Journal of Language, Identity & Education

ISSN: 1534-8458 (Print) 1532-7701 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hlie20

“Only When I Am Not Ashamed of Myself Can

I Teach Others”: Preservice English-Language
Teachers in Vietnam and Code-Switching Practices

Hai Ha Vu

To cite this article: Hai Ha Vu (2017) “Only When I Am Not Ashamed of Myself Can I Teach
Others”: Preservice English-Language Teachers in Vietnam and Code-Switching Practices, Journal
of Language, Identity & Education, 16:5, 285-298, DOI: 10.1080/15348458.2017.1305906

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2017.1305906

Published online: 20 Apr 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 204

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hlie20
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION
2017, VOL. 16, NO. 5, 285–298
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2017.1305906

“Only When I Am Not Ashamed of Myself Can I Teach Others”:

Preservice English-Language Teachers in Vietnam and
Code-Switching Practices
Hai Ha Vu
University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
As the younger generation in Vietnam increasingly switches between the English as an international
English and the Vietnamese languages, numerous linguistic and sociocul- language; globalization;
tural strictures arise. Foregrounding the preservice English-language tea- nationalism; preservice
chers of this generation, this article locates them in a dilemma between the teacher identity
discourse of globalization and their code-switching practices, on the one
hand, and the moral-guide duty they are expected to fulfil within the
discourse of linguistic nationalism on the other hand. Drawing on a case
study conducted with survey questionnaires (N = 483) and focusing on
interviews and focus groups (N = 15), this article reports the confusion, the
decisions, and the negotiations made by different preservice teachers as
they were faced with this dilemma. Particularly underlining the theme of
negotiation, the article proposes certain changes to the English-language-
teacher training curriculum in Vietnam.

The younger generation in Vietnam are coming of age with their common practices of switching
between the English and Vietnamese languages in daily communication, sometimes regardless of the
English-language competence of those involved (for the purposes of code-switching, see Vu, 2014;
Vu & Le, 2015). These code-switching practices widely range from alternation, wherein both
grammar and lexicon are involved (e.g., “Thôi mà, I’m sorry.” [“Come on, I’m sorry.”]); insertional
code-switching, in which only lexical items are switched (as in “Chiều nay confirm lại nhé.” [“I’ll
confirm this afternoon.”]); to congruent lexicalization, wherein grammatical structures are filled
lexically with elements from either English or Vietnamese (such as “Phải sign in để dislike cho cái
unđỡable videoclip này mới được.” [“I must sign in to dislike this intolerable videoclip.”]) (for these
types of code-switching, see Muysken, 1997). Just as Chinglish, Konglish, Singlish, or any English-
based creoles are criticised in other Asian contexts (Kramer-Dahl, 2009; Kramsch & Whiteside,
2007), so these linguistic practices are accused of exerting “distorted” (Vũ, 2008), “non-standard”
(Thanh Nien Online Newspaper, 2010), “puzzling” (Cao, 2010; Nguoi Lao Dong Online Newspaper,
2010), and “perilous” (Cao, 2010) impacts on “the purity” of both languages involved, especially
Vietnamese.
In this context, this article pursues two main objectives. First, it foregrounds the young preservice
English-language teachers in Vietnam, hypothesizing that they could be caught in a conflict in their
professional identity formation; that is, on the one hand, they are subject to the discourse of nationalism
and likely to take on the “moral guide” role constructed for all Vietnamese teachers by the society to voice
against these language practices, while, on the other hand, as members of the younger generation with
certain proficiency in English, they could develop an inclination for, and an approval of, code-switching

CONTACT Hai Ha Vu [email protected] Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, University of Languages and
International Studies (Vietnam National University, Hanoi), Pham Van Dong Road, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/hlie.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis
286 VU

among themselves and other generations to come. Second, the article examines how these preservice
teachers position themselves in this conflict and how this positioning could carry theoretical and
pedagogical implications for the English-language-teacher training curriculum in Vietnam.
Regarding its scope, the article focuses on the construction of teacher identity vis-à-vis code-
switching outside the classroom. Inside the English-language classroom where English is usually
unmarked (i.e., the most common code choice in that context, see Myers-Scotton, 1993), code-
switching is often examined in favour of the English language. Hence, studies have revolved around
the cognitive and pedagogical relationships between L1 and L2 in second language acquisition (see
Canagarajah, 2003; Kramsch & Whiteside, 2007) and the use of Vietnamese (L1) to enhance English
(L2) language learning and teaching (Kieu, 2010). Outside the classroom, the reverse is true. In a
country where English remains a foreign language (as opposed to an official or a second language), it
is usually marked. Thus, a switch from Vietnamese to English, which may subconsciously or
intentionally involve monolinguals of Vietnamese, is often contested on sociocultural grounds.
This contestation directly concerns the group of preservice teachers in question because teachers
of English in Vietnam also construct their moral-guide identity in particular and professional
identity in general beyond the classroom (Phan, 2008). Consequently, their behaviours, perceptions,
and attitudes towards code-switching outside the classroom remain subjected to the power and
regulations of contesting discourses and identities mentioned above. This article thus revolves
around the following key questions: In the perceptions of these preservice teachers, is it socio-
culturally appropriate for them to practise or endorse code-switching (in front of their future
students and others) outside the classroom? If so, how can they counter the powerful discourse of
nationalism and deny the moral-guide responsibility? If not, how can they forgo their own code-
switching practices and code-switcher identity?
It is also crucial to note that this article adopts a broad definition and a sociocultural perspective
on code-switching. In its narrow sense, code-switching has been carefully distinguished from other
language contact phenomena, such as code-mixing, translanguaging, and language transfer, to name
just a few (see García, 2009; Treffers-Daller, 2009). On the other hand, these terms have been used
with less clear-cut distinction by certain authors; accordingly, code-switching may include both
code-mixing (Muysken, 1997) and translanguaging (Adamson & Fujimoto-Adamson, 2012), and
may bear a significant resemblance to language transfer in essence (Treffers-Daller, 2009). Despite
the lack of consensus on these conceptual labels in the literature (Treffers-Daller, 2009) and few
attempts to validate a name for the linguistic phenomenon in Vietnam thus far, this discussion could
be advanced for two main reasons. First, if Treffers-Daller’s (2009) broad characterization of code-
switching as “the occurrence of elements of language A [. . .] in stretches of speech of language B” (p.
59) serves as the working definition of code-switching in this article, it could very much include the
linguistic phenomenon under study. Second, as the distinctions between those conceptual labels are
primarily concerned with the linguistic elements and psychological processes underlying the transfer,
this definition could direct more attention to the sociocultural debate; that is, within the scope
defined above, this article does not seek to argue whether the language phenomenon in question
actually corrupts the Vietnamese language or English-language learning or not. Rather, it concen-
trates on how the use of English-language elements in stretches of Vietnamese (labelled as code-
switching herein, as well as exemplified by Muysken’s typology in the introduction) is particularly
represented, located, and contested by conflicting discourses and identities in Vietnam today.
Besides, it also explores the impacts of these representations on the young preservice English-
language teachers in their formation of professional identity.
To this end, the article both draws on and contributes to the moral-guide identity theory outlined
by Phan (2008). As underlined in her theory and the key findings of her case studies, the moral-
guide identity functions as “the core” identity of Vietnamese teachers, basing on which different
roles, selves, and identities will be interpreted, negotiated, resisted, and reconstituted. She hence
concluded that despite the formation of new identities, the participants in her studies “negotiated
(these new) identities along the lines of morality and moral values,” creating a sense of “continuity”
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 287

and “connectedness” in their identity construction (p. 184). In a similar manner, this article aligns
itself with Phan by elaborating on the negotiation between contradicting identities, particularly the
code-switcher and the moral-guide identity constructed by Vietnamese society in this case. In this
way, a certain space for code-switching could be constituted and a continuity from their code-
switcher identity could be maintained for the young preservice English-language teachers in
Vietnam. On the other hand, it departs from Phan’s studies by delving into the confusion, trauma,
and even failure to resolve identity conflicts. As pointed out by her critics (see Pham, 2005), these
themes are often absent or underrepresented in Phan’s empirical findings as almost all of the
participants in her case studies seemed to resolve their identity conflicts in a “harmonious” and
“efficient” way (Phan, 2008, pp. 112–113, 116).
To initiate this investigation, the article begins with a brief literature review of these contesting
discourses and identities before presenting a conceptual framework of the main discussion.
Subsequently, a mixed-method case study is introduced, revealing three major themes emerging
from the qualitative data.

Suppressing code-switching: Nationalism and the social expectations of a moral guide

Outside the English-language classroom where English is often marked as a foreign language, a
switch to English for no apparent reason is frequently reduced to a devaluation of the Vietnamese
language due to the powerful discourse of nationalism. Of particular relevance to this discussion is
linguistic nationalism, the ideology that often characterizes deviations from a predetermined set of
“national language” conventions as threats to the sacred national language and identity (see
Bosworth, 2007; Kachru, 2005). Such concerns are not without strong grounds, as much has been
cautioned against linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992), in general, and the cultural politics of
English (Pennycook, 1994), in particular.
These worries are particularly strong in the specific context of Vietnam for at least two additional
reasons. First, afflicted by devastating wars and a long history of national defence, older generations
in Vietnam often manifest “extreme” nationalistic fervour (Tran & Reid, 2006, p. 4). It was indeed
for these sentiments that English used to be rejected as the language of the enemy after the Vietnam
War (Gayle, 1994). Even today when the international status of English has been widely recognized,
this foreign language is never placed on the same footing but given an incidental, “supporting” role
for Vietnamese in language policies (Vietnam Institute of Linguistics, 2011). Hence in code-switch-
ing, English seems to “cross the line” by going beyond its restricted domains of foreign language
classroom or international communication to increasingly interfere with everyday Vietnamese at an
unprecedented rate—unprecedentedly fast because it took English just a few decades to shift from a
state of total banishment to the prevalence and popularity it has among the young today (Phan, Vu,
& Dat, 2014). The interference is also increasing because English has been formally incorporated into
Vietnamese at intrasentential and morpheme levels, giving rise to a “hybrid” form of Vietnamese and
English largely incomprehensible to the older generations (Cao, 2010; Nguoi Lao Dong Online
Newspaper, 2010). As code-switching may diachronically lead to language convergence (Treffers-
Daller, 2009), there is growing apprehension about a more stabilized form of language hybridity in
which English is given a more prominent role than its subordinate status to Vietnamese as of now.
Some nationalists even go as far as to argue that if this trend continues, English may gradually
dominate or replace Vietnamese in the long run. This, in turn, arouses powerful nationalistic
sentiments, since the Vietnamese language, the mother tongue of around 85% of the Vietnamese
population, has always been treasured as a symbol of national unity and a powerful tool of nation
building in wars and in modern times (Trần, 2007).
Second, English constitutes a marker of the younger generation. As it was not until the early
1990s that Vietnam opened its door to the world and English (Phan et al., 2014), most of those born
after the 1990s possess what the older generations barely had: the opportunities for English-language
learning and competence in the English language. Along with the powerful cultural politics of
288 VU

English (Pennycook, 1994), this widens the social divide on code-switching as different generations
seem to make different meaning of the same language practice. Nonetheless, as the dominant group
in the population today, the older generations significantly shape the social attitude and agenda
regarding code-switching in Vietnam. Given the nationalistic fervour discussed above, it is unsur-
prising to find the tendency in Vietnamese media and society to represent code-switching one-
sidedly, especially by exaggerating its sociocultural damage to Vietnamese culture, language, and
identity.
In this powerful discourse of nationalism, the group of preservice teachers in question may have
conflicting voices about code-switching. On one hand, they are members of the younger generation
and thus tend to view code-switching in a more positive light. On the other hand, they are also
supposed to be critical of these language practices, for Vietnamese society expects all teachers to be
role models of morality. Viewing morality as “socially acceptable behaviours,” Confucianism,
Buddhism, along with the admirable and affectionate images of the teacher in traditional and social
perceptions, have put teachers in Vietnam under “the pressure” to “develop themselves [. . .] in
morality to meet the social, cultural and educational expectations,” “lead a morally acceptable life,”
and “present themselves as morally good examples to the students” (Phan, 2008, pp. 6–7, 113).
Although morality is not to be equated with language practices, the social representations and
nationalistic concerns about code-switching discussed earlier suggest that the “right” use of language
is also part of the socially acceptable behaviours or morality, as construed above. What follows is that
the disapproval of code-switching in daily communication could be expected by the society to be
part of the “moral guide” package for the preservice English-language teachers to deliver to their
future students as well.

Promoting code-switching: Globalization and the code-switcher identity

Running counter to the nationalism discourse is the discourse of globalization, which is closely in
pace with the rise of English in Asian countries (Pennycook, 1994; Thuan & Thomas, 2004). Despite
the nationalist fervour, which persistently advocates national languages, hardly any Asian country
can detach itself from globalization and the concomitant spread of English (Abhakorn, 2003; Bianco,
2003; Simpson, 2007). In Vietnam, globalization has revived English from a state of banishment
(Gayle, 1994) to an “English language fever,” whereby, “for the first time . . . English emerged as the
most important foreign language, which was chosen by most students across the country” (Le, 2012,
p. 17). Despite the lack of studies on code-switching in Vietnam thus far, one could expect this
discourse of globalization to significantly give rise to and sustain the popularity of this linguistic
phenomenon despite profound public strictures.
Moreover, it is important to mention that as members of the younger generation, the group of
preservice teachers in question are likely to be code-switchers themselves, who may persist in code-
switching for valid reasons (Vu, 2014). As discussed earlier, their different “location in history”
(Cvetkovic & Lackie, 2009, p. 41) seems to suggest that the younger generation may make different
meaning of code-switching. If this is also the case for the new generation in Vietnam, the young
preservice teachers might place enough value on code-switching in English-language learning and
teaching to sustain it among themselves and their students.

The dilemma and the research gap: Theoretical and conceptual frameworks
So far, the discussion has positioned the group of young preservice English-language teachers in
Vietnam between conflicting discourses and identities represented in the conceptual framework
below (Figure 1).
Of particular interest in this article is how these discursive forces and identities interacted with
one another to create tension and how the preservice teachers positioned themselves in these
conflicts. In response to this question, the moral-guide identity theory outlined by Phan (2008)
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 289

(Linguistic) Globalization
Nationalism
Young Pre-
service
English-
Language
Moral guide identity Teachers in Code-switcher
constructed by the Vietnam identity
society

Suppressing code-switching Promoting code-switching

Figure 1. The conceptual framework.

could be particularly insightful for two main reasons. First, since her identity theory and empirical
studies are set in the context of English-language-teacher education in Vietnam, it is of direct
relevance to this article. Second, by embracing traditional, cultural, and nationalistic dimensions
and a poststructural stance on identity, it overcomes the shortcoming of certain theories that place
too much stress on the antagonism of different identities (see Jenkins, 2008; Lorenzi-Cioldi, 2006).
To be specific, subsumed under the overarching term of “professional identity” are conflicting
identities, roles, or selves (Phan, 2008, p. 121); nonetheless, Phan clearly conceptualizes the moral-
guide identity as “the core” identity of Vietnamese teachers, basing on which other elements, such as
the code-switcher identity, will be “interpreted, negotiated, resisted and reconstituted” (p. 185). It
therefore acknowledges certain space for a dynamic negotiation in which the moral-guide identity
could help to mediate and connect, as opposed to contrast, the social expectations of teachers and
code-switcher identity.
However, two important notes must be made concerning Phan’s theory at this point. First, it is
essential to distinguish between the moral-guide identity in Phan’s conception and the moral-guide
identity in social construction since the former both embraces and transcends the latter. Phan herself
(2008) elaborates the social and historical dimensions to morality and concludes that there is a
moral-guide identity readily constructed for Vietnamese teachers by “the society and others” whose
overall stance on code-switching has been far from favourable. It is, however, the individual
interpretations and enactments of this identity in Phan’s conception that draws the distinction
between the two. For these reasons, it is justifiable to suggest that the moral-guide identity
constructed by the society (as distinct from the more dynamic and autonomous conception by
Phan) generally works to suppress code-switching (Figure 1).
Second, there is an underrepresentation of failure and trauma, albeit not so much in her theory as
in the group of participants she observed. While Phan (2008) suggests that there could be different
levels of “mixture between the common and the personal” in reconciling conflicting identities (p.
111), all the participants in her illustrative case studies claimed to find a resolution to their conflicts
in a “harmonious” and “efficient” manner. As these “happy” resolutions have been questioned by
Pham (2005) in his critique of Phan’s study, exploring the possibilities of confusion, trauma, and
even failure to resolve identity conflicts constitutes a significant theme of this article.

A case study: Context and methodology

English-language-teacher training in Vietnam
Le (2012) describes a typical university training program for English-language teachers in Vietnam
in which preservice teachers have to complete three different strands of knowledge—namely,
foundation knowledge, subject-matter knowledge (English linguistics and English-language profi-
ciency), and professional knowledge (teaching methodology and a six-week practicum in the final
290 VU

semester before graduation). This training curriculum is generally loaded with theoretical study and
delivered in the traditional manner, whereby, little attention is paid to teaching methods (Hamano,
2008). Despite the recognized inadequacy and irrelevance of preservice training, most of these
student teachers are expected to commence work at secondary schools right after graduation.
However, little access to professional development is available there due to the lack of dialogues
with their colleagues and the heavy workload imposed on them by the school curriculum (Le, 2012;
Pham, 2005).
From Le’s (2012) description, of particular interest to this article is the lack of preparation for these
preservice teachers to deal with sociocultural issues related to their English-language-teaching profes-
sion within and beyond the curriculum. Within the training curriculum, the focus is placed on the
transmission of knowledge at the expense of connections with the real world. Hence, issues such as the
development and impacts of English in global and local contexts and how they affect their profes-
sional-identity formation as in the case of code-switching seem to be left out. In the workplace, the lack
of dialogues and professional development is likely to leave the resolution of sociocultural and identity
issues to individual teachers. Questions such as “Are you aware of the contesting discourses and
identities you are located in?” and “To what extent have you resolved these conflicts?” are likely to
confound many teachers, although the answers are critical in addressing the social concerns over code-
switching and are meaningful to their construction of English-language-teacher identity.

Data collection and analysis

Reported in this article are findings from a case study enquiring into the attitudes of the young
preservice English-language teachers in Vietnam towards code-switching. In the preliminary stage,
483 preservice teachers born in the 1990s were randomly selected from the biggest English-language-
teacher-training institution in northern Vietnam to participate in a survey questionnaire. Based on
their responses to the two key questions, “What is your attitude towards code-switching in daily
communication now?” and “What will your attitude towards code-switching in daily communication
be when you become a teacher?,” 15 participants were selected to proceed to the main stage of
interviews and/or focus groups. To reduce terminological ambiguity due to the conceptual concern
about code-switching discussed earlier, the term code-switching was consistently defined to the
participants using the broad working definition and the scope specified above. Moreover, follow-up
interviews described below also provided in-depth data to increase the reliability of the study.
Figure 2 demonstrates the rationale for the selection of 15 interview and focus group participants,
whereby their answers ranged from 1 (total disapproval) to 7 (total approval) on a seven-point Likert

Figure 2. The participants’ attitudes towards code-switching.

 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 291

scale. Since most survey respondents claimed to approve of code-switching at present (M = 4.42,
SD = 1.15, N = 483) but would not support it when becoming teachers (M = 3.74, SD = 1.26,
N = 483), participants such as Linh, Duong, Phong, Phuong, and Quyet represented the typical cases.
By contrast, others became deviant cases as their responses to either question were opposite to the
typical ones. Notably, there is hardly any representation in Quadrant II as almost none of the survey
respondents claimed to shift their attitudes from disapproval to approval when becoming teachers.
After this selection of “deviant” and “typical” cases (Creswell, 2005, p. 520), these participants
attended the interview and/or focus group twice, with the second one taking place one year after
the first one.
The qualitative data analysis drew on thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998; Gibson & Brown, 2009;
Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2012) with a combination of a theory-driven and a data-driven code
development (Boyatzis, 1998). Accordingly, much as the data analysis commenced with some a
priori codes stemming from the theories and the questionnaire responses, most of the codes were
derived from the interviewees’ responses using Boyatzis’ (1998) code-development process. This
process was facilitated by case portfolios and NVivo, where a list of main codes and themes, together
with their definitions, was also developed to ensure the consistency of code interpretations and
developments (Guest et al., 2012).
This thematic analysis reveals three major themes related to the topic in question as corroborated
in turn below.

Confusion and uncertainty: “It’s very difficult”

Out of 15 participants, three found themselves puzzled by the dilemma of “switching between codes
among themselves, how could they preach to their students what they did not practise?”:

(A 10-second pause) I haven’t thought about it. (Quyet, male interviewee)

(Pause) To some extent:: (pause) erm (pause) actually (a long pause) I think if:: (pause) err . . . (Linh, female
interviewee)
(When I’m a teacher,) I think the essential factor for English to develop is the environment. That is, we need to
create an environment for English to be used widely? Once it’s popular, it’s going to be part of us. If we want to
be fluent, then it must be part of us right? . . . . Now people want us to be fluent in English but still (preserve)
our Vietnamese. I think it’s very difficult. (Chi, female interviewee)

The prevalent pauses in Quyet and Linh’s responses were indicative of their considerable
hesitation, confusion, and attempts to evade discussion of these conflicts. Chi was the only one
that expanded on the issue, finding English and Vietnamese exerting contradictory pull and push
forces that burdened and puzzled Vietnamese learners and teachers of English today. On the one
hand, English and using English frequently, such as via code-switching for communicative
purposes (see Vu, 2014) have become part of her personal and professional identity. On the
other hand, becoming a teacher in Vietnam would foreground the social responsibility (i.e., “they
want us”) to protect Vietnamese language from being replaced by English in daily communica-
tion. As exemplified in another part of her interview, Chi subconsciously switched from
Vietnamese to English several times in conversations with her monolingual parents and was
consequently reprimanded and embarrassed about these “slip-ups.” However, her attempts to give
up code-switching were unsuccessful. Therefore, these antagonistic inclinations represent a
“difficult” dilemma in the construction of her professional identity, to which she failed to find
any resolution. As represented in Figure 1 and articulated in her response, underlying this
perceived dilemma was the contention between the discourses of globalization (i.e., “the envir-
onment [for English to be used widely]”) and that of nationalism (“[preserve] our Vietnamese]”)
and the construction of her personal and social identity (i.e., “part of us”; “people want us”, “our
[Vietnamese]”) in these discourses.
292 VU

Giang, another female interviewee, took it further by problematizing the relationship between
code-switching and social expectations of a moral guide, to which she could not find an easy
resolution.
To tell the truth, when I am switching between English and Vietnamese . . . and must change it just because I
see my students around . . . so that my students see that I am not [code-switching] then I feel rather contrived
and fake in front of them.

Contrived and fake strongly denoted the paradox and discomfort Giang went through when there
was an urge for her to fulfil the moral-guide duty imposed by the society and forgo her code-
switcher identity (cf. Figure 1); that is, relinquishing her code-switching to become a “good” moral
guide before her students might conflict with her being true to herself, which would in turn make
Giang feel no longer deserving of, or able to fulfil the social expectations of a good moral guide. She
hence foresaw the dynamics and conflicts between these “contradicting roles and selves” (Phan,
2008, p. 121) of language teacher and language user, the social construction of moral guides and her
practices of code-switching, which could not be easily resolved as in the cases discussed below.

Taking sides: “I would encourage code-switching” versus “we must quit”

While 4 participants were torn between two sides of a dichotomy, the majority of eight participants
made more-specific choices. Among them, An stood out as the only outspoken advocate for code-
switching. After asserting the advantages of a strong command of English in the labour market
today, he firmly concluded:
It is important to speak English well today . . . English will be an integral part of my students’ life . . . speaking
English will be very common . . . so I would encourage code-switching (outside the classroom) among my
students because I myself feel very happy if my students speak more English.

Unlike many of his friends who viewed code-switching as a grave concern, An saw it as a valuable
opportunity. As his response suggests, this particular characterization of code-switching could be
ascribed to the discourse of globalization (Figure 1) and of the concomitant surge of the
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach in Vietnam (Hoang, Nguyen, & Hoang,
2006; Le, 2012). To be specific, the powerful discourse of globalization has been fuelling and fuelled
by the rising power of the English language worldwide (Pennycook, 1994; Phan, 2008; Thuan &
Thomas, 2004). One typical instance of this symbiosis is the increasing demands for global com-
munication, international trade, and sociocultural exchanges via English. To this end, the traditional
emphasis on grammar and vocabulary in English-language teaching in Vietnam was deemed
inappropriate and has been actively replaced by CLT (Kieu, 2010), which postulates that “the goal
of language teaching is communication [. . .] in natural, everyday environment” (Wallace, 2003, p.
67). From this CLT perspective, one may find code-switching in daily communication not so much a
sociocultural issue as an English-language learning opportunity for English-language learners, since
it could promote the use of English “in natural, everyday environment” as demanded above (see Vu,
2014). This in turn characterized code-switching as a meaningful part of the professional identity An
was constructing.
Despite the powerful discourse of globalization and the increasing prominence of CLT, it is
notable that An was the only one explicitly foregrounding the pedagogical and economical implica-
tions of code-switching. It suggests that for most participants, there were other fundamental and
contesting discourses at play. Indeed, on a Likert scale of 1 to 7 where 7 indicated maximum
approval, the questionnaire survey revealed that the preservice teachers’ attitudes towards code-
switching practised by their future students were mostly negative (M = 3.74, SD = 1.26, N = 483).
Despite defending the uses of code-switching in everyday conversations, five participants fore-
grounded their role-model responsibilities (cf. Figure 1) when shifting from a code-switcher’s
viewpoint to a language teacher’s viewpoint:
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 293

I think we must change our language practices. We must correct ourselves. In fact, I think it’s necessary to set
an example all the time, . . . to practice what we preach. (Phuong, female interviewee)

We must quit [code-switching] in the first place. If we ourselves still practise it, it’ll be impossible to prevent or
forbid others to use it. (Phong, male focus group participant)

What Phong and Phuong both suggested was the determination to forgo, or “depersonalize”
(Spears, Ellemers, Bertjian, & Branscombe, 2006; Turner, Reynolds, Haslam, & Veenstra, 2006) their
code-switcher identity (i.e., “quit,” “change”) when categorizing themselves as teachers and models
for the younger generation. Significantly prompting this process of depersonalization was the social
construction of the moral-guide identity as the following interviewees exemplified:
When I’m a teacher, the standards of my (daily) communication would be higher, and I really hope that I’ll be
able to modify my speech so that it will prove me educated and aware of what I am speaking. I hope that I’ll be
able to control my language practices. I should think that if I use English like that then young people will
imitate, so I need to control it. (Duong, male interviewee)
I am a teacher-to-be. I need to behave so that everyone could look up to and only when I am not ashamed of
myself can I teach others. (Kim Anh, female interviewee)

As Duong and Kim Anh indicated, teachers’ switching to English beyond their language class-
room was a violation not only of linguistic standards, but also of social standards, the latter
stemming from social norms and expectations about their new identity of Vietnamese teacher/
moral guide. Only when they met these socially defined standards would others position and identify
them as educated and respectable “enough” to be a good teacher. In return, these social acknowl-
edgements would promote positive self-images as deserving social respect (“not ashamed of myself”)
and being qualified for the teaching profession (“can I teach others”). This rejection of code-
switching was particularly meaningful for their professional identity development as this language
practice had often been socially questioned, if not condemned, on nationalistic grounds. Such
negativity, in turn, could damage social recognition and respect for the teaching profession, which
are particularly salient and significant for teacher identity in Vietnam (Phan, 2008). As a result of
this relational and dialectical (re-)positioning, these trainees seemed determined to modify their
code-switching practices accordingly.
Overall, this identification process bolsters the argument that as long as morality is understood as
socially acceptable and as proper behaviour and manner, language practices could play a part in
moral judgements about and expectations of the teaching profession in Vietnam. It also illustrates
that there exists a moral identity readily constructed for them by society, for these participants
manifested little negotiation or reconstitution when repositioning themselves solely according to the
social perceptions and expectations of this identity.
This prominence and precedence of the moral guide over the code-switcher identity could be
fundamentally attributed to the discourse of nationalism suggested in Figure 1 and illustrated by
three other participants below. As similarly underlined in their responses, the preservation of
Vietnamese language constituted an important theme in Vietnamese education in general and the
training curriculum of preservice English-language teachers in particular. This nationalistic focus
could in turn induce the repositioning of one’s identity in relation to code-switching:
I think the root cause of . . . the foreignization of Vietnamese language as in code-switching all comes from the
education of Vietnamese language: how to preserve its beauty, inspire the students for the love of their mother
tongue. With the teacher’s instruction they won’t be using languages in such a way. (Trang, female interviewee)
I changed my viewpoints (about code-switching) when I was studying Vietnamese literature for the university
entrance exam . . . . It’s the feeling of really loving my language . . . I mean I really love it. I feel that . . . if we
modify it, I’ll feel ashamed. (Mai, female focus group participant)
A teacher gave us a lesson on the purity of Vietnamese language. After the class I was strongly impressed. She
gave us an example of . . . a famous news editor, who referred to khu nghỉ mát nghỉ dưỡng as resort in a national
news report. My teacher said she was annoyed by it. I felt the same . . . I’ll never let myself do it. (Sinh, male
focus group participant)
294 VU

From these instances, it was suggested that education in Vietnam had been effectively reprodu-
cing the powerful discourse of nationalism, whereby code-switching was represented as a linguistic
problem (for the “purity” and “beauty” of Vietnamese), a cultural threat (i.e., “foreignization”), and a
moral decay (for code-switchers to feel “ashamed” of and for others to be “annoyed” about).
Embracing this ideology, the teachers were supposed to perform their moral-guide duty by articu-
lating and conveying the social message regarding code-switching to all of their students: English
must be segregated from Vietnamese in daily communication, as opposed to being embedded in,
interfering with, and hence sullying the latter. Despite the controversial and overstated nature of this
claim, it remains an influential representation powerfully constructed and actively reproduced by
society, fuelled by its discourse of nationalism via education.
A similar inculcation of nationalistic consciousness could also be found in the English-language-
teacher training curriculum. Under the supervision of the Ministry of Education and the sole leader-
ship of the Communist Party of Vietnam, the language-teacher education program has deliberately
devoted a significant proportion of its curriculum to Vietnamese language and culture. Hamano (2008)
and Le (2012) describe a typical training program for English-language teachers in Vietnam, in which
the “foundation knowledge” comprising courses on Vietnamese culture, Vietnamese language,
Hochiminhism, and Marxism, among others, makes up around 40% of the total content. This
remarkable allocation suggests that the mission of Vietnamese language preservation has always
constituted a significant theme in the agenda of the teacher training program. It considerably limited
the possible ways for Vietnamese teachers to speak and act about switching between English and
Vietnamese, and probably accounted for the large number of participants in the study speaking out
against code-switching. As such, linguistic nationalism could be said to fundamentally shape
Vietnamese teachers’ identity in relation to code-switching regardless of the settings they were in.

Negotiations: “I would adjust”

Whether it is confusion, support, or rejection, the two uber-themes reported above similarly assume
a binary opposition between different discourses and identities in Figure 1; accordingly, aligning
oneself with either side of the dichotomy necessarily precludes the other. It is here that a third theme
emerges to highlight the possibility of breaking away from the dichotomy via negotiations between
conflicting discourses and identities.

Negotiations between identities

Having severely criticized code-switching on the grounds of nationalism, Binh, a female interviewee,
did not feel the imperative to fulfil the moral-guide role assigned to her by society:
As for their viewpoint [on code-switching], it’s up to them because our thinking might influence them or not.
It’s their way of living. It doesn’t matter much to me that I have to guide them to be this way or that way.
Generally speaking, we can’t make someone [abandon code-switching]. But if I strictly avoid code-switching,
the learners may consider “Should I [switch between codes] anymore?” I think I can only change part of their
linguistic practice but not all. (Binh, second interview)

Locating language in one’s lived culture, Binh would abandon code-switching but not mandate
the same attitudes and actions from them. Unlike Phong and Phuong, who attempted both, Binh
aimed at developing “critical consciousness” among her students (Giroux, 1997, p. 142; also
McLaren, 2007; Wallace, 2003), a re-positioning process with the uptake of both students’ agency
and the teacher’s role of being a model. In so doing, she suggested reconstituting the common
perceptions of the moral-guide identity so that it would not include correcting and speaking out
against code-switching as conventionally and socially expected from a moral guide. For her, this
moral-guide identity would become more of a demonstrator than an intervener (e.g., Sinh’s teacher
above) in relation to code-switching. In other words, Binh did not simply take on the moral-guide
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 295

identity readily constructed for her by the society like Phong and Phuong did but submitted her own
interpretations and reconstitutions to it. In this way, her conception of the moral-guide identity
bears a close resemblance to Phan’s (2008).
In a similar manner, Le, another female interviewee, suggested during her first interview that one
did not have to get rid of code-switching to be a good moral guide. Talking about a teacher she
revered as a bright example to follow in her future career, Le reflected on his code-switching
practices outside the classroom and the students’ reactions:
I could see that he used [code-switching] a lot on Facebook but there was no grievance [from the students]
at all.

To conclude, she claimed that the correction of her own code-switching in the future would be
“unnecessary.” Unlike Duong and Kim Anh’s cases, the relation between code-switching and the
construction of the moral-guide identity seemed obscure in Le’s case. However, since identity is not
only about “how we see ourselves” but also about “how others see us” (Jenkins, 2008, p. 50), Le
seemed to overlook how she, and her persistence in code-switching, would be positioned and
influenced by the social “others” when becoming a teacher. A year later in the second interview, it
was interesting to see a shift in Le’s perceptions:
I would adjust my language because I’ve recently started to care about what others think . . . . If I’m code-
switching with my friends, and then a student of mine come up . . . I think I’ll adjust my speech (so that there
would be less code-switching) . . . or I’d just stop the conversation with my friends. (Le, second interview)

Therefore, instead of abandoning the association between code-switching and the social expecta-
tions of a moral guide, Le also started to “care about what others think” and feel the impulse to
“correct” her language in front of the students. Nevertheless, she did not insist on similar corrections
among her students or make moral judgements basing on their language practices. Le was hence
similar to Binh in that they both perceived the moral-guide identity as more of a demonstrator than
an intervener vis-à-vis code-switching. In so doing, they both embraced the autonomous conception
of the moral-guide identity underlined in Phan’s (2008) theory, which allows reconstitution, media-
tion, and negotiation between contradicting roles, selves, and identities.

Negotiations between discourses

While the responses so far focus on the reconciliation between conflicting identities, there was one
particular response that demonstrated a similar negotiation between the nationalism and globaliza-
tion discourses (Figure 1). Deplored as “political indoctrination”(Vallely & Wilkinson, 2008, p. 2)
notwithstanding, the English-language-teacher training curriculum described earlier was indeed
orientated towards reconciling rather than polarizing these two discourses, stating that a graduate
of the training program is supposed to be a proficient English-language teacher working in
Vietnamese educational contexts. Such reconciliation proved effective for Huyen, a female inter-
viewee with a strong belief that English did not constitute a threat to the Vietnamese language as was
a common concern:
We still learn Vietnamese language in second year . . . this afternoon we’re giving a presentation on Komensky,
who says that if we want to learn foreign languages, we need to have a firm grasp of our mother tongue in the
first place. (Huyen, first interview)
I think it’s not just Komensky, but also [Vietnamese Late-] President Ho Chi Minh. We’ve delivered a
presentation on his foreign language learning, and the topic was very interesting. The teacher also thought
highly of our conclusion, which claims that Ho Chi Minh was very good at foreign language learning, but he
also knows how to treasure and . . . always preserved the purity of Vietnamese. (Huyen, second interview)

From her educational experiences, Huyen was taught and cleaved to a strong belief that English
and Vietnamese actually co-existed in a complementary manner, in which foreign languages such as
English were never a threat but a support of Vietnamese in one’s language acquisition. The second
296 VU

educational experience centering around Ho Chi Minh, a famous Vietnamese role-model figure,
seemed to consolidate her conviction in the possibility of multicompetences, whereby one could
master different languages without sociocultural damage to any of them. It is here that she was in
direct contradiction with Chi’s bafflement regarding how one could be proficient in both English
and Vietnamese at the same time.
In a critical light and regarding the issue in question, Huyen’s education experiences could be inter-
preted at best as the advocacy of multicompetences in languages rather than the endorsement of code-
switching. In other words, this negotiation between nationalism and globalization discourses might
accommodate the development of both English and Vietnamese notwithstanding, it does not seem to
countenance English and Vietnamese being put on equal footings or in combination as in code-switching.
In fact, the political positioning of English as a foreign and supporting language to Vietnamese is discernible
in her response (e.g., “mother tongue in the first place,” “always preserved Vietnamese”), suggesting that
these experiences actually constituted the political outcome of Vietnamese education in general and the
English-language-teacher training curriculum in particular. Such hidden agendas that promulgate the
political status of English vis-à-vis Vietnamese, together with the nationalistic backlash discussed above,
continue to represent the most powerful tools constructed by the society in its resistance against code-
switching.

Conclusion
In the construction of one’s professional identity, different roles, selves, and identities could come into
play. This article foregrounds young pre-service English-language teachers in Vietnam and focuses on
2 of their identities—namely, the code-switcher identity formed in their lived culture and the moral-
guide identity constructed for them by Vietnamese culture and society. It then locates these identities
in two major discourses of nationalism and globalization to illustrate how these discourses and
identities could interact with one another to create push and pull forces confounding many preservice
teachers today. In this dilemma, the negotiation between these contradicting identities and contesting
discourses, whereby a certain space for code-switching, as opposed to a total abolishment or apprecia-
tion, could be constituted. Such continuity aligns with Phan’s (2008) theory by elaborating on how
different identities are interpreted, negotiated, resisted, and reconstituted in the construction of the
professional identity. However, a harmonious and efficient negotiation Phan (2008) found in her
empirical studies was not always evident for this group of participants. Certain cases where confusion,
uncertainty, and even failure to resolve these conflicts are indeed reported in this article to contribute
to Phan’s (2008) discussion regarding different levels of success and “mixture between the common
and the personal” (p. 111) in reconciling these contesting identities.
In terms of pedagogical implications, the article draws attention to a gap in the preservice English-
language-teacher training curriculum in Vietnam, in which many teachers-to-be were unaware of or
unprepared for sociocultural issues related to their professional development, in general, and the impacts
of English on their linguistic and sociocultural contexts, in particular. As discussed above, this gap led to
the confusion of certain preservice teachers when the question regarding the sociocultural impacts of
code-switching was posed to them and could result in social and personal conflicts, confusion, and
trauma when they confront similar linguistic and sociocultural issues in the future.
Regarding this issue, the recent development and introduction of the English teacher competency
framework by the Ministry of Education and Training in Vietnam is particularly noteworthy. This
framework specifies, among others things, that teachers should connect the real uses of English in
Vietnam to the English in the world (Vietnam’s National Foreign Language 2020 Project, 2012). This
suggests that code-switching, which represents a particular use of English in Vietnam, could also be
integrated and examined in the English-language-teacher training curriculum. Moreover, as it is also
mandated by the framework that preservice teachers should also understand the context in which English is
being taught, a grasp of contesting discourses and identities, such as those outlined in Figure 1, becomes
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY & EDUCATION 297

vital. It is this understanding that would raise a critical awareness of not only code-switching but also other
linguistic and sociocultural impacts of English on the local languages and contexts in the future.

Acknowledgment
The article is funded by the Monash University Postgraduate Publication Award scheme. The views expressed in the
article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the fund provider.

References
Abhakorn, R. (2003). Education and language choice in Southeast Asia. In J. Lindsay & T. Y. Ying (Eds.), Babel or
behemoth: Language trends in Asia (pp. 77–102). Singapore, Singapore: Asia Research Institute, National University
of Singapore.
Adamson, J., & Fujimoto-Adamson, N. (2012). Translanguaging in self-access language advising: Informing language
policy. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3, 59–73.
Bianco, J. L. (2003). The big picture. In J. Lindsay & T. Y. Ying (Eds.), Babel or behemoth: Language trends in Asia (pp.
21–42). Singapore, Singapore: Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore.
Bosworth, R. J. B. (2007). Nationalism (1st ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Canagarajah, S. (2003). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Oxford University
Press.
Cao, T. T. (2010). Vã mồ hôi “giải mã” tiếng lóng tuổi teen [Struggling with “decoding” teenage slang]. VietnamNet.
Retrieved from http://vietnamnet.vn/xahoi/201005/Va-mo-hoi-giai-ma-tieng-long-tuoi-teen-911455/
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research
(2nd ed.). NJ: Pearson Educational International.
Cvetkovic, V. B., & Lackie, R. J. (2009). Teaching generation M: A handbook for librarians and educators. New York,
NY: Neal-Schuman.
García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Ed.),
Social justice through multilingual education. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Gayle, J. K. (1994). The role and status of English in Vietnam. In A. Hassan (Ed.), Language planning in Southeast Asia
(pp. 283–300). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Dewan Gahasa dan Pustaka (Ministry of Education).
Gibson, W. J., & Brown, A. (2009). Working with qualitative data. London, UK: Sage.
Giroux, H. A. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hamano, T. (2008). Educational reform and teacher education in Vietnam. Journal of Education for Teaching:
International Research and Pedagogy, 34, 397–410. doi:10.1080/02607470802401693
Hoang, V.V., Nguyen, T.C., & Hoang, X.H. (2006). Đổi mới phương pháp dạy Tiếng Anh ở trung học phổ thông Việt
Nam [Renovating English language teaching methodology at Vietnamese high schools]. Hanoi, Vietnam: NXB Giao
duc & Dao tao.
Jenkins, R. (2008). Social identities (3rd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
Kachru, B. B. (2005). Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon. Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Kieu, K. A. H. (2010). Use of Vietnamese in English language teaching in Vietnam: Attitudes of Vietnamese university
teachers. English Language Teaching, 3(2), 119–128. doi:10.5539/elt.v3n2p119
Kramer-Dahl, A. (2009). Reading the “Singlish Debate”: Construction of a crisis of language standards and language
teaching in Singapore. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 2, 159–190. doi:10.1207/S15327701JLIE0203_2
Kramsch, C., & Whiteside, A. (2007). Three fundamental concepts in second language acquisition and their relevance
in multilingual contexts. Modern Language Journal, 91, 913–922. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00677.x
Le, V. C. (2012). Form-focused instruction: Teachers’ beliefs and practices: A case study of Vietnamese teachers.
Saarbrucken, Germany: LAP Lambert.
Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (2006). Group status and individual differentiation. In T. Postmes & J. Jetten (Eds.), Individuality
and the group: Advances in social identity (pp. 93–115). London, UK: Sage.
McLaren, P. (2007). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education (5th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Muysken, P. (1997). Code-switching processes: Alternation, insertion, congruent lexicalization. In M. Pütz (Ed.),
Language choices: Conditions, constraints, and consequences (pp. 361–380). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social motivations for codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
298 VU

Nguoi Lao Dong Online Newspaper. (2010). Mật ngữ và Anh ngữ 9X [Coded and English language of 9X]. Retrieved
from http://nld.com.vn/20100529122058459P0C1002/mat-ngu-va-anh-ngu-9x.htm
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. Harlow, UK: Longman Group.
Pham, H. H. (2005). University English classrooms in Vietnam. ELT Journal, 59, 336–338. doi:10.1093/elt/cci063
Phan, L. H. (2008). Teaching English as an international language: Identity, resistance and negotiation. Clevedon, UK:
Mutilingual Matters.
Phan, L. H., Vu, H. H., & Dat, B. (2014). Language policies in modern-day Vietnam: Changes, challenges and
complexities. In P. Sercombe & R. Tupas (Eds.), Language, education and nation-building: Assimilation and shift
in Southeast Asia (pp. 232–244). London, UK: Palgrave.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Simpson, A. (2007). Language and national identity in Asia: A thematic introduction. In A. Simpson (Ed.), Language
and national identity in Asia (pp. 1–30). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Spears, R., Ellemers, N., Bertjian, D., & Branscombe, N. R. (2006). The individual within the group: Respect! In T.
Postmes & J. Jetten (Eds.), Individuality and the group: Advances in social identity (pp. 175–214). London, UK: Sage.
Thanh Nien Online Newspaper. (2010). Ngôn ngữ tuổi teen: Chấp nhận được? [Teen language: Acceptable?]. Retrieved
from http://www.thanhnien.com.vn/News/Pages/201022/20100528101731.aspx
Thuan, N. B., & Thomas, M. (2004). Young women and emergent postsocialist sensibilities in contemporary Vietnam.
Asian Studies Review, 28, 133–149. doi:10.1080/1035782042000226684
Tran, N. T., & Reid, A. J. S. (2006). Introduction: The construction of Vietnamese historical identities. In N. T. Tran &
A. J. S. Reid (Eds.), Viet nam: Borderless histories (pp. 3–22). London, UK: University of Wisconsin Press.
Trần, T. D. (2007). Giáo trình lịch sử Tiếng Việt (Sơ thảo) [Coursebook on Vietnamese language history (Manuscript)].
Hanoi, Vietnam: Nhà Xuất Bản Đại Học Quốc Gia Hà Nội.
Treffers-Daller, J. (2009). Code-switching and transfer: An exploration of similarities and differences. In E. B. Barbara
& J. T. Almeida (Eds.), Cambridge handbooks in language and linguistics. Leiden, The Netherlands: Cambridge
University Press.
Turner, J. C., Reynolds, K. J., Haslam, S. A., & Veenstra, K. E. (2006). Reconceptualizing personality: Producing
individuality by defining the personal self. In T. Postmes & J. Jetten (Eds.), Individuality and the group: Advances in
social identity (pp. 11–36). London, UK: Sage.
Vallely, T., & Wilkinson, B. (2008). Vietnamese higher education: Crisis and response. Cambridge, UK: Harvard
Kennedy School: Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation.
Vietnam Institute of Linguistics. (2011). Thảo luận những vấn đề chung về chính sách ngôn ngữ và ngôn ngữ học tại
hội thảo ngôn ngữ học toàn quốc [Discussion on the overall language and linguistic policies at the national
linguistics conference]. VienNgonNguHoc. Retrieved from http://www.vienngonnguhoc.gov.vn/?act=Science&do=
Detail&nid=132
Vietnam’s National Foreign Language 2020 Project. (2012). Vietnam’s in-service ETCF. Hanoi, Vietnam: Ministry of
Education and Training. Retrieved from http://nfl2020forum.net/index.php/nfl2020/complete-versions
Vu, H. H. (2014). Tại sao giới trẻ ở Việt Nam lại chêm xen tiếng Anh vào tiếng Việt? [Why do young people in
Vietnam use expletive English words while speaking Vietnamese?]. VNU Journal of Science: Educational Research,
30(2), 11–18.
Vu, H. H., & Le, T. L. (2015). Problematizing “national identities” and “East-West dichotomy” through the language
practices and values of English language teacher trainees in Vietnam. In H. Zhang, P. Wing Keung Chan, & J.
Kenway (Eds.), Asia as method in education studies: A defiant research imagination (pp. 111–128). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Vũ, T. B. (2008). Biến thể mới của ngôn ngữ @ [New variations of @ language]. TienPhong. Retrieved from http://
www.tienphong.vn/Gioi-Tre/119427/Bien-the-moi-cua-ngon-ngu-.html
Wallace, C. (2003). Critical reading in language education. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.