This article was downloaded by: [Colorado State University]On: 04 September 2014, At: 02:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Multilingual andMulticultural DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

Language identity among IranianEnglish language learners: a nationwidesurveySaeed Rezaeia, Mohammad Khatibb & Sasan Baleghizadehc

a Languages and Linguistics Department, Sharif University ofTechnology, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iranb English Department, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran,Islamic Republic of Iranc Department of English Language and Literature, Shahid BeheshtiUniversity (G.C.), Tehran, Islamic Republic of IranPublished online: 24 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Saeed Rezaei, Mohammad Khatib & Sasan Baleghizadeh (2014) Languageidentity among Iranian English language learners: a nationwide survey, Journal of Multilingual andMulticultural Development, 35:5, 527-536, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2014.889140

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2014.889140

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

04

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Language identity among Iranian English language learners: anationwide survey

Saeed Rezaeia*, Mohammad Khatibb and Sasan Baleghizadehc

aLanguages and Linguistics Department, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Islamic Republicof Iran; bEnglish Department, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran;cDepartment of English Language and Literature, Shahid Beheshti University (G.C.), Tehran,Islamic Republic of Iran

(Received 1 May 2013; accepted 25 January 2014)

The present study is a nationwide survey of language identity among English languagelearners in Iran. The participants who completed the survey in this research included1851 English language learners from different parts of the country who belonged todifferent genders, age groups and English language proficiency levels. The maininstrument was a validated questionnaire which included 19 items and wasadministered online and by hand. The results of this survey revealed that IranianEnglish language learners had a moderate level of language identity and there was nosignificant difference between the language identity of male and female participants.In addition, the results indicated that there were significant differences in the languageidentity of participants across different age groups (teenagers and adults) and languageproficiency levels (low- and high-proficiency learners). Finally, the results showed that73.3% of the participants preferred American English, followed by British English(23.6%), Persian English (1.6%), Canadian English (1.2%) and Australian English(0.3%) as their favourite varieties of English.

Keywords: language identity; English language learners; survey; Iran

Introduction

Language and identity are two inseparable concepts meaning that the language we usereveals our identity and our language in turn forms our identity. The inseparability oflanguage and identity is long established in the literature (Djité 2006), and based onBlock (2007), language identity is understood as the assumed and/or attributed relation-ship between one’s sense of self and a means of communication which might be knownas a language (e.g. English), a dialect (e.g. Geordie) or a sociolect (e.g. football speak).

Joseph (2004) in his book Language and Identity clearly delineates the relationbetween these two concepts. He shows how people’s identity can be determined throughthe language they speak. An example is hearing two different individuals saying:

A: Shut upB: Please be quiet

*Corresponding author. Email: srezaei@sharif.edu

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2014Vol. 35, No. 5, 527–536, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2014.889140

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

04

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Although these two sentences can have similar perlocutionary effects, they differ in themeaning they connote. If we do not know about the gender of these two speakers, wemight say that the first speaker is rude and of lower social status, and the second speakercould be a polite individual and probably a woman! That is one way to identify theseindividuals through the language they use. If we see these two individuals and look at theway they are dressed, we could probably better guess about their identity. But for now, itis the language that can be revealing about people’s identity.

In this study, language is defined within the broad sociocultural scope rather thanmerely focusing on grammar and vocabulary. Language in this sense is a political toolfor the people of one tribe, community or country to salute to or use as a means ofcommunication. Hence, people speaking one language have a sense of belonging to onewhole and are affiliated with each other. Subsequently, language can be the main tool forpeople’s identification to factor others out as a stranger.

On the other hand, language identity is an important element in the integrity, solidarityand independence of countries. According to Rajagopalan (2001), the idea of nationhoodand language was given due recognition based on the favourite slogan of one nation, onepeople, one language. History shows how language has often been the main instrument forpolitical independence and national identity for newly developed countries such asBangladesh when separated from Pakistan in 1971. To fulfil such a purpose, languagebecame one of the main means to distinguish Bangladesh from Pakistan. Bengali becamethe language of the country and hence the tool for identity of that nation since 1971 andhenceforth language identity became a decisive point for the people in Bangladesh.

Another telling example is the case of East Timor, formerly colonised by Portugal andknown as Portuguese Timor before Portugal’s decolonization and the invasion byIndonesia in 1975 (Rajagopalan 2001). Timor was declared as the first sovereign state inthe twentieth century; one of the main tools they used to distinguish themselves fromIndonesia was the Portuguese language spoken by the majority of the population.

One more interesting example for the place of language in identification is related tothe refugee claimants in Australia coming from the Hazara minority in Afghanistan(McNamara 2005) who were interviewed before being given their Permanent Residency(PR). Their interviews were taped and sent to language experts to be examined if theytruly were Hazaras or from other similar language minorities in Pakistan, faking theirlanguage and national identity. In this example, some refugees tried to fake their languageidentity to obtain PR in Australia.

In Iran, similarly, in spite of several minority languages such as Turkish (Azari) andKurdish among many other distinct languages and dialects, Persian is still the nationallanguage. In fact, Persian is the language that the majority of Iranians affiliate themselveswith in order to be recognised as Iranians. It should however be noted here that someresearchers (Bugarski 2012) differentiate linguistic identity from language identity, withthe former referring to the language people use in a community with which they areassociated, and the latter referring to the identity of the language itself, i.e. whether alanguage like English is related to one language or a myriad of languages.

Although sociolinguistic issues in Iran have been investigated from various aspectsincluding the sociolinguistics of Persian and identity in diaspora (e.g. Modarresi 2001;Mostofi, 2003; Namei 2008), English in post-revolutionary Iran (Borjian 2013), languageplanning in Iran (Hayati and Mashhadi 2010), forms of address in post-revolutionary Iran(Keshavarz 1988) and Iranian women gender identity in diaspora (Jamarani 2012a,2012b), there has been little research within Iran on language identity. This study

528 S. Rezaei et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

04

Sept

embe

r 20

14

investigated language identity in Iranian English language learners. In order to reach thisgeneral purpose, the following research questions were formulated:

(1) What is the degree of Iranian English language learners’ language identitymeasured through the language identity questionnaire? Is that low, moderateor high?

(2) Are there any significant differences between Iranian English language learners’language identity and their demographic characteristics including their gender,age and English language proficiency level?

(3) What variety of English do Iranian English language learners favour more:American/British/Canadian/Australian English, or do they favour a localpronunciation pattern (i.e. Persian English)?

Language identity in this study is mainly informed by the way people identify each otherthrough the language they speak or the dialect or accent they converse in. To put it in anelliptical and gnomic statement, language identity in this study constitutes six componentsof attachment to the Persian language, pronunciation attitude, language and socialstatus, L1 use/exposure in the society, language knowledge and finally script/alphabetand is operationalised through a model and actualised in a survey instrument as reportedin Khatib and Rezaei (2013b).

Nationwide survey

Participants

For the nationwide survey, a combination of stratified random sampling and clustersampling was employed. The provinces/regions (i.e. east, west, north and south of Iran)were selected as the strata; and the schools, institutes and universities were selected as thecluster. Since this study was to unravel English language learners’ language identity inthe whole country, sampling the best representative group was a decisive factor. Theparticipants for the nationwide survey were 1851 Iranian EFL learners holding differentacademic degrees, from different age groups, genders, language proficiency levels,language schools and colleges, and cities. The reason for doing so was to accomplishdiversity and hence generalizability for the findings.

The participants from Tehran made up 41.3% of the total participants. Theparticipants from the northern provinces were from Mazandaran (6.5%), Gilan (1%)and Golestan (1%); from the southern provinces from Bushehr (3.3%), Fars (2.5%),Khuzestan (1.5%), Kohkiluyeh-va-Buyer-Ahmad (0.8%) and Hormozgan (0.6%);from central Iran from Alborz (6.7%), Chahar-Mahal-va-Bakhtiari (5.2%), Kerman(4.4%), Esfahan (4.2%), Yazd (2.7%), Qom (0.4%) and Markazi (0.2%); participantsfrom western Iran were from Eastern Azarbaijan (2.5%), Zanjan (2.3%), Hamedan(1.9%), Kurdistan (1.7%), Western Azarbaijan (1%), Ghazvin (0.4%), Kermanshah(0.2%) and Ardabil (0.2%); and finally, the participants from eastern Iran were fromSouthern Khorasan (4.2%), Razavi Khorasan (3.1%), and Sistan and Baluchestan (0.2%).

The descriptive statistics (frequency and percentage) for age, gender and Englishlanguage proficiency level of the participants are shown in Table 1. Language proficiencyin this study was self-rated by the respondents based on their level of English languageproficiency at their institutes, schools or universities. Language proficiency at first wasgrouped into basic, elementary, pre-intermediate, intermediate, high intermediate andadvanced; however, it was later changed into low proficiency (basic, elementary and pre-

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 529

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

04

Sept

embe

r 20

14

intermediate) and high proficiency (intermediate, high intermediate and advanced) to easeanalyses and reports. In the same spirit, age was initially categorised into 11–15, 16–20, 21–25 and 25+ groups but was later changed into teenage group (11–20) and adults (20+).

As Table 1 indicates, the participants from the adult group form the majority ofparticipants (74.6%) with the teenage group forming only 25.4% of the total participants.In addition, this table shows that there are more female participants than males with aratio of 1.06 among whom 48.5% are male and 51.5% are female. Furthermore, aspresented in this table, high- and low-proficiency English language learners form 76.6%and 23.4% of the participants, respectively.

Table 2 also presents the mean and standard deviation for each of the items in thequestionnaire based on the responses received from the participants.

Language Identity Questionnaire1

The language identity questionnaire in this study included 19 items and was taken fromKhatib and Rezaei (2013b). The questionnaire was validated through exploratory andconfirmatory factor analysis and its reliability was estimated to be 0.73 which is anacceptable degree (for a complete description of the procedure to develop and validatethis questionnaire see Khatib and Rezaei 2013b).

Data collection and analysis

In order to collect the data in this study, the questionnaire was administered throughoutIran and filled out by English language learners either online (almost 80%) or by hand(almost 20%) in their classes at institutes, schools or universities. The online version ofthe questionnaire was uploaded on surveymonkey.2 After the data were collected, theywere imported into SPSS for analysis.

Research question one: results and discussion

In order to answer the first research question, the scores obtained from the languageidentity questionnaire were computed. The scales in the questionnaire were rankedfrom 1 to 6 with strongly disagree at one end of the scale receiving 1 point and stronglyagree at the other end receiving 6 points. Thereupon, each respondent received a totalscore from the whole questionnaire which fluctuated between 19 as the minimum scoreand 114 as the maximum score.

In order to specify the cut-off points for the low, moderate and high groups, the scoresshould be categorised in a statistically appropriate way. In order to do so, the mean andstandard deviation were computed. The scores falling one standard deviation above andbelow the mean were considered as the high and low scores, respectively. And finally, the

Table 1. Frequency of age, gender and proficiency level.

Gender frequency Proficiency level frequency

Age frequency Male FemaleLow

proficiencyHigh

proficiency

Teenagers (11–20) 470 (25.4%) 218 252 209 261Adults (20+) 1381 (74.6%) 680 701 222 1159Total % 1851 (100%) 898 (48.5%) 953 (51.5%) 431 (23.4%) 1420 (76.6%)

530 S. Rezaei et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

04

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Table 2. Mean and standard deviation for each item in the questionnaire.

Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Mean 3.81 3.02 4.40 1.71 1.89 3.75 5.20 3.73 5.20 3.73 4.23 3.32 4.14 4.26 3.51 4.15 2.63 3.98 3.04SD 1.60 1.60 1.62 0.91 1.08 1.73 1.07 1.93 1.42 1.55 1.49 1.38 1.71 1.44 1.17 1.15 1.21 1.04 2.05

Journalof

Multilingual

andMulticultural

Developm

ent531

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

04

Sept

embe

r 20

14

scores between these two belonged to the moderate zone. The results of the questionnaireadministration to 1851 Iranian English language learners across the country indicated thatthe mean score and the standard deviation obtained were 54.7 and 15.8, respectively.

Subsequently, the scores between 38.9 and 70.5 were considered to be moderateand the scores below 38.9 and above 70.5 showed low and high language identity,respectively. To interpret the scores obtained from the questionnaire, the higher the scoreswere, the more the participants felt attached to their first language, i.e. in this studyPersian language identity. Before running the computation in SPSS, some of the itemswere reverse-coded because they were negatively keyed items.

Hence, in response to the first research question, the results of the survey showed thatthis group of participants exhibited a moderate level of language identity. More specif-ically, of all the participants in this study, 7.9% belonged to the high language identitygroup and 23.8% and 68.3% belonged to the low and moderate language identity groups,respectively.

This finding is comparable with Davari-Ardakani and Mostafa’s (2011) results whichfound that among the Kurd participants of their study, 5.7% had a positive attitudetowards Persian, 65.3% had an average attitude and 29% had a negative attitude. Thisnegative attitude towards Persian is related to how Kurdish native speakers view Persianin comparison to Kurdish language. However, in our study Persian was compared toEnglish and a relatively fewer number of participants were from Kurdish L1 background.In Davari-Ardakani and Mostafa, 93.6% were Kurdish native speakers, 5.4% Persiannative speakers and 1.9% of the participants were from other L1 backgrounds.

Although Chaichian (1997) investigated identity in diaspora among Iranian immi-grants in Iowa, the findings of our study also corroborate the findings of Chaichian’sstudy in that English language learners in Iran still have a strong sense of attachment totheir language, as Chaichian found in Iowa. In addition, Schumann (cited in Hoffman1989) narrates her own experience in Iran and how Iranians tried to speak English beforethe 1979 Revolution to show a high social status even among their own Persian fellows.Hoffman (1989) also argues how Iranians in the USA conversed in English even withtheir own fellow countrymen in order to avoid formalities and politeness strategies inPersian, and as a way not to stand out among Americans. Interestingly now, this mentalityhas changed dramatically and as Hoffman further argues based on her interviews withIranians in Los Angeles, she realises how some families who resisted sending theirchildren to Persian schools now feel regretful about it.

Research question two: results and discussion

The second research question was transformed into three separate null hypotheses:

. Null hypothesis one: There is no significant difference between male and femaleparticipants and their language identity level.

. Null hypothesis two: There is no significant difference between Iranian Englishlanguage learners’ language identity level and their age.

. Null hypothesis three: There is no significant difference between Iranian Englishlanguage learners’ language identity level and their English language proficiencylevel.

In order to test the first null hypothesis, a t-test was run to compare the scores obtainedfrom the male and female groups and to see which group possessed a higher language

532 S. Rezaei et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

04

Sept

embe

r 20

14

identity as measured through the questionnaire in this study. The descriptive statistics(including the frequency of the participants and the mean) showed that the mean for thefemale group was higher than the male group; nevertheless, an independent t-test wasrun and the result was t(1851) = 0.36, p > 0.05 showing that there was no significantdifference between the language identity of male and female participants in this study.Therefore, it can be concluded that Iranian male and female English language learners donot differ in their language identity. They exhibit similar levels of language identity inIran in spite of their exposure to English language in their lives.

In order to test the second null hypothesis, another t-test was run to compare thelanguage identity of the teenage group with the adult one. The result was t(1851) = 0.84,p = 0.00 showing that the null hypothesis is rejected and it can be concluded that there aresignificant differences between the language identity of the participants from these twoage groups.

In order to test the third null hypothesis, the language identity of the low- and high-proficiency learners was compared. The result of the t-test was t(1851) = 0.76, p = 0.00indicating that the null hypothesis is rejected and there are significant differences betweenthe language identity of the learners from the low- and high-proficiency levels.

Davari-Ardakani (2006) found that there were no significant relationships amongattitude to the Persian language, gender, birthplace, mother tongue, more than six monthstay abroad, knowing multiple languages and length of residence in Tehran. In spite ofthe fact that Davari-Ardakani’s study suffers from some research methodologicaldeficiencies – she did not utilise validated instruments in her study – and the fact thather research approach is somehow different from our research – she focused mainly onPersian and the language policy issues related to that – her findings and work on languagepolicy, language attitudes and language awareness in Iran has been very helpful.

Research question three: results and discussion

Part of the questionnaire provided an item inquiring what type of English the participantsfavour. The participants ticked their favourite pronunciation among the five options ofAmerican English, British English, Canadian English, Australian English or English witha Persian accent. The majority of the participants (73.3%) selected American English astheir favourite pronunciation type followed by British English (23.6%), Persian English(1.6%), Canadian English (1.2%) and Australian English (0.3%). The reasons whyAustralian and Canadian Englishes were not as favourable as Persian English could berelated to their being less known in the Iranian context; however, this should not makethese two varieties of English as non-acceptable in Iran.

According to He and Zhang (2010), the participants of their study who were 1030non-English students and teachers from four different parts of China accepted that usingChina English in pronunciation is fine as far as the message is intelligible which can becomparable with the findings in the current study.

With the rise of the World Englishes concept in the literature, it is of utmostimportance from the sociolinguistic perspective to perceive which variety of English isbetter accepted in the world. In other words, sociolinguists have attempted to predict thefuture of English through language attitude studies. Within the Iranian context, a goodreason for probing this issue was to grasp the stance of English varieties in Iran as animportant and large country in the Middle East. In addition, it was intended to foreseewhether Persian English as a potential variety of English can be welcomed in the IranianEFL context. Persian English in this study refers to a specific type of English when

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 533

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

04

Sept

embe

r 20

14

learners prefer to use Persian pronunciation patterns in their speaking. In other words,learners are not necessarily cherishing any dominant English pronunciation patterns suchas American, British, Canadian or Australian English.

With the introduction of World Englishes promoted by Kachru (1986), researchers aremore alert to predict the future of English and the approval or disapproval of localEnglishes. Understanding the status of English either as a local variety or an internationalone can help us conceptualise a better model of English language for our educationalsystem too. Based on the findings of this research, Iranian context cannot yet welcomelocal English and the educational system should be still based on the Inner Circle Modelof English. However, future directions can shape the status of English in Iran andprobably a new understanding of English language will emerge.

Conclusion

Identity has been explored and researched extensively across the globe. However, whatdistinguishes these studies is the way each researcher has probed identity. Methodologicaltools, methods, designs and research questions vary from one study to another. Thiscan also be a point of distinction in the current study. Depending on the researchphilosophies, various research methods, designs and tools are also utilised to researchidentity (Rezaei 2012) which could be interpreted based on their philosophical stands.

The results of this nationwide survey showed that English language learnerspossessed a moderate level of language identity. The results also indicated that therewas no difference between the language identity of male and female participants in thisstudy but age and English language proficiency were influential in the language identityof these participants.

The results of this study can be helpful on a number of grounds; first and foremost toshed light on a number of issues related to language identity of Iranian English languagelearners. In addition, the results can show whether English language has affected IranianEnglish language learners’ perception of their own first language. The attitudes of Englishlanguage learners can inform us about the status of Persian in Iran, and Iranians’ level oflanguage awareness.

Although questionnaires have been used scantly in research on identity (e.g. Ehala2012; Lee 2003), they have not received enough attention for researching sociolinguisticissues in Iran due to the lack of validated instruments. On the other hand, as Lee (2003)argues, identity research has been mostly done in Inner Circle countries like Britain. Morestudies are needed to be done in the Expanding Circle countries, on i.e. EFL contexts.

Finally, an understanding of our language learners’ identity can help our languageteachers, materials developers, teacher trainers and others involved in language educationto make judicious decisions for the betterment of the language education system. Thefindings of this study can better show us how English among many other possible factorshas affected English language learners’ language identity in Iran.

Regarding the limitations and delimitations of this study, an issue sitting high on theagenda is related to the use of questionnaires in identity research. Pavlenko (2002)criticises surveys and questionnaires for researching identity and instead suggestsethnographic longitudinal research as an alternative. We cannot agree more thatethnographic studies can give detailed accounts of identity in context, but the potentialproblems in ethnographic research, such as their being time-consuming, costly and lessgeneralizable, should not be neglected (Rezaei 2012). Professional and academic actswere executed to develop a reliable questionnaire for the survey in this study; however,

534 S. Rezaei et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

04

Sept

embe

r 20

14

we strongly suggest that future users of this questionnaire should pilot it once morebefore administration.

There are many studies focusing on language attitude, and they have approachedthe subject through various methodological tools including questionnaires, interviews,matched-guise tests and ethnography. Studies also exist about different languages anddifferent English accented types including Spanish-based accented English (Brennan andBrennan 1981). Though the dominant approach to researching attitude in language is thatof questionnaires and interviewing, these tools cannot give an in-depth and authenticview of language attitude in individuals. Language attitude can also be captured throughethnographic research where people are recorded in their actions and behaviours ratherthan their views (see Khatib and Rezaei 2013a; Ladegaard 2000).

On the other hand, this study was situated and contextualised in Iran. Due to theexploratory nature of this study and its being primarily contextualised, the generalizabilityis limited to the Iranian context. Researchers working on identity strongly suggest thatidentity research can hardly be conducted based on a pre-established questionnaire indifferent contexts. That is why we do not suggest the use of this questionnaire withoutfurther piloting and localisation.

Moreover, the participants were selected from different provinces and cities in Iran togather more data with more heterogeneity, but still the data may not be trulyrepresentative of the whole population of language learners in Iran. This could belevelled against any other studies because absolute representativeness can never beachieved in reality. Future research can focus on a particular research site (e.g. a city) formore in-depth investigation.

Notes1. This questionnaire is available upon request.2. The survey was available at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FB3GZNT

ReferencesBlock, D. 2007. Second Language Identities. London: Continuum.Borjian, M. 2013. English in Post-Revolutionary Iran: From Indigenization to Internationalization.

Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Brennan, E. M., and J. S. Brennan. 1981. “Measurements of Accent and Attitude toward Mexican-

American Speech.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 10 (5): 487–501. doi:10.1007/BF01076735.

Bugarski, R. 2012. “Language, Identity and Borders in the Former Serbo-Croatian Area.” Journalof Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33 (3): 219–235. doi:10.1080/01434632.2012.663376.

Chaichian, M. A. 1997. “First Generation Iranian Immigrants and the Question of Cultural Identity:The Case of Iowa.” International Migration Review 31 (3): 612–627. doi:10.2307/2547288.

Davari-Ardakani, N. 2006. “Barnāmah-rizi zabān va hūšyāri zabāni: Bā negāhi be Iran.” [LanguagePolicy and Language Awareness: A Look on Iran]. PhD diss., University of Tehran.

Davari-Ardakani, N., and T. Mostafa. 2011. “Barresi-e negareš-hāye zabāni va jāygāh-e do zabān- eFārsi va Kurdi dar hoviat-e meli.” [Investigating Language Attitudes and the Place of Persianand Kurdish Language in National Identity]. Iran Nameh 26 (1, 2): 209–222.

Djité, P. G. 2006. “Shifts in Linguistic Identities in a Global World.” Language Problems &Language Planning 30 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1075/lplp.30.1.02dji.

Ehala, M. 2012. “Cultural Values Predicting Acculturation Orientations: Operationalizing aQuantitative Measure.” Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 11 (3): 185–199.doi:10.1080/15348458.2012.686388.

Hayati, A. M., and A. Mashhadi. 2010. “Language Planning and Language-in-Education Policy inIran.” Language Problems & Language Planning 34 (1): 24–42. doi:10.1075/lplp.34.1.02hay.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 535

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

04

Sept

embe

r 20

14

He, D., and Q. Zhang. 2010. “Native Speaker Norms and China English: From the Perspective ofLearners and Teachers in China.” TESOL Quarterly 44 (4): 769–789. doi:10.5054/tq.2010.235995.

Hoffman, D. M. 1989. “Language and Culture Acquisition among Iranians in the United States.”Anthropology & Education Quarterly 20 (2): 118–132. doi:10.1525/aeq.1989.20.2.05x0843k.

Jamarani, M. 2012a. “Encountering Differences: Iranian Immigrant Women in Australia.” InFeminism and Migration: Cross-cultural Engagements, edited by G. T. Bonifacio, 149–164.Dordrecht: Springer.

Jamarani, M. 2012b. Identity, Language, and Culture in Diaspora: A Study of Iranian FemaleMigrants to Australia. Melbourne: Monash University.

Joseph, J. 2004. Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious. Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan.

Kachru, B. 1986. The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions, and Models of Non-NativeEnglishes. New York: Pergamon Institute of English.

Keshavarz, M. H. 1988. “Forms of Address in Post-Revolutionary Iranian Persian: A Socio-linguistic Analysis.” Language in Society 17 (4): 565–575. doi:10.1017/S0047404500013105.

Khatib, M., and S. Rezaei. 2013a. “The Portrait of an Iranian as an English Language Learner: ACase of Identity Reconstruction.” International Journal of Research Studies in LanguageLearning 2 (3): 81–93. doi:10.5861/ijrsll.2012.176.

Khatib, M., and S. Rezaei. 2013b. “A Model and Questionnaire of Language Identity in Iran: AStructural Equation Modeling Approach.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Develop-ment 34 (7): 690–708. doi:10.1080/01434632.2013.796958.

Ladegaard, H. J. 2000. “Language Attitudes and Sociolinguistic Behaviour: Exploring Attitude-Behaviour Relations in Language.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 4 (2): 214–233. doi:10.1111/1467-9481.00112.

Lee, S. K. 2003. “Multiple Identities in a Multicultural World: A Malaysian Perspective.” Journalof Language, Identity, and Education 2 (3): 137–158. doi:10.1207/S15327701JLIE0203_1.

McNamara, T. 2005. “21st Century Shibboleth: Language Tests, Identity and Intergroup Conflict.”Language Policy 4 (4): 351–370. doi:10.1007/s10993-005-2886-0.

Modarresi, Y. 2001. “The Iranian Community in the United States and the Maintenance of Persian.”International Journal of the Sociology of Language 148: 93–116. doi:10.1515/ijsl.2001.017.

Mostofi, N. 2003. “Who We Are: The Perplexity of Iranian-American Identity.” The SociologicalQuarterly 44 (4): 681–703. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2003.tb00531.x.

Namei, S. 2008. “Language Choice among Iranians in Sweden.” Journal ofMultilingual andMulticultural Development 29 (5): 419–437. doi:10.1080/01434630802147924.

Pavlenko, A. 2002. “Poststructuralist Approaches to the Study of Social Factors in SecondLanguage Learning and Use.” In Portraits of the L2 User, edited by V. Cook, 277–302.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Rajagopalan, K. 2001. “The Politics of Language and the Concept of Linguistic Identity.” Revistade Filologia y su Didactica 24: 17–28.

Rezaei, S. 2012. “Researching Identity in Applied Linguistics.” Journal of Language, Culture andSociety 35: 45–51.

536 S. Rezaei et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

04

Sept

embe

r 20

14