NEOLIBERAL PERSONHOOD OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS AT a VIETNAMESE UNIVERSITY’S ENGLISH PROGRAM = CHỦ THỂ tân tự DO của NGƯỜI học CHUYÊN NGÀNH TIẾNG ANH tại một TRƯỜNG đại học VIỆT NAM

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF LINGUISTICS & CULTURES OF ENGLISH-SPEAKING
COUNTRIES

GRADUATION PAPER

NEOLIBERAL PERSONHOOD OF ENGLISH
LANGUAGE LEARNERS AT A VIETNAMESE
UNIVERSITY’S ENGLISH PROGRAM

Supervisor: Hoàng Thị Hạnh, Ph. D
Student: Nguyễn Nhật Lan Hương
Course: QH2017.F1.E1.SPCLC

HÀ NỘI – 2021


ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
KHOA NGƠN NGỮ VÀ VĂN HỐ CÁC NƯỚC NĨI TIẾNG ANH

KHĨA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP

CHỦ THỂ TÂN TỰ DO CỦA NGƯỜI HỌC CHUYÊN
NGÀNH TIẾNG ANH TẠI MỘT TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC
VIỆT NAM

Giáo viên hướng dẫn: Hồng Thị Hạnh
Sinh viên: Nguyễn Nhật Lan Hương
Khóa: QH2017.F1.E1.SPCLC

HÀ NỘI – 2021


ACCEPTANCE
I

hereby

state

that

I:

Nguyễn

Nhật

Lan

Hương,

class

QH2017.F.1.E1.SPCLC, being a candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Arts
(English Language Teacher Education - Honors Program) accept the requirements
of the College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper
deposited in the library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in

the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in
accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care,
loan or reproduction of the paper.
Signature

Nguyễn Nhật Lan Hương


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my
supervisor, Ms. Hoang Thi Hanh, for her vital guidance throughout the whole
research process. I would also want to send my appreciation to many other
teachers in the Faculty of Linguistics and Culture of English speaking Countries,
who have provided insightful feedback to help refine my arguments and writing. I
have learnt invaluable lessons thanks to their expertise, which were not only
crucial when conducting this study but also for future endeavors.
Besides, I am also very thankful for the ten fellow ULIS students who have
agreed to be the participants for this study. Their active cooperation, patience and
passionate sharing during the interview sessions have contributed greatly to the
smooth progress of the research.
Lastly, I want to send my thanks for the endless emotional support from
17E1 classmates as well as my family during this long and arduous journey. I
would not be able to get this far without them.

i


ABSTRACT
The pervasive effects of neoliberalism on English language education have
been well documented in literature, yet very few studies have addressed this

relationship in the Vietnamese local context, despite the current societal ‘craze’
about English learning in Vietnam. This study investigates how Vietnamese
English learners engage with neoliberal discourses in their learning and the extent
to which they embody the ideal neoliberal subject - based on Foucault’s
conceptualization. Participants are English majored sophomores who are studying
in a program developed from a neoliberal higher education policy named ‘Circular
23’ from the government. The findings reveal a considerable alignment to the
ideal neoliberal self presented in the English learners, who live in a society where
neoliberal trends like commodification of language and education are prevalent.
This alignment can be seen through their construction of higher education and
English education as human capital investment, and their striving towards being
competitive and autonomous selves, despite some exceptions uncharacterized of
neoliberal logic. At the same time, the data also unveil the students’ struggle,
especially of those disadvantaged, on the journey to realize their neoliberal
projects, as well as hints of negative impacts on their well-being and selfperception, indicating a need for further critiques and critical treatment towards
this phenomenon in the local context.

ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................ i
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................... v
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 1
1.1 Background of the study............................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the research problem and research questions.......................... 3
1.3 Scope of the study......................................................................................... 4
1.4 Potential significance of the study................................................................ 5
1.5 Organization.................................................................................................. 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................... 7
2.1 Neoliberalism, human capital, and Foucault’s concept of homo
oeconomicus........................................................................................................ 7
2.2 Neoliberalism and second/foreign language education - the case of English
..............................................................................................................................8
2.3 Language ideologies that correspond to the broader discourse of
neoliberalism..................................................................................................... 10
2.3.1 Language as pure potential................................................................10
2.3.2 Linguistic instrumentalism................................................................11
2.3.3 Linguistic entrepreneurship...............................................................12
2.4 Problematizing these neoliberal language ideologies.................................13
2.5 Review of relevant studies and research gap.............................................. 14
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY........................................................................... 19
3.1 Research setting...........................................................................................19
3.2 Participants.................................................................................................. 20
3.3 Data collection instrument: Semi-structured interview.............................. 21
3.4 Data analysis method: Thematic analysis................................................... 23
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS........................................................................................25

iii


4.1 The dominant neoliberal agenda on language and education.....................25
4.1.1 The commodification of higher education........................................25
4.1.2 The resignification of language: language as a measurable skill and
tied with economic benefits........................................................................27
4.2 The English learners: embracing or rejecting positioning as neoliberal
subjects.............................................................................................................. 29
4.2.1 English learners as human capital investors: calculation, risk-taking,
hope and frustration.................................................................................... 29

4.2.2 English learners in the classroom competition: motivation, stress and
insecurity.....................................................................................................31
4.2.3 The valorized “self-responsible, hard-working, resourceful” English
learners........................................................................................................34
4.2.4 English learners’ traits that do not align with the neoliberal agendas
.....................................................................................................................38
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION.................................................................................43
5.1 Discussion of the findings........................................................................... 43
5.2 Implications................................................................................................. 47
5.3 Limitations and suggestions for future studies........................................... 48
REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 51
APPENDICES..........................................................................................................60
APPENDIX 1.................................................................................................... 60
APPENDIX 2.................................................................................................... 63

iv


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
EFL:

English as a Foreign Language

ELT:

English Language Teaching

v

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
For the past few decades, with the emergence of knowledge-based and
service-based economy, the role of knowledge and skills has been increasingly
underscored in contemporary society, evoking interests from both governmental
and corporate entities. As a result, neoliberal discourse - the discourse of the
marketplace - has exerted its presence and control in various social practices. In
the field of education specifically, neoliberal logic has transformed the
constructions of teachers and learners’ identity, and of knowledge itself (Bernstein,
Hellmich, Katznelson, Shin & Vinall, 2015).
One particular education domain that has been under the pervasive
influence of neoliberalism is second/foreign language education. Few would deny
the edge that comes with competent communication skills, proficiency in an
additional language or multilingualism in today’s increasingly globalized world
and marketplace. That market demand has transformed the purpose of language
learning and how languages and language learning are perceived. Under
neoliberalism, which stresses the individual responsibility in liberating and
cultivating one’s own potential to achieve well-being and happiness, competency
in language, particularly in the case of English, is now dominantly viewed in the
dimension of human capital, and language learning is a special type of investment
that will bring valuable economic benefits for the learners (Holborow, 2018b).
These investments can be widely documented across the world, as
evidenced by the exponential growth of the global English Language Teaching
industry in past decades, or the focus of national educational policies towards the
teaching and learning of English. In the local context of Vietnam, the proliferation
of English could also be observed on different levels, starting from the
government’s orientation and investments on improving the quality of English
1

language education (Tran & Tanemura, 2020), to the individuals’ investments in
learning English, which could explain the impressive growth of the private English
language education business in Vietnam (Hewson, 2018).
From my insider viewpoint as both an English learner for the past 10 years
as well as a pre-service English teacher that is going to graduate within several
months, the social interest in English learning in Vietnam is currently at its height.
Apart from the inundated advertisements about English centers, English programs
across social media, there is also the establishment of an “English learning”
section in VNExpress - one of the most popular online news websites in Vietnam.
On VTV7 - a national educational channel of Vietnam Television, the programs in
English and related to English teaching have occupied a significant amount of air
time. One of the most notable programs is IELTS Face Off - a program to help
viewers improve their English in preparation for the IELTS test, and specifically
English rather than any other subjects - has enjoyed great popularity since its
launch and has been continued for six seasons up to October, 2020. The advantage
that comes with proficiency in English could also be clearly seen in the 2020’s
university entrance exam season, when many universities in Vietnam, including
the high-ranked ones, decided to use International English certificates as one
criterion to select which students to admit into their programs. This immense
popularity of English in the current timeframe gave me the inspiration for this
study, born out of my queries and contemplation over these dynamics.
This scenario of English learning in Vietnam can be likened to the trend of
commodification of language (Heller, 2003), that English is seen as an economic
asset and powerful tool that individuals should aspire to obtain, which directly
corresponds to language ideologies that are subjected to neoliberal logic. Many
studies have sought to scrutinize and critique its various implications on English
language learning and teaching, on the individuals and institutions that are affected

2

by it, and on the society at large, yet it is a topic that is rather under-researched in
the context of Vietnam.
This study is an attempt to address that gap. It has also sought out to
examine the multifaceted impact of neoliberal discourse towards English language
learning, with a special focus on learners, specifically university English major
learners, to explore the extent to which they embrace or reject the macro-level
neoliberal narratives.
1.2 Statement of the research problem and research questions
The research aims to explore how students - as English language learners may or may not come to embody the neoliberal narrative and act as a neoliberal
subject when it comes to their English learning at their university. Based on
recurring themes from empirical studies on language learning under the influence
of neoliberalism, the study specifically investigated their reflections on reasons for
pursuing English courses, their practices and experiences with English learning,
and their hopes and goals for their English study, following the conceptual
frameworks of Foucault’s human capital theory and homo oeconomicus. The
implications of students’ socioeconomic background and previous learning
experiences on the position they take as subjects with their English learning were
also taken into account, as the problematization of language learning under
neoliberalism has been associated with the social class structures in the society.
Specifically, the study seeks to answer the following research questions:
1. How did students choose to pursue English major and select their
program at university?
2. How do they perceive their English learning experiences and
expectations of their English learning?

3


3. To what extent do the students embrace or reject positioning themselves

as neoliberal subjects in relation to their English learning?
1.3 Scope of the study
This study investigated how English learners engage with neoliberal
discourses in their language learning by focusing on a group of English major
students who are in their second year learning English at an English program of a
renowned university for foreign language training in Hanoi, Vietnam.
Basing the context of the study on a higher education institution was my
deliberate choice, as it is one of the fields in which the manifestations of
neoliberalism can be seen clearly, including the dwindling state support and the
increasing emphasis on autonomy for institutes (Mok, 2003, 2006). Such a trend is
also evident in the Vietnamese higher education landscape, and the university in
this study is also among those that are transforming under the decentralization
process (Harman, Hayden & Pham, 2010), in which the institutions’ financial
autonomy is strongly emphasized, resulting in the increase of students’ tuition fees.
Besides, university students, being in the final stage before entering the
labour market, are also much more subjected to neoliberal narratives compared to
students in lower levels (Kromydas, 2017). This might be even more true with
students of the English program in this study, as this program follows the
requirements outlined in the Circular No. 23/2014/TT-BGDĐT of Vietnamese
Ministry of Education and Training on the development of “high-quality”
university programs in Vietnam. These programs differ from other mainstream
programs due to the emphasis on ensuring the graduates’ competitive edge to meet
the demands of the contemporary labor market, hence the name “high-quality.”
The tuition fees are also considerably (five times) higher than other mainstream
programs, following the institutional autonomy agenda in Vietnamese higher
education.
4


The accounts of students learning in the aforementioned English program,

their choice, practice, experiences and their expectations - in their university major,
were the main focus of the study.
1.4 Potential significance of the study
The study will offer in-depth insights into the way English language
learners interact with the dominant neoliberal discourses and the extent they
position themselves as neoliberal subjects in their language learning, adding to the
understanding of the intersections between language language education and
neoliberalism.
The findings will help stakeholders in EFL programs to critically reflect on
the how current social narratives, particularly neoliberalism in this case, have
impacts on their learners and teaching practices, as learning a language “involves
participation in the hegemonic discourses that circulate around and in that
language, yet also contains the potential to speak back to those discourses and to
use the language to counter them” (Bernstein et al., p. 13). Understanding the
current dynamics that neoliberalism influences on English language learning
would be the first step towards the transition to more critical perspectives and
pedagogies. They in turn provide the grounds for learners to “engage popular
media and mass culture as serious objects of social analysis and to learn how to
read them critically through specific strategies of understanding, engagement, and
transformation” (Giroux, 2004, p. 68).
1.5 Organization
Following this chapter, chapter 2 - Literature review - provides information and
analysis about the key concepts and the review of related studies. In chapter 3 Methodology, details about the research setting, participants, as well as data
collection and analysis process are included. While chapter 4 - Findings describes the study’s findings, chapter 5 - Conclusion presents the discussion of
5


the findings, implications and limitations of the study as well as recommendations
for further research.

6


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Neoliberalism, human capital, and Foucault’s concept of homo
oeconomicus
Neoliberalism can be understood as “a theory of political economic
practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating
individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework
characterized by strong private property rights, free markets and free trade”
(Harvey, 2005, p. 2). In the institutional level, neoliberalism entails the alignment
of state policies with corporate principles that place the central focus on the
competitive market (Klein, 2007; Foster, 2016). This study, however, focuses on
interpreting neoliberalism at an individual level, which means considering
neoliberalism as a hegemonic, pervasive mode of discourse that has been so
embedded into “the commonsense way we interpret, live in, and understand the
world” (Harvey, 2006, p. 145). As Foucault, Davidson and Burchell (2008)
pointed out, the generalization of economic rationality thrives under neoliberalism,
becoming “a principle of decipherment of social relationships and individual
behavior” (p. 262), even permeating its influence over phenomena and domains
that are inherently non-economic. With this perspective, neoliberalism could be
understood as a form of governance, involving mechanisms and techniques to
orient people’s behaviors and practices to the best economic interests (Webb,
Gulson & Pitton, 2014). The neoliberal worker is “not the object of capitalist
exploitation but is a rational subject who aims to benefit from the future exploits
generated by her own capital” (Van Doorn, 2004, pp. 357–358). Individuals have
also been responsibilized to undertake the investments and risks that are the
typical responsibilities of the state (Pulsford, 2019).
Neoliberalism, with its paramount importance placed on individuals’
freedom of choice in an unrestricted market, has also produced a new ideal subject.

7


To understand this subject position and map how the participants as English
learners in this study align with it, Foucault’s concept of homo economicus and
human capital (Foucault et al., 2008) was employed, as a useful tool to investigate
and interrogate neoliberal ideas and practices (Gormley, 2020).
In neoliberal agendas, homo oeconomicus (an economic man) is “an
entrepreneur, an entrepreneur of himself [...] being for himself his own capital,
being for himself his own producer, being for himself the source of [his] earnings”
(Foucault et al., 2008, p. 226). To detail further, this subject is expected to be
rational with reality, as in being sensitive to the environmental changes, and know
how to adapt systematically to these changes, which at the same time makes him
easily manipulatable and governable (Foucault et al., 2008). The traits like being
autonomous, flexible and innovative are also valued in this ideal figure (Besley &
Peters, 2007).
As it is the site that helps cultivate the acquired elements of one’s human
capital (Foucault et al., 2008), education has long been a domain that is under
great influence by neoliberal agendas. Through the neoliberal lens, education in
general is meant to enhance human capital, to make people productive in terms of
value and cost (Holborow, 2018b), and commonly characterized as an individual
good, with the public good visible only as an accumulation of individual benefits
(Olssen, 2000, as cited in Pulsford, 2019). The special focus of this study is
devoted to the current scenario foreign language education, particularly of the
English language, where the links with neoliberalism are easily observable.
2.2 Neoliberalism and second/foreign language education - the case of English
In the neoliberal age, the concept of human capital has been extended to all
human capacities, even including those intrinsically connected to identity like
language (Holborow, 2018b). In fact, in this globalized era, language and culture

have been constructed as important components of human capital, and turned into
8


commodifiable resources. This demand for worker’s communication skills and
multilingualism have risen due to the changes in global economy, including the
ability to cross borders, the emergence of international norms, the increasingly
culturally and linguistically diverse workplace, the need for global-scale product
marketing (Heller, 1999).
According to Gray, O’Regan and Wallace (2018), neoliberalism is also a
linguistic phenomenon, which entails both the language of neoliberalism itself and
the role of certain languages under neoliberalism. Language of neoliberalism
refers to the way public discourses as well as everyday speech have been
dominated by market-related terms such as accountability, competitiveness,
efficiency, and profit, which Holborow (2012) termed as “neoliberal keywords”
and suggested that they “have special meanings and associations within the
framework of neoliberal ideology and reflect a version of reality which promotes
the interests of capital” (p. 41). What this research specifically focuses on,
however, is concerned with the role of individual languages under neoliberalism.
Under neoliberalism, there is the ‘resignification of language’ (Flubacher & Del
Percio, 2017, p. 7) that strips language from its traditional roles (for meaning
making, communication and identity expression, access to and appreciation of
culture and ideas, etc). Language is turned into a monetary or symbolic value and
evaluated under the instrumental lens, which elevates the market as the basis for
decision making on which, when, where, to whom and how language is learnt and
taught, as it all depends on what could give learners the competitive edge
(Bernstein et al., 2015). This shift in the view of language is relevant with English,
which has taken up the important role of a global lingua franca. The global spread
of English, as well as the emergence of a global ELT industry has led to not only
the valorization of English in various national education systems around the world,

but also the valorization of monolingual instrumentalism in inner circle countries -

9


which can explain the increasing lack of interest in learning other languages in the
UK and the US (Gray et al., 2018).
With the act of choosing and learning a language being considered as an
investment by itself, rather than a choice of personal preference and desire to
explore new languages and cultures (Bernstein et al., 2015), language learners turn
into entrepreneurs and consumers, that through the management of their
“enterprising-self,” learners contribute to the economy with their language skills
and at the same time working towards maximizing their self-interests (Rose, 1998).
As summarized by Bernstein et al. (2015), “second/foreign language education,
like education more broadly, has not only been influenced by neoliberalism; it has
been responsible for reproducing many of its discourses” (p. 6).
2.3 Language ideologies that correspond to the broader discourse of
neoliberalism
Regarding the resignification of language mentioned above, I would like to
outline several language ideologies that have emerged under the view of
neoliberalism. According to Silverstein (1979), language ideologies are “beliefs
about language articulated by the users as a rationalization or justification of
perceived language structure and use” (p. 193). The perspective allows the study
of language as embedded in the historical, economic and sociocultural contexts
where it is used (Irvine, 1989), which opens up the possibilities to investigate the
systems of belief that both influence and are influenced by language use (Van Dijk,
2000).
2.3.1 Language as pure potential
Language as pure potential refers to “a view of language as a completely
neutral tool for conveying messages in an unadulterated way, a pure medium of

potentiality that allows a speaker to achieve anything she wishes to” (Park, 2015, p.
2). Under neoliberalism, this idea of language as transparent medium is actively
10


embraced, as it conceptualizes the notion that learning a language can remove the
constraints of one’s culture and community, and other imposed boundaries, so that
the speaker can explore better opportunities, realize one’s latent potential and
become the ideal version of oneself. It fits in with the neoliberal narrative, as
language learning is an investment that ensures one’s human capital “can be
geographically and culturally maximized” (Park, 2015, p. 5) It is noted that the
efforts and investments one puts into language learning become just as important
as their actual language proficiency, as it shows the alignment with the ideal
neoliberal subject - one who constantly works to improve herself and maximize
the value of human capital.
2.3.2 Linguistic instrumentalism
Linguistic instrumentalism refers to a view that a language's usefulness in
fulfilling instrumental goals like economic growth or social mobility is what
justifies its existence in a community (Wee, 2003). On the contrary, a noninstrumentalist view of a language is when its function in a society is strictly
restricted to its symbolic value of maintaining one’s ethnic or cultural identity
(Wee, 2003). Instrumentalist and non-instrumentalist functions of a language can
coexist, yet it is argued that practical value of a language regarding the
possibilities it could bring in terms of social mobility and economic gains is what
ensures a language’s survival, rather than its sentimental attachments (Edwards,
1985).
The discourse of linguistic instrumentalism is commonly associated with
English and the emphasis on teaching English - a global lingua franca and a
language representing global competitiveness in non-English-speaking countries
(Phillipson, 2008) - and it has permeated all its related practices, ranging from
language policies to language teaching and testing industries. Teaching English

has turned into a commodity that brings economic gains for the language schools,

11


the textbook designers, the testing service and other individuals involved in the
process of providing the services to customers - the learners (Kubota, 2011).
2.3.3 Linguistic entrepreneurship
This ideology is related to the emergence of enterprise culture that stresses
the importance of qualities like sturdy individualism, self-reliance and
entrepreneurship (Evans & Sewell, 2013). Certain related characteristics and skills
like autonomy, creativity, flexibility, team working and leadership are also valued,
as it prompts individuals to become independent rather than rely on support from
others, responsible for their performance and adaptable in the scenario of changes
and competition - all that are necessary in today’s marketplace (Gee, Hull &
Lankshear, 1996). Therefore, one does not have to start up in order to become an
entrepreneur, since many identities today are now viewed under the lens of
entrepreneurship so that they can be “an entrepreneur of himself or herself” (Ong,
2006, p. 14).
According to De Costa, Park and Wee (2016), linguistic entrepreneurship is
defined as “an act of aligning with the moral imperative to strategically exploit
language-related resources for enhancing one’s worth in the world, and a linguistic
entrepreneur is an actor who demonstrates such alignment” (p. 1). This definition
emphasizes the way neoliberalism not only transforms our view of language into a
type of resource that can be exploited, but also “makes such exploitation an ethical
imperative where becoming a linguistic entrepreneur is seen as the responsibility
of an ideal neoliberal subject” (De Costa et al., 2016, p. 2). It is in this way that
renewed importance has been attributed to language learning, that it is not only for
the purpose of material gains, but the act of learning the language itself could
already demonstrate how one is a good neoliberal subject, an “entrepreneur” who

takes initiatives in cultivating their human capital. De Costa et al. (2016) states
that linguistic entrepreneurship can manifest through the learner’s motivation for

12


language learning and the learner’s mode of language learning in which traces like
resourcefulness, active risk-taking, persistence, hard work, and eagerness to
overcome all difficulties in the language learning journey can be found in a learner
who actively embraces linguistic entrepreneurship.
2.4 Problematizing these neoliberal language ideologies
Holborow (2018b) points out four different problematic aspects in applying
the human capital theory to language skills, including: 1) the difficulties to
accurately measure language(s) as an economic asset; 2) the incapability of
language skills to ensure absolute earning premia for all multilingual speakers; 3)
the inherent structural inequalities which make it impossible to fairly reward to
language skills in terms of earnings; and 4) the negative effect that economic
recession have on the presumed benefits of language as human capital.
The assumption that language can be an abstract and neutral
communication system is what problematizes the valorization of language as an
important index of a neoliberal subject. Kutoba (2011) noted that ideologies like
linguistic instrumentalism are “folded in complex and contradictory ways into
social stratifications between men and women, regular workers and non-regular
workers, native speakers and nonnative speakers, and white people and people of
color.” (p. 259) Moreover, language is bound to “play a part in indexing and
reproducing the social constraints and social differences that the neoliberal subject
is expected to transcend” (Park, 2015, p. 5), as English itself can be part of those
constraints to begin with. It is deeply intertwined with structures of class, since
access to English language learning opportunities is largely conditioned by
socioeconomic class, as well as geographical space.

Downplaying this social embeddedness of language will lead to the
obscuring of inequalities that the reality of neoliberalism brings. Those who
internalize the logic of neoliberalism and are led to see any difficulty they
13


experience in the harsh job market as their own fault (Park 2010, 2011), even
though it is simply not possible to evaluate learned language abilities, while
bracketing out the speaker and her sociolinguistic histories. It is interesting to note
that, however, that certain practices associated with the strong emphasis on
learning English nowadays, actually confirm that people are aware of the social
embeddedness of language, evidenced by the preference for learning from native
speakers or native-like context, implying that certain geographical locations (i.e.
inner circle countries) are associated with more valuable forms of linguistic capital
(Park, 2015).
Neoliberalism, through its emphasis on individual responsibility, treats
traces of social conditions of language learning in a speaker’s English as the
efforts and resources (or the lack thereof) that one invests to make them become
ideal neoliberal subjects (Park, 2015). This in turn rationalizes the perpetual
pursuit to better one’s English, justifying the endless investments that are poured
into the process (De Costa et al., 2016). With similar mechanism, neoliberal
language ideologies could lead to the normalization of immense stress and
competitiveness, which could lead to serious consequences like anxiety, suffering
and invalidation of one’s self-worth due to the overemphasis on the ability to
competitively overcome challenges in language learning (De Costa, 2015; Piller
& Cho, 2013).
2.5 Review of relevant studies and research gap
The hegemonic discourses of neoliberalism have left its coercive impacts in
virtually every corner of the world; therefore, research on its influence on
language learning has also been documented in various contexts. In the USA, an

inner-circle country, studies were conducted to examine the implications of
neoliberal language ideologies in a program for adult refugee learners of English
(Warriner, 2016), or analyze the traces of neoliberalism in principals’ description

14


of their dual language programs, and how it could lead to the exclusion of certain
types of English learners (Bernstein, Katznelson, Amezcua, Mohamed, &
Alvarado, 2020). In another country that is linguistically and culturally diverse
like Singapore, the effect of neoliberalism can be spotted on the government’s
discourse of linguistic instrumentalism that emphasizes the role of English in the
economic and technological development of the country, while other mother
tongues are regarded as strictly traditional and cultural (Wee, 2003). For countries
that English is taught as a foreign language, there have also been a great number of
studies that critique the situation of language learning under the dominant
neoliberal narrative. For example, Kubota (2011) depicted how the instrumental
prospects of English learning fail to materialize in the workplace, problematizing
the neoliberal language ideology of linguistic instrumentalism in the Japanese
workplace. Many researchers have also conducted research to inspect the way
neoliberalism is deeply embedded in English language learning in Korea, as
evidenced by studies that explore the trend of early childhood English education
“jogi-yuhak” programs in Korea and its implications (Shin, 2016), how English is
perceived as a tool for social reproduction in youth online discourse (Choi, 2021),
how English learning is associated with competitiveness, stress and insecurity
under neoliberalism influences (Piller & Cho, 2013).
Different perspectives have also been gained with attention being paid to a
multitude of aspects. Some studies have outlined the overall picture and provided
commentary of the dynamics and interactions of English learning and
neoliberalism in the current social landscape of a particular context (Park, 2015;

De Costa et al., 2016; De Costa, 2019). While some have sought to examine macro
neoliberal agendas with English teaching and learning from a top down
perspective by looking into state language policies and related official documents
and talks (Wee, 2003; De Costa, Park & Wee, 2019), many have set out to
scrutinize how such a macro hegemonic rhetoric has permeated into various

15


aspects and discourses related to English language learning and its implications,
including English textbook analysis (Copley, 2018; Babaii & Sheikhi, 2018;
Gray, 2010; Xiong & Yuan, 2018), teachers and administrators’ construction of
English and their learning program (Warriner, 2016; Bernstein et al., 2020); how
students and teachers manage and carry out their English language learning and
teaching in a way that conform to neoliberal goals and motivations (EnnserKananen, Escobar & Bigelow, 2017; Giustini, 2020; Bacon & Kim, 2018);
reflection of the elusive gains that English learning can bring to adult individuals,
as opposed to the public neoliberal discourse (Kubota, 2011; Park, 2011).
Regarding local contexts, the foreign language education in Vietnam,
including English, has always been largely connected to the political and
economic contexts of different periods (Le, 2006). Throughout the years,
especially since the ‘Doi Moi’ in 1986, with Vietnam restructuring its economy to
a more market-oriented one and opening its door to the global economy, English
has obtained a higher status in Vietnam (Doan, Pham, Pham & Tran, 2018). It can
be seen through the different Prime Minister’s directives related to foreign
language education in 1968, 1994 and 2008. While English was simply regarded
as a minor foreign language, a language of the West in the 1968 directive, the
1994 Directive, which specified the requirement for English training of
Vietnamese’ government officials and staff, gave English a superior status.
English was then considered as an important medium for Vietnam’s economic
development, facilitating Vietnam's international partnership and access to

advanced knowledge and technology (Prime Minister, 1968, 1994). In 2008,
another Prime Minister’s Decision (No. 1400/QĐ-TTg) further reinforced the
importance placed on English (Prime Minister, 2008). The guidelines aimed to
introduce English as a compulsory subject at primary school from Grade 3 instead
of Year 6 like before, and English could also be used as a means of instruction in
secondary schools and tertiary education (Doan, Pham, Pham & Tran, 2018). The

16


Vietnamese MOET also made a large-scale investment of 500 million dollars in
the implementation of the National Foreign Languages 2020 Project, which aims
to ensure students’ command of English before leaving school, even though it has
failed to achieve its goals before the deadline of 2020 (Tran & Tanemura, 2020).
The rapid rise of the private English education industry in Vietnam is also a clear
indicator of the popularity of English, as learners seek opportunities to improve
their English via private education services to compensate for the shortcomings of
the public formal classrooms (Hewson, 2018).
English now functions as a gatekeeping tool in Vietnam’s society,
particularly with education and employment opportunities, for example, English
proficiency is an important criterion for getting a job or career promotion (Phan,
2005; Le, 2006). Ngo, Spooner-Lane and Mergler (2015) pointed out that although
English majors had more intrinsic motivation, the dominant motivation for both
majored and non-majored English learners at university was still for future
employment. It is clear that on an individual’s level, the learning of English in
Vietnam has been traditionally viewed in the instrumental lens, linked with good
income, security and happiness in the future.
While the association of English with its symbolic power is not new in
Vietnam, there has yet been much research that explores the link between English
learning and neoliberal agendas in the local context, despite its pervasive effects

on the learning beliefs and practices. As I have detailed in the introduction, the
particular scenario of English learning in Vietnam for the past few years is
certainly, in my opinion, more noteworthy compared to before. We can witness
the rise of credentialism, seen in the development of a English national TV
program named after a popular international English certificate (IELTS Face-off),
or the use of English international standardized certificates in the admission
process of many Vietnamese universities. The invasiveness of English learning
can also be felt rather clearly, with the prosperity of English private education
17