.Yoo, I. W. (2014). Nonnative teachers in the expanding circle and the ownership of English. Applied Linguistics, 35(1) , 82-85.Pathumtani, Thailand, May 14, 2016 Page | 200