This paper explores the construction of identity in an academic learning environment in Central Mexico, and shows how identity may be linked to non-language factors such as emotions or family. These issues are associated with elements of hybrid identity. To analyze this we draw on language choice as a tool used for the construction of identity and for showcasing and defending identity through exploratory interviews with the bilingual students and teachers. The results draw our attention towards the role of non-linguistic variables and their relationship to emotional and contextual issues that influence how academic writing occurs within the school confines, where hybrid identities may be constructed for academic purposes.

Este artículo explora la construcción de identidad en un medio de aprendizaje en el centro de México y muestra cómo la identidad puede estar relacionada con factores no lingüísticos, como las emociones o la familia. Estos factores están asociados con aspectos de identidad híbrida. Para analizar esto, nos basamos en la elección de lengua del usuario como una herramienta para la construcción de la identidad y para ilustrar y defender la identidad en entrevistas a fondo con alumnos y maestros bilingües. Los resultados atraen nuestra atención hacia el papel de variables no lingüísticas y su relación con factores emocionales y contextuales que influyen en la manera como ocurre la redacción en segunda lengua en la escuela, en donde las identidades híbridas pueden ser construidas para propósitos académicos.

Identity in many aspects is shaped by language and conversely, language choices may relate to identity. Identity, in fact, like language, is both personal and social. Social identity denotes the various ways in which people understand themselves in relation to others, and includes the ways in which they view their past and future lived experiences, and how they may want to be viewed. The shaped self employs language as a tool for making its presence felt. Thus a person's world-view is inextricably shaped by the language he or she decides to use (Miller, 1997; Olinger, 2011). The interaction of identity and language is a reality in a context such as the University of Guanajuato, where students are required to learn English in the university in order to obtain a degree. On the other hand, teachers are required to write in Spanish to maintain their employment. In other words, users are required to use a second language to fulfill social obligations.

The capacity of language as a symbol of individual identity cannot be overemphasized. This is possibly the most important feature in Mexican society, where English has a strong political feature powerfully shaped by the tense historical political relationship with the United States (Crawford, 2007, 2010). Early in life we individuals begin to use language to define our personalities in relation to each other, and later in life we continue to make use of language to define ourselves and the various roles we play in the community (Cheng, 2003; Waseem & Asadullah, 2013). Added to this in Mexico, both countries have a powerful on-going political/linguistic relationship (Condon, 1997). When people move into a context where the norms and practices are different from their own, it is to be expected that newcomers will learn the prevalent norms and values in order to achieve some degree of integration into the new language environment, and to enhance their ability to communicate and interact (Mills, 2002; Mok & Morris, 2010; Mokhtarnia, 2011). These adjustments may imply changes in self-perception as an author in an academic context.

Haugen (1956) notes that language use is influenced by the attitudes and values of users and non-users (that is, those who refuse to use) of the language, both as an instrument of communication and as a symbol of group identity. Individual attitudes towards a language will impact, for example, on the value placed on the language, and invariably, on how much of it may be used by first language speakers or learnt by second language speakers. In other words, the status of the language in a particular society also influences the attitudes of speakers as well as non-speakers.

Wherever languages are in contact, one is likely to find certain prevalent attitudes of favor or disfavor towards the languages involved. These can have profound effects on the psychology of the individuals and their use of the languages.

In the final analysis these attitudes are directed at the people who use the languages and are therefore inter-group judgments and stereotypes (Haugen, 1956). When two languages come into contact, usually one language is dominant over the other (Spolsky, 1998). In the case of this study we have a situation where English is the dominant language because of institutional choice (Crawford, Mora Pablo, Goodwin, & Lengeling, 2013), but in practice "the language now belongs to those who use it . . . whether in its standard form or local forms" (Kachru & Smith 1985, p. 210). As we are viewing, for this study, the language as an object that belongs to the user, there is no theoretical framework that is directing or orienting the data. We are allowing the data to shape and mold the process in the form of discovery through blurred genres in the tradition of Geertz (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). The reason for this is that bilingual writers are by definition placed into a category of being hybrid. Hybrids by definition are a complex group to understand. "In offensive parlance and in racist discourse, expressions in the meaning of the term 'hybrid' are used to often characterize persons of mixed racial or ethnic origin" (Wagner et al., 2010, p. 232). In TESOL (Teaching of English to Students of Other Languages) hybrid is frequently used in a reductionist manner to label non-native or bilingual writers as inferior in some sense (Holliday, 2005; Kubota, 2002). Research on psychological essentialism provides the following definition of how essence is thought about in everyday life and its painful connotations to people:

The same authors later make reference of the term essence and its relation in the following:

As mentioned in the introduction, both students and teachers are dealing with the condition of being considered hybrid in the academic space. This circumstance of existing academically in a space that is socially constructed as hybrid brings consequences that are not necessarily dealt with directly in the course of academic work in the classroom, but are present in the social spaces where academics are performed. This situation also tends to determine to what degree a student or teacher may feel "attached" or "detached" to a given language. The act of

The debate centers on how "attachment/detachment" is viewed in relation to our attitude towards knowledge and is reflected primarily in the relation between the writer and the reader (Mora Pablo, 2011; Vassileva, 2001). Our writing performance and debate occur in Central Mexico in a public university.

We are interested in this research professionally in the sense that second language research is part of our practice in the world of academics. Another concern is the effectiveness of our program and the learning process of our students in the development of their academic writing in English during their BA studies. One question we ask ourselves continuously is if the training we give our students aids them along their journey to become part of an English academic writing community. In particular, we refer to the processes outside the realm of language, but directly involved in the transition of becoming a second language writer. Therefore, following a qualitative paradigm, we wanted to know how participants became second language writers. According to Maycut and Morehouse (1994), "qualitative research examines people's words and actions in narrative, or descriptive ways closely representing the situation as experienced by the participants" (p. 2).

Participants

The eight participants in the study were selected purposefully in order to allow for representation of the different student types at the University of Guanajuato, specifically, within the two academic teacher training programs: a BA in TESOL and a BA in Spanish as a Second Language. The bilingual professors and students participated in the data gathering process as both researchers and participants. Nevertheless, there was a specific intent to select strong bilingual writers for the study because, in essence, they do not fit the classical model of identity and writer.

Technique: In-Depth Interviews—Multivocality

In-depth discussions with the participants was used. As Madriz (2000) points out, it brings into the research process a multivocality of participants' perceptions and experiences. Through this method, personal emotions and opinions with regard to participants' cultural backgrounds, educational backgrounds, attitudes toward other languages, and bilingualism are explored. The data collection consisted of individual recorded interviews following a semi-structured initial interview format taken from Ivanic (1998) that focused on the construction of authorial identity. Later, the follow-up interviews took on a more open and flexible pattern that emerged naturally. Interviews were chosen as a research tool because they can generate useful information about a lived experience and its meaning. Denzin and Lincoln (2005) refer to interviews as conversations and that an interview is "the art of asking questions and listening" (p. 643). However, interviews are influenced by the personal characteristics of the interviewer, including race, class, ethnicity and gender (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). The objective of these interviews was to know more about their experiences in writing, not only in their native language, but also in other languages and to know if they perceived a preference for either one of the languages. The participants had the opportunity to select in which language they would like to be interviewed. Later, discussions with the co-researchers/respondents were carried out in-depth and added to the discussion. This discussion allowed us to interact directly with participants and provided opportunities for the clarification and extension of responses and follow-up discussion (Stewart & Shamsadani, 1990). This method is not new to either mainstream linguistics or feminist linguistics (Cameron, 1997).

Multiliteracies

The creation of a second language writing identity is a complex issue that involves decisions at many levels. These decisions affect the individual on both a personal level and on a collective level in the sense of what groups he/she identifies with and how he/she is accepted within circles (Busayo, 2010). In our context, our students are faced with a situation of being forced to acquire a second language writing identity in order to complete their undergraduate studies and the teachers are required to adopt a second identity to comply with academics inside the workplace. These requirements place them in a dual, forced multiliteracies situation. Matsuda, Canagarajah, Harklau, Hyland, & Warschauer (2003) mention the presence of multiliteracies in the following:

Beside the assimilation of the literary complexities of the current globalized world, our students are also faced with the obligation to acquire a second "identity" as writers at a higher educational level. This necessity implies a complex set of emotions and situations which requires decisions that are interconnected beyond the defined boundaries of the university, where social definitions play a strong role in how identity is viewed. Table 1 provides a profile of the participants' backgrounds for the study.

There are two major themes which emerged from the data. One is an internal emotional battle within the writer. The other is a sense of loss in some cases and in others a sense of discovery in which the writers feel either "attached" or "detached" from a language.

The Authors' Emotional Battles

As non-native writers, we must learn the hard way. Most of us feel that we are going to be judged stricter than native speakers. Rebecca explains that academic writing is something that you learn. Her own process led her to get more than acquainted with experts in the field of writing. Rebecca is aware that for her, the output of her writing must come with a pure French style. Having discussed this with her colleagues, we all have the perception of becoming "perfect" in what we write and how we do it. Most of us started our writing processes by reading and becoming familiar with the different writing conventions. Rebecca explains:

Rebecca is conscious of who her audience is and writes in a totally different way compared to her own language (Spanish), and she is aware that even writing in her own language is difficult. Rebecca is Mexican and her postgraduate education has been acquired in France. Her own process is to know that it is through reading that one can become an expert at writing. Once again, as non-native writers, we feel that we have to write perfectly in order to fit in.

As already mentioned, non-native speakers-writers tend to first get acquainted by reading in order to start writing. We follow the experts and by doing so, we are somehow "copying" their style and trying to be part of a community that to start with is not ours due to the differences in the languages. The following student participant states:

Or this other student participant comments:

Perhaps we become better at doing something when we receive feedback. We can see from these three participants that asking somebody to read their work helped them to improve their writing. As non-native speakers we must feel comfortable with the "first audience" and, ideally, the first audience must be a native speaker since we think that this person knows more about what is trying to be learnt. We feel that this person is ready to give the appropriate feedback in order to help us grow as writers. This growth is often seen as learning how to manage a set of foreign conventions.

Writing may be seen as adhering to a set of writing conventions yet part of the writing process involves the person who is writing. When the person writing is taken into account in the forefront, then the building of a recognizable identity becomes important. Within the data we found the emerging theme of the writers' emotions, whether they write in their native language or another language. One of the emotions found was a lack of security or an attempt to overcome the lack of security when writing. The following research participant explains how she feels:

From the above excerpt we can see how the journey for this person to learn how to write has been long and at times filled with some setbacks. Perhaps this person felt vulnerable at the beginning but through experience she has become more confident as an academic writer. This person distances herself when explaining her setbacks and uses you as a way to include others in her setbacks and perhaps make a generalization.

The abovementioned excerpt was from a native English speaker and the following is from a non-native English speaker whose native language is Spanish. Both are academics and researchers. She writes academically more in her non-native language than in her native language. Interestingly she writes nostalgically about how she feels more comfortable with English instead of Spanish in the following quote:

Perhaps this teacher feels guilty that she is more at ease with English than her native language. Her use of a specific language for academic writing seems to be related to the fact that she has had many years of education in English and also the fact that she has to write in English for her career. Yet it is clearly expressed that something has been lost or maybe modified—from something pure to something hybrid. Another student comments on how he felt when he realized he had problems in Spanish, his native language. This realization seems in tune with what the above teacher commented on and represents their bilingual identities. The student mentions:

Both the teacher and student are bilingual people, yet English is more dominant in their academic writing. They seem to feel more at ease in English. Another student, whose native language is French, mentions how she would feel if she had to write in her native language should she decide to pursue a Master's in France in the next excerpt:

Again we see how the second language (L2) has become more dominant for these people. This student realizes that she has adapted herself as a non-native speaker to be able to write in another language other than Spanish and she expresses how she feels about the possibility of writing in her native language: anxious. Again, this implies that the person may have lost something in the process of assimila-ting another language for the purpose of writing.

Another teacher/researcher uses the word rebel when describing himself. In the following data he seems to defy what the norm for academic writing is.

According to him, this disobedience is a way for him to question the authority of the norms of academic writing. This behavior could be part of his personality or even the result of a lack of confidence. At the same time it could also be just the act of academic writing which is "supposed" to create debate and discussion, but from the data so far it would seem that the controls of academic writing may be more about forcing conformity rather than generating diversity. Also, this situation might be an attempt to not lose fragments of identity, while transitioning to another language.

Another teacher explains how she approaches academic writing and her emotions in the following:

There are a number of emotions that this teacher expresses when she talks about how she has learned to write, the process of academic writing and the descriptions she uses. For her, writing is a solitary act that cannot be pressured. There is a sense of torment if she does not have the conditions she wants when writing. Studying a doctorate helped her in her process of becoming a more confident academic writer. Within this excerpt we also see her describe herself as disciplined, yet timid.

Regarding the opinions of students, the following student of the BA in Teaching Spanish as a Foreign Language program uses the words "freer" and "move around" to describe how she feels about academic writing in Spanish.

This student expresses how much more confident and independent she feels when writing in her own language. It should be mentioned that this student began her studies in our BA in TESOL program but changed to the BA in Teaching Spanish as a Foreign Language program because it was closer to what she wanted to do. Perhaps writing in her own language played a part in her decision-making towards writing and changing degree programs. This particular participant went on later to say in an informal conversation that English "is like putting on a straightjacket" and it (English) makes her lose her identity as a person when she is writing.

In this section we have seen how teachers and students have felt about learning to write academically in their own language or in another language. What is clear is that the process is complex and varies from one person to another and emotions seem to play a part in this complex process as well as identity shifting. The interesting point that the data seem to suggest is that issues concerning learning and language seem to be in the forefront of the decision-making process. The choice of language and its link to the person's identity takes on an emotional role and the language shift or the decision to write in a second language appears to be based more on need than desire.

Identity Lost or Discovered: A Sense of Attachment and Detachment

For most participants, language choice is a symbol of identity and in that sense they seem to choose a language based on their writing abilities and their contexts. All participants are bilingual or multilingual and this characteristic helps them mediate identities and engage in a number of situations. This is where the sense of "commitment/detachment" becomes relevant to the data analysis because there were some participants who mentioned a very precise manner of attaching feelings and meanings to one language. The following excerpt mentions this aspect:

This participant seems to have divided his repertoire based on how he feels when writing in one language or another. Since he has lived most of his life thus far in an English speaking country (15 years), he feels more confident with English. Even when he recognizes that Spanish is his first language, his own life experiences have shaped the way he perceives these languages. He continues explaining how he feels in Spanish:

He says his Spanish "is not academic" since he learned and used Spanish at home while he studied English formally at school. This seems to be the source of this distinction and in his current role as a BA student; he has made clear the uses and purposes of using English or Spanish.

Another participant, who is from France, shows an array of multiple languages: French as her first language, but also there is competence in Spanish, Italian, German, and English. She is currently studying for a BA in Spanish and has been exposed to the "Mexican way" of writing essays. She explains how she perceives this in the following extract:

She evaluates the way she has improved her writing skills in Spanish; however, she admits that her style is "European". She also points out that "the Mexican way of writing" is disorganized and does not follow a structure. She makes a comparison: "Spanish is more disorganized and French is more concise" (Melissa). Even when this participant might be influenced by other languages when writing in Spanish, she seems to reveal how she perceives French as "superior".

Another student participant, whose first language (L1) is Spanish, makes a distinction between English and Spanish. She is studying for a BA in Spanish but has also studied English for a number of years:

This idea of being more redundant in Spanish has made a difference in the way she perceives one language. The manner with which she approaches a piece of writing in either language is connected to how she feels in one language or the other.

The "freedom" this student participant refers to when writing in Spanish might be linked to the fact that she has been trained and encouraged to give more details in Spanish than in English. She makes reference to one particular moment in which she was taught that English "is more direct:"

This observation seems to show that students are in a constant ambivalent relationship between what they want to do in writing and what the conventions in a language dictate. Even more, what they are taught in classes. Also, the manner in which a language is perceived places these participants in a continuum of stereotypes formed not only by what they have experienced but also by what they have been taught.

However, these feelings are not exclusively the students'. Teachers are also in an ambivalent position when referring to language choice. In order to choose a language, they face similar issues, but also the professional side has influenced the way they perceive the languages and their own identities when writing in one language or the other.

One researcher participant explains how she learned to write in her second language while working in an administrative position and how she thinks she is a different person when writing in her L2 (Spanish):

This change in identity when writing in her L2 seems to have no conflict with her identity in L1. On the contrary, she seems to have added another identity to her existing one. They are not against each other, but it seems that each one of them has a particular purpose and aim.

This is not always clear for all participants. Another researcher participant expresses confusion when defining his native language for writing:

Moreover, the same participant seems to have created a link between the language and its purpose and sometimes it seems to be flowing between the personal and professional sides:

Each language seems to have its purpose and it has been given meaning related to identity. This has encouraged the transformation and recreation of the individuals' linguistic repertoire and they seem to be able, at this point in their lives, to attach meaning to the languages in a clearer manner.

The professional side has also affected language choice in some participants. In a context where their L1 (Spanish) is not frequently used, they have accommodated their linguistic repertoire to the circumstances. The following example from another researcher participant points out this accommodation:

Even when her L1 is Spanish, her academic life has taken her to write in her L2 (French). As she points out, lately, she has been writing in Spanish and it has been difficult to re-learn to write in her L1. This can be seen in the following extract from a different participant researcher:

This may even take on the extreme position of almost apparent complete rejection of the writing process as Roberto, a student, states with almost hints of anger:

The detachment is such that it might seem to some that the language serves him little purpose. It is as if there were no real connection between him and the language in terms of academic writing. This internal process has an impact on the writer as a user of the language.

These participants once experienced the difficulties of learning a second language, but now that second language has become their dominant one. They have experienced a detachment of their own first language and are aware of it. Joining a new academic community has brought some changes in their language choice. They have appropriated a specific discourse as well as conventions and roles, but their identities remain a mixture of acceptance of and resistance to one language or the other according to their circumstances. What appears to give rise to the internal conflict in the writing process appears to be associated more with emotional or internal aspects of the individual rather than issues of knowledge about the conventions of writing.

The above data place the writers in an unusual situation. It is as if they were almost unsure at times of whom they are: "I don't know what my native language is for writing" (Cody) and "it is like confusion now in my mind" (María), or maybe even complete rejection as it seems to be the possible conclusion. The elements that surround the construction of authorial identity on the surface are debated in terms of educational and professional choice by the individual as if they were exclusively a conscientious decision (Ivanic, 1998). Yet the data here are taking on a different direction that moves into a path of emotional turmoil, which in turn leads to a sense of attachment and detachment of the individuals, where internal elements are in a state of movement depending on what, where, and with whom they are writing. This does not suggest a disagreement with the cumulative work of researchers (e.g., Clark & Ivanic, 1997; Connor, 1996, 2002; Ivanic, 1998), but more of a door opening that shows that bilingual writers do not experience identity in exactly the same way as do monolingual authors. Moreover, the underlying difference is not about linguistics, rhetoric, or cultural patterns, but more of a personal issue of choice linked to professional or academic need. This need is often then transcended into a social space where issues of hybridity circulate as a peripheral form of classification of the writer, which in the future entangles the location of identity. This occurrence places the author in an unusual position where, on the one hand, there is a sense of being less because of hybridity and on the other a sense of conclusion depending on the degree of attachment or detachment to a given language.

This finding creates an internal conflict or clash. The participants are dealing with an internal struggle where two languages are at odds with each other. The clash seems to be a battle ground where "emotions" and "need" are placed in front of the user. Clearly, each user has made a choice as to which language she/he prefers to use. Nevertheless, as María said: "it is like confusion now in my mind," and even though a choice has been made it does not mean that the other language has, in a complex manner, completely left the author's identity.

The above implies that we need to focus our attention less on linguistic and rhetorical factors in writing as occurred in the past. Now, in this global world, we need to look closer at emotional issues and professional requirements that are in a constant state of change as we cross back and forth through the linguistic, emotional, educational, and professional boundaries of our societies.

Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 759-775.         [ Links ]

Busayo, I. (2010). Identity and language choice: 'We equals I'. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 3047-3054.         [ Links ]

Cameron, D. (1997). Performing gender identity: Young men's talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity. In S. Johnson & U. H. Meinhof (Eds.), Language and masculinity (pp. 47-64). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.         [ Links ]

Cheng, W. (2003). Intercultural conversation. Amsterdam, NL: Benjamins.         [ Links ]

Clark, R., & Ivanic, R. (1997). The politics of writing. London, UK: Routledge.         [ Links ]

Condon, J. C. (1997). Good neighbors: Communicating with the Mexicans (2^nd ed.). Yarmouth, MA: Intercultural Press.         [ Links ]

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.         [ Links ]

Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 493-510.         [ Links ]

Crawford, T. (2007). Some historical and academic considerations for the teaching of second language writing in English in Mexico. MEXTESOL Journal, 31(1), 75-90.         [ Links ]

Crawford, T. (2010). ESL writing in the University of Guanajuato: The struggle to enter a discourse community. Guanajuato: University of Guanajuato.         [ Links ]

Crawford, T., Mora Pablo, I., Goodwin, D., & Lengeling, M. (2013). From contrastive rhetoric towards perceptions of identity: Written academic English in Central Mexico. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 15(1), 9-24.         [ Links ]

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). (Eds.). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3^rd ed.). London, UK: Sage Publications.         [ Links ]

Haugen, E. (1956). Bilingualism in the Americas: A bibliography and research guide. Alabama, US: University of Alabama Press.         [ Links ]

Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.         [ Links ]

Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.         [ Links ]

Kachru, B. B., & Smith, L. E. (1985). Editorial. World Englishes, 4(2), 209-212.         [ Links ]

Kubota, R. (2002). The impact of globalization on language teaching in Japan. In Block, D. & Cameron, D. (Eds.) Globalization and language teaching (pp. 13-28). New York, NY: Routledge.         [ Links ]

Madriz, E. (2000). Focus groups in feminist research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, (pp. 835-858). London, UK: Sage Publications.         [ Links ]

Matsuda, P., Canagarajah, S., Harklau, L., Hyland, K., & Warschauer, M. (2003). Changing currents in second language writing research: A colloquium. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(2), 151-179.         [ Links ]

Maycut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophical and practical guide. London, UK: Routledge.         [ Links ]

Miller, J. (1997). Second language acquisition and social identity. Queensland Journal of Educational Research, 13(2). Retrieved from http://iier.org.au/qjer/qjer13/miller2.html        [ Links ]

Mills, S. (2002). Rethinking politeness, impoliteness and gender identity. In J. Sunderland & L. Litoselliti, (Eds.), Gender identity and discourse analysis (pp. 69-90). Amsterdam, NL: Benjamins.         [ Links ]

Mok, A., & Morris, M. (2010). An upside to bicultural identity conflict: Resisting groupthink in cultural ingroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1114-1117.         [ Links ]

Mokhtarnia, S. (2011). Language education in Iran: A dialogue between cultures or a clash of identities. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1998-2002.         [ Links ]

Mora Pablo, I. (2011). The native speaker spin: The construction of the English teacher at a language department at a university in Central Mexico (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury.         [ Links ]

Olinger, A. R. (2011) Constructing identities through "discourse": Stance and interaction in collaborative college writing. Linguistics and Education, 22(3), 273-286.         [ Links ]

Spolsky, B. (1998). Sociolinguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.         [ Links ]

Stewart, D. W., & Shamsadani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. London, UK: Sage.         [ Links ]

Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 83-102.         [ Links ]

Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Nagata, M., Sen, R., Holtz, P., & Flores Palacios, F. (2010). Essentialist theory of 'hybrids': From animal kinds to ethnic categories and race. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13(4), 232-246.         [ Links ]

Waseem, F., & Asadullah, S. (2013). Linguistic domination and critical language awareness. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 799-820.         [ Links ]

Troy Crawford, (BA) Southern Oregon University, (MS) University of Guanajuato, (MA TESOL) University of London, (PhD) University of Kent, Canterbury. He has worked in ESL for 30 years at the University of Guanajuato and is a member of the Mexican National Research System focusing his research on identity in second language writing.

Martha Lengeling works at the University of Guanajuato and holds an MA TESOL (West Virginia University) and a PhD in Language Studies (University of Kent). She is the Editor of the MEXTESOL Journal and currently is a member of the Mexican National Research System. Her areas of research are teacher training and teacher identity formation.

Irasema Mora Pablo is a professor at the University of Guanajuato, Mexico. She holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics from the University of Kent, UK. She has conducted research in bilingualism, Latino studies, identity formation and native and non-native teachers and published chapters and articles in Mexico, the United States, and Colombia.

Rocío Heredia Ocampo, (BA) University of Guanajuato, (MA TESOL) University of Auckland, has worked in ESL for 18 years. She currently collaborates in the BA TESOL program and ESL program in the University of Guanajuato.