Claire Kramsch

Definition:

Claire Kramsch (b. 1941) is a German-American applied linguist and professor emerita at the University of California, Berkeley, whose theoretical contributions center on the role of language in cultural identity formation, the concept of the “third place” as the symbolic space between L1 and L2 cultural identities, the multilingual subject’s unique position outside monolingual identity frameworks, and a sustained critique of the “native speaker” as the ideal model in foreign language learning—arguing instead that multilingual speakers occupy rich, complex, and legitimate identity spaces irreducible to either of their languages. Her major works include Language and Culture (1998), The Multilingual Subject (2009), and The Multilingual Educator (2021), and her influence has been central to the cultural and identity turns in applied linguistics and foreign language education from the 1990s onward.

In-Depth Explanation

The Third Place:

Kramsch’s concept of the “third place” (Kramsch 1993) describes the symbolic, intercultural space that emerges for individuals who have internalized two languages/cultures but belong fully to neither:

Native speakers of a language inhabit it as a cultural “first place” — a transparent, taken-for-granted lifeworld.
Learners of a second language inhabit an L2 cultural “second place” — perceived from the outside, with comparisons to the first.
The “third place” is neither — it is the intercultural position from which the speaker can reflect on both cultures with the critical distance of a “stranger” (Simmel’s sociological metaphor).

This concept resonated with applied linguists and educators because it reframed the goal of language learning away from assimilation to native-speaker norms and toward the cultivation of critical intercultural awareness:

Rather than aspiring to become an insider to the target culture, L2 learners develop a unique perspective — what Kramsch called the “subject position” of the language learner.
The third place is not a deficit — it is a vantage point from which both native cultures can be examined critically.

Language as Symbolic Power:

Drawing on Bourdieu (1991), Kramsch theorized language as symbolic capital:

Languages carry unequal symbolic power in social fields — English in globalized contexts, hegemonic national languages, elite vs. vernacular registers.
L2 learners must navigate not just linguistic but symbolic access to communities of practice — being accepted as a legitimate user of the language, not just a learner.
Native speaker gatekeeping: even linguistically competent L2 speakers may be excluded from legitimate participation by interlocutors who position them as permanent foreigners/learners.

The Multilingual Subject:

In The Multilingual Subject (2009), Kramsch shifted from cultural to psychoanalytic and phenomenological frameworks:

The multilingual person is not a collection of multiple monolingual systems — multilingual competence is a unique form of subjectivity, not reducible to L1 + L2 added together.
Drawing on Bhabha’s concept of hybridity and Lacan’s notions of the subject and language, Kramsch argues that multilingual subjects have access to symbolic resources unavailable to monolinguals — they inhabit multiple subject positions simultaneously.
Language learning is not merely cognitive acquisition but self-formation — learners construct and reconstruct their identities through the process of L2 learning.

Critique of native-speakerism:

Kramsch’s work contributed to the body of critique of the native speaker as the pedagogical ideal:

The “native speaker” is an idealization that conflates a particular regional, class-marked, educated variety with “good language” — prescriptivist, not descriptive.
Non-native-speaker teachers are systematically undervalued relative to native-speaker teachers in EFL markets, despite equivalent or superior pedagogical knowledge — a form of discrimination Holliday (2006) called “native-speakerism.”
Kramsch argued that the appropriate goal of language education is communicative competence across diverse interlocutors — not mimicry of a native speaker model.

Relation to Dell Hymes:

Kramsch’s work explicitly builds on Hymes’ communicative competence framework but extends it into the cultural and identity domains that Hymes’ structural ethnography did not fully address:

Hymes described what speakers must know to communicate appropriately — Kramsch asked: what kind of subject must the L2 speaker become, and at what personal and cultural cost?

Implications for Japanese L2 context:

The third place concept resonates particularly in Japanese L2 learning:

Japan has strong cultural ideologies of ethnic and linguistic homogeneity (単一民族論, tan’itsu minzoku-ron — now widely critiqued). Non-Japanese speakers of Japanese may face systematic exclusion from legitimate participation regardless of proficiency — structural native-speakerism at the cultural level.
Non-native Japanese teachers of English face native-speakerism in Japanese EFL markets — systematic preference for “native” English speakers regardless of pedagogical qualification.
The third place offers a reframing: Japanese learners of English can develop distinctive intercultural competence rather than aspiring to assimilate to American or British native-speaker norms.

History

1993: Context and Culture in Language Teaching — third place concept introduced.
1997: “The Privilege of the Nonnative Speaker” — PMLA article arguing for nonnative speaker legitimacy.
1998: Language and Culture — Oxford Introductions to Language Study; widely taught in applied linguistics programs.
2000s: Symbolic competence concept developed — ability to negotiate meaning across symbolic systems.
2009: The Multilingual Subject — phenomenological and psychoanalytic approach to multilingual identity.
2021: The Multilingual Educator — pedagogical applications of multilingual subject theory.

Common Misconceptions

“The ‘third place’ is a geographical or physical location.” It is a symbolic and psychological space — the interiorized position of intercultural awareness, not a specific community or location.

“Kramsch argues that L2 learners shouldn’t aspire to fluency or native-like competence.” Rather, Kramsch shifts the goalpost: fluency and accuracy are not the terminal goals, but neither is assimilation to the target native-speaker culture. The cultivation of critical intercultural competence and a reflective subject position is the richer educational goal.

Criticisms

Some SLA researchers have found Kramsch’s post-structuralist and psychoanalytic frameworks difficult to operationalize empirically — third place and multilingual subject are theoretically generative but hard to measure or test.
Her later work’s engagement with Lacanian psychoanalysis and phenomenology moved away from the applied linguistics mainstream and has been critiqued as inaccessible.
The third place concept has been applied so broadly by different researchers that it risks losing its theoretical specificity.

Social Media Sentiment

Kramsch is frequently cited in language teaching and TEFL circles when discussing motivation, identity, and the goals of language learning. Her critique of native-speakerism is particularly resonant with non-native English speaker teachers advocating for professional equity. “Third place” is frequently referenced — sometimes correctly as a theoretical concept, sometimes loosely as a general metaphor for bicultural identity.

Last updated: 2026-04

Practical Application

Encourage third place reflection in learners: Help Japanese learners of English articulate what their intercultural position gives them — access to two cultural perspectives, not just the aspiration to become an American or British native speaker.
Challenge native-speaker ideation in instruction: Discuss with learners why the native speaker norm is a historical and social construct, and what appropriate communicative models look like for international English users.
Context and culture as content: Integrate cultural analysis and intercultural reflection into language lessons — not just grammar and vocabulary, but the cultural meanings encoded in language choices and register.

Related Terms

Research

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford University Press. [Summary: Third place concept; language as cultural practice; foreign language education as intercultural education; critique of communicative language teaching’s neglect of culture; foundational for cultural turn in applied linguistics.]

Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford University Press. [Summary: Accessible overview of language-culture relationship for applied linguistics students; speech communities, culture and discourse, cultural representations in language; widely used in graduate applied linguistics curricula.]

Kramsch, C. (2009). The Multilingual Subject. Oxford University Press. [Summary: Phenomenological approach to multilingual identity; language as symbolic action and self-formation; Bhabha’s hybridity; Lacanian subject; multilingual speaker’s unique symbolic resources — theoretical synthesis of identity in SLA.]

Kramsch, C. (1997). The privilege of the nonnative speaker. PMLA, 112(3), 359–369. [Summary: Nonnative speaker perspective as a critical intellectual resource; reframing “non-native” from deficit to advantage; third place as epistemological vantage point; applied linguistics identity politics.]

Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385–387. [Summary: Native-speakerism definition and critique; structural discrimination against non-native teachers; ideological construction of the native speaker as superior model; directly complements Kramsch’s cultural and identity framework.]