Blog Post #12: Socially Sensitive Pedagogy

McKay and Bokhorst-Heng’s Chapter 7 summarized much of the information found in previous chapters and provided some principles for socially sensitive EIL pedagogy.  As I read these principles, I was particularly struck by the following: “EIL curricula should be relevant to the domains in which English is used in the particular learning contexts” (195).  Understanding educational context is important to providing students with effective language instruction.  A teacher must understand how English in used within a specific context and also find out what motivates students to learn English.  However, a teacher must also realize that his or her educational context is simply one of many.  For that reason, a teacher should be flexible enough to examine the ways that English is being used in a variety of contexts.  As educators become more and more aware of cultural and linguistic issues involving multilingualism, globalization, othering, and language ideologies, teachers will become more sensitive toward their students.  I think that one way teachers can become more sensitive is to simply observe their students.  Observation can provide insight into how students learn and interact with each other.  In addition, teachers can ask their students to share their stories and experiences.  This information could help teachers understand students’ expectations and motivations for learning English. 

The experiences of the authors of “Appropriating English” support McKay and Bokhorst-Heng’s principle about making EIL curricula relevant to learning contexts.  In fact, Lin et al. claim that English is “a resource for glocalized communication where the global and local divide dissolves in the situated appropriation of a global means by local social actors for local purposes” (312).  In other words, local context is just as important (perhaps even more important) than the global context in which English is used.  For that reason, I think context should dictate how English is taught in a specific place.  For example, the code-switching practices in Wendy’s classroom helped her develop confidence.  The reading and translation methods used by Nobu’s teacher helped him gain interest in English.  Angel’s English diary gave her an opportunity to explore her identity in a safe space.  As a teacher, I want to help students learn English in a way that can be meaningful for them.  I agree with Wendy that “helping learners relate to each other in the target language and develop the confidence to use the language as their own should be the primary objectives for second language teaching” (305).  In order to do that, I plan to make an effort to understand students and their educational contexts, as well as adapt my teaching methods to meet their needs. 

On a side note, I was intrigued by Lin et al.’s suggestion to change TESOL to TEGCOM (Teaching English for Glocalized Communication).  Lin et al. claim that TESOL “assigns dichotic Self-Other subject positions to teacher and learner…continuing the colonial storyline” (311).  Although I had not thought critically about the term TESOL before, I can now understand how it might not be the most accurate way to represent the field of English language teaching. 

Blog Post #11: Globalization's Influence on Language Education

As globalization and the use of World Englishes increase, an English instructor’s pedagogical choices also increase. Because so many different varieties and contexts for English exist, it is difficult for educators to choose which English variety (or varieties) to teach. Instructors must determine not only what is appropriate for the context in which they are teaching, but also which linguistic information their students must know in order to use English in other contexts in the future. With this issue in mind, I appreciate Matsuda and Matsuda’s suggestion to “teach the principles and strategies of discourse negotiation” (372). This focus on discourse negotiation can provide students with strategies to adjust their writing to fit a variety of different situations. By analyzing a rhetorical situation (including audience, purpose, and genre), students can develop an awareness of how the decisions they make as writers can affect a reader’s view of their writing. Students can then use this knowledge to either conform to or challenge the privileged discourses of the powerful.

Kubota’s article shed more light on the issue of globalization and its impact on language teaching. She describes how globalization has created the discourse of kokusaika in Japan, which “blends both Anglicization and nationalism” (27). This discourse promotes an essentialist view of cultures and encourages a strong Japanese national identity. However, it unfortunately fails to pay attention to ethnic and linguistic diversity in both Japan and other parts of the world. As a result, Japan’s JET program tends to favor white English teachers from North America or Britain, thus perpetuating the idea that native speakers, particularly those who align to stereotypes, are the best teachers. Although I believe that English education should focus on diversity within the English-speaking population, I find it interesting that the educational systems in Japan actually use English as a foreign language to promote nationalistic perspectives. Kubota reveals that kokusaika helps Japan “claim its power in the international community through Westernization,” as well as “express and explain unambiguously Japanese points of view in the world while maintaining Japanese identity” (17). I find it sad that this discourse does not allow multiple perspectives or focus on diversity, yet I think this Anglicization-nationalism hybrid is very creative. The Japanese seem to have recognized the power of discourse, and rather than challenge the discourse of the powerful (Western nations), they have embraced this discourse and used it to promote their own cultural and national identity.

Of course, the problem with this discourse is that it fails to promote any type of cultural or linguistic pluralism. As a language educator, I want my students to understand that language is never cut and dry. By teaching students to take a rhetorical approach to language, as I mentioned earlier, I hope that I can empower them to both critically analyze English and use it in a way that will empower them.

Blog Post #10: Standard vs. Nonstandard English

As I read Lippi-Green’s chapters about the abstractions of non-accent and standard language, I was fascinated to learn that everyone speaks with an accent. There can be L1 and L2 accents, as well as accents that stem from linguistic varieties within the same language. Because language always changes, it is impossible to maintain a single standard variety of language. McKay and Bokhorst-Heng provide several examples of language variation, including idioms, discourse styles, hybridization, and grammatical features. However, Lippi-Green asserts that “in spite of all the hard evidence that language must be variable…people steadfastly believe that a homogenous, standardized, one-size-fits-all language is not only desirable, it is truly a possibility” (44). McKay and Bokhorst-Heng also recognize this issue and state that ideological assumptions guide the view of what is considered “standard” (139). I think that the value placed on “standard English” can frustrate and discourage English language learners, as well as devalue speakers of nonstandard English, such as James Kahakua in Hawai’I (Lippi-Green 44-45). As a teacher, my job is to encourage students to understand differences within a language rather than tear them down for using nonstandard variations in their speech.

I have taught several adult students who have told me that they hope to speak English like a native speaker someday. (By saying “native speaker,” they refer to someone who speaks standard English rather than AAVE or another dialectal form.) Although the desire to attain native-like language ability can motivate some students, it’s often quite frustrating when adult students discover that they no longer have the tools necessary to build the standard English Sound House that Lippi-Green describes. No matter how fluent their English becomes, these students will always speak with at least a slight L2 accent. I try to encourage these students to improve their pronunciation insofar as it helps them communicate clearly; I also tell them that they should not worry about having an L2 accent. Yet even as I say that, I know that they will be judged according to the way they speak. As Lippi-Green says, “the standard/non-standard dichotomy is so firmly entrenched both in the literature and in the minds of the speakers, it is not possible to simply replace it” (61). Even if a student’s L2 accent is not strong, some native English speakers may use it as an excuse to marginalize or misunderstand the student.

These issues surrounding the abstraction of standard language made me think of a conversation I recently had with a man from India. I had heard some people pronounce his name in two different ways, so I asked him how to pronounce his name. Instead of telling me the pronunciation, he simply told me that some people say it one way and some people say it another way. So I then asked him which way he preferred. He told me that either was fine, but because I felt the pronunciation of a name was important, I decided to push him to tell me which way he pronounced it. I was surprised to find out that neither pronunciation people used matched his pronunciation of his name! He told me that he thought his name might be too foreign-sounding to Americans, so he chose not to correct anyone who pronounced his name incorrectly. In other words, his pronunciation of his name did not follow what he viewed as the standard English pronunciation. Although this example deals with a name rather than a specific word or linguistic feature, I think it supports the idea that speakers of “nonstandard” English can devalue their own way of speaking in light of the emphasis placed on “standard” English. As a teacher, I think my challenge will be helping students recognize language variations and maintain an open-minded attitude toward speakers with these variations. Ultimately, I want my students to focus on communication without promoting hierarchies among language.

Blog Post #9: Politics and Language Education Policies

Chapters 2 and 3 by McKay and Bokhorst-Heng identify and discuss many of the issues that occur in English language education in many parts of the world. The authors specifically address concerns as they relate to Inner Circle, Outer Circle, and Expanding Circle countries. Inner Circle countries often see linguistic diversity as problematic, so they typically promote English without emphasis on learning or maintaining other languages. Outer Circle countries promote English proficiency for educational purposes; however, these countries often lack consistency in providing equal English learning opportunities. Additionally, Outer Circle countries, such as India and South Africa, may find themselves limited by diglossia, which affords English a higher status than other languages spoken in the country. Expanding Circle countries, on the other hand, struggle with motivating learners and teachers who lack confidence in their English proficiency.

As I read these chapters, I was struck by the differences in how English education can be approached. I also found it sobering to realize how heavily politics and government initiative influence the actual teaching and learning that take place in schools. For example, extreme differences exist in how England and the United States handle English education. England promotes mainstreaming of EL students and does not support bilingual education. Language policy makers believe that they can encourage a pluralistic society by avoiding the segregation of minority students. Although I can understand this desire for student integration, I also believe that some problems could arise from the desire for linguistic assimilation. Students, particularly new arrivals, could feel forced to give up their native language. Because language is associated so closely with one’s identity, students may feel identity conflict and end up resisting use of either English or their native languages. Additionally, educators could view students as lacking linguistic competence, rather than recognize them as already highly proficient in one language and in need of help transferring their skills to another language. The United States, on the other hand, approaches English education differently. American policy makers worry less about segregation and focus more on an EL student’s language develop prior to entering a mainstream classroom. Although I can agree that students need at least some basic understanding of English to feel confident in a mainstreamed classroom, I can also see some problems with removing students from their peers. Pull-out ESL classes could further stigmatize or encourage otherizing of EL students. So, in conclusion, I cannot agree fully with either country’s approach to English education. I think that, ideally, English education would cater to students’ individual needs. For some students, that may could a pull-out class. For others, that could mean full mainstreaming. However, in reality, problems exist no matter what type of educational system is in place. As a language teacher, my job is to be as sensitive to students as possible in spite of inequalities or disadvantages presented by the educational system. I believe that I can respect students’ linguistic and cultural background, as well as support student English language learning. Because I am not familiar with every language and culture, I cannot actively help every student maintain his/her native language and culture; however, I can learn from my students and encourage them to develop an identity that integrates multiple languages and cultural influences.

Blog Post #8: The Power of English

This chapter by McKay and Bokhorst-Heng deals with English and its role in a globalized society. English originally spread as a result of colonialism and is now the most common second language in the world. McKay and Bokhorst-Heng emphasize the power of English, mentioning that it is the “most valuable linguistic capital” (8). People can choose to learn English for a variety of reasons, including economic and educational advancement, as well as mass media reasons (music, advertising, movies, etc.).

As I read about this phenomenon, I was struck by the fact that English holds such a powerful and dominant status among other world languages. Many English language learners believe that no matter which other languages they speak, fluency in English is necessary to be successful. I experienced this attitude first-hand when I lived in South Korea and taught conversational English for adults. Some of my students worked for international companies, others were university students hoping to study abroad, and still others were recent graduates who desperately hoped to improve their English (and their TOEIC scores!) in order to gain an edge in an extremely competitive job market. Few, if any, studied English for fun. My students told me that English skills are necessary for them to advance in society. People with fluent English are admired, and more and more English words are being adopted into Korean, particularly in relationship to pop culture (for example, “sexy,” “star,” and “coffee”). English immersion preschools and kindergartens are gaining in popularity, and students feel a lot of pressure to develop English fluency at an early age.

As an English teacher, I am excited about the opportunity to provide students with linguistic capital that will help them succeed; however, teaching English (particularly EFL) seems more complicated when I consider the potential societal ramifications. In many places, including South Korea, effective English language instruction may be limited to the socially elite or those with money. As McKay and Bokhorst-Heng explain, “participation in this English-education market is not within the reach of those with fewer economic assets” (24). Could my teaching simply reinforce the class barriers and economic divides caused by English education? Or could my teaching challenge these issues by making students aware of how privilege and language can shape society? Hopefully, my teaching will tend toward the latter. I truly believe that my goal in teaching English is to help students develop as not only successful users of language, but also as socially and culturally aware human beings.

I think it’s also interesting and important to note that individuals may choose to accept or reject English for political or cultural reasons. For example, people in previously colonized countries may try to actively eliminate linguistic imperialism by promoting local languages rather than English. McKay and Bokhorst-Heng consider this phenomenon to be due to the “agency of individuals” (7). As an English teacher, I obviously recognize the value in learning English; however, I hope that I can also respect the choices and autonomy of those who choose not to promote English education. I believe that linguistic diversity is a beautiful thing, so I want to support people who try to preserve their native languages in order to reject the linguistic influences that threaten their ways of life. However, on the other hand, I also recognize that globalization does not give advantage to remote or unpopular languages. So English language development (or development in other popular world languages) may be necessary for these individuals to participate on the world stage. As with any other aspect of life, balance is crucial, and there must be some way for societies to balance the local language(s) with English as a lingua franca.

Blog Post #7: The Power of Images

As I completed the readings for this week, one important concept stood out to me: the power of visual text and imagery. Some people say a picture’s worth a thousand words, and given the evidence provided by Taylor-Mendes and Holliday et al., I think I agree with that saying. Taylor-Mendes’s article shed light on the use of images in EFL textbooks to perpetuate racial and cultural stereotypes. She claims that these images show race as divided by continent, often offering favorable portrayals of wealthy white people and displaying black people as poor and powerless. These images help comprise the dominant discourse of power that Holliday et al. define as “ways of talking and thinking about something which have become naturalized to the extent that people conform to them without thinking” (46). Holliday et al. provide multiple examples of how the media promotes essentializing and othering through their use of language and images in news reports, cartoons, etc. So, I can only imagine how difficult it must be for EFL students to develop accurate impressions of English-speaking countries. As educators, I think we have to do our best to help students become critical consumers of information. We can provide counter discourse to challenge the cultural and racial misconceptions that get passed on through our textbooks and media resources.

After doing the readings this week, I decided to test Taylor-Mendes’s claims about images in textbooks, by examining a variety of English textbooks that I currently use as resources for my teaching. Even though I don’t teach in an EFL context, I was curious to find out if the books I have reflect Taylor-Mendes’s findings. Approximately half of the books did indeed match what she had described. I saw pictures of African Americans standing outside of a homeless shelter, Asians walking through a crowded subway station, and white men involved in an official business meeting. Some of these textbooks even showed pictures of people in segregated settings (for example, African Americans interacting with each other instead of with a mixed racial group). However, I was happy to find that the other half of my books seemed to portray a wide variety of races interacting with each other in a wide variety of settings. For example, I noticed pictures of African Americans graduating from college and Southeast Asians enjoying fine dining in a fancy restaurant.

Later, after looking at my textbooks, I thought about all the video clips that I use to teach. (I often show students short clips from TV sitcoms, movie trailers, and/or news programs.) Even though I consciously try to choose clips that portray racial groups and cultures in an equitable way, I realize that I am also a victim of naturalized discourse. For example, I recently taught a lesson on fashion and showed my students a short clip from a Project Runway fashion show. I paused the clip frequently, and students practiced using new vocabulary to describe what the models were wearing. All in all, it was a successful lesson; however, I realized later that all of the models were white—and I didn’t even think about their race as I chose to use the video in class! I wonder what kind of message that sent my students (none of whom are white) about beauty in the United States.

As a teacher, I want to follow Holliday et al.’s advice to “take a critical stance towards our taken-for-granted ways of understanding the world (including ourselves)” (191), and I think carefully choosing images for students to see is a good place to start. I may not be able to replace all the textbooks I use, but I can make students aware of what the images portray and how those portrayals may or may not be accurate.

Blog Post #6: ELF - Teaching Implications

As I completed the readings this week, I was struck by all the potential implications that English as a lingua franca (ELF) can have on English language instruction. In “The Cultures of English as a Lingua Franca,” Baker points out that English has moved beyond a single target language and culture to encompass a variety of cultures and communicative skills. In fact, “English-native-speaker pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary choice are inappropriate in lingua franca settings” (568)! Baker also claims that English is no longer strongly connected to the culture of traditional English-speaking countries. For this reason, it’s important for English teachers to recognize that English language learners often use English as a medium of communication with people who are members of multiple cultures and discourse communities. Baker gives the example of Nami, who does not follow native English speaker conventions but instead constructs her own conventions as “those of a ‘new generation’ in Thailand” (579). This example made me think of my Korean friends who have adapted English to allow them to express their culture through what they term “Konglish.” They might directly translate titles of respect, saying “my senior” to refer to an older classmate, or address a teacher as “Teacher” instead of “Ms. So-and-so.” Sometimes they might even create non-standard English vocabulary, such as “skinship” (the act of being “touchy-feely”). I think it’s important for English teachers to recognize these non-standard uses of English as serving specific communicative purposes. We can’t label these uses of English as definitively right or wrong because they depend on cultural communicative practices; however, we can help students critically analyze the language they are using and determine which types of language might be appropriate in various settings.

Marra’s article, “Recording and Analysing Talk Across Cultures,” sheds light on how the teacher as researcher can function in an ELF classroom. Marra’s research methodology reflects the importance of “insider knowledge when interpreting interaction” (316). In addition, Marra recognizes that effective communication depends heavily on the context; therefore, her research has to be conducted in “a way which is culturally framed, and which acknowledges a Maori worldview” (309). Just as an understanding of culture is necessary for Marra to interpret her data, I believe an understanding of students’ cultures and unique uses of English is necessary for teachers to interpret communication with students.

McKay and Bokhorst-Heng address further implications of ELF, stating that grammatical and phonological features of ELF differ from those of traditional standard English (160-162). ELF speakers are beginning to abandon small parts of English grammar that do not affect meaning. For example, they might drop the third person present tense –s, omit articles, overuse common verbs, etc. These grammatical changes don’t usually affect understanding; however, ELF speakers are more likely to have communication breakdowns due to pronunciation differences. For this reason, McKay and Bokhorst-Heng suggest addressing language functions, such as asking for clarification or repetition. I agree that these types of language functions are foundational for English language learners, and I hope to incorporate them into the first few lessons of English courses that I teach—particularly the classes with students who speak a variety of L1s.

Question: Keeping in mind that English is a lingua franca, does anyone have any ideas about how we can practically adapt lessons to meet different language goals of students? (For example, in a single classroom, there could be students who want to learn English for international business with other non-native speakers, students who want to study abroad, students who want to use English to travel internationally, etc.)

Writing Across Borders: Issues of Fairness

As I watched Writing Across Borders, I was not surprised by the ways in which culture and L1 writing conventions influence writing in an L2. I have tutored many international students in college-level writing, and many of them struggle with learning the conventions of academic English writing. Students must not only become familiar with standard academic writing, but also learn about what writing conventions are acceptable in their individual disciplines. Different citation styles, reader expectations, and organizational focuses can seriously confuse students who are trying to transfer their knowledge of L1 writing into an L2. Just yesterday, a friend of mine who is a TA in the crop science department at the U of I, mentioned how difficult it is for him to fairly assess international student writing because he often gets confused by non-linear organization and sometimes significant grammatical errors. He wants to give students a fair grade based on the content of their essays; however, writing conventions can get in the way of his ability to understand and interpret the content. Grading international student writing alongside the writing of native speakers can provide some very real challenges.

I thought the video gave some great suggestions for approaching international student writing fairly. Because American writing classrooms often deal with topics that are highly politicized and often controversial, it is important for teachers to recognize that international students might not be familiar with these issues. In other cases, dealing with these controversial topics (particularly topics which might be taboo in other countries) could make them very uncomfortable and inhibit their ability to write effectively. As a writing instructor, I hope I can give students flexibility when choosing topics to write about, as well as refer them to resources about topics, if necessary. I don’t plan to lower my standards, but as the video suggested, I will predict the difficulties that my students might have and prepare to make accommodations for them, as needed.

Blog Post #5: Cultural Discourse and Rhetoric

This week’s articles by Ryuko Kubota focus on cultural discourse and how this language can be used to establish and/or maintain power. Even though cultural determinism (emphasizing cultural differences according to an essentialist perspective) is widely accepted and difficult to escape, Kubota claims that we must “critically understand cultural representations as particular truth or knowledge constructed by discourse” (“Japanese Culture Constructed by Discourses” 15). Cultural understanding cannot exist outside of discourse, yet we can critically examine this discourse in order to understand power relationships among cultures. With an awareness of discourse, we can start to combat colonial mindsets, such as Otherness.

(I also found it interesting to learn that cultural groups can also use discourse to their own advantage, as illustrated by Japanese theories of nohonjinron and nihon bunkaron. I was aware that colonizers used discourse to maintain power, but I was surprised to see that discourse was also used in response to Western dominance.)

I agree with Kubota that English teachers need to be careful about connecting their students’ actions with social and ideological values of a certain culture. Kubota maintains that “power…is not unidirectional, nor is discourse monolithic” (“Japanese Culture Constructed by Discourses” 22). In other words, discourse is multi-facted. As English teachers, we should feel challenged to help our students develop awareness and think critically about the functions and purposes of cultural discourse. We should respect our students’ linguistic backgrounds in order to help create equality. We should give students an opportunity to critically analyze their own languages, as well as English. I believe that if we help them, they can develop an understanding of the discourse of power in order to negotiate and create their own individual identities in the midst of (and perhaps in spite of) cultural determinism and Orientalism.

I think this is where the idea of contrastive rhetoric can come into play. If we, as teachers, can understand some of the differences in writing across cultures, then we can help our students write to an English-speaking audience with specific expectations while still respecting various writing styles. Connor makes the point that “what constitutes straightforward writing depends on reader expectation” (227). I know that my students come from a wide variety of traditions where readers’ standards and expectations might differ significantly from a standard English-speaking reader’s expectations. However, writing is all about communicating effectively with a specific audience in a certain context (rhetorical situation). Students should be free to experiment with various genres, create multigenre projects, and adjust their voices to meet the needs of individual rhetorical situations. If cultures are always shifting, then writing styles and conventions can change, too. Kubota, for example, writes about pedagogical approaches to cultural differences very convincingly through using a nontraditional narrative form for his article, “Unfinished Knowledge: The Story of Barbara.” Additionally, Connor mentions that there might not be a clear English-language norm for EU grant proposals due to the diversity of Europeans reading and writing these proposals (235). That being said, I still think it’s valuable for students to develop familiarity with dominant discourses in English. If students can understand and write within the discourses of power, then they can “break the rules” and begin to challenge those discourses.

Blog Post #4: Cultural Stereotypes

Kumaravadivelu’s article “Problematizing Cultural Stereotypes in TESOL” reveals cultural stereotypes regarding Asian students which often permeate the TESOL profession. He outlines and debunks three common stereotypes: 1) Asians give deference to authority, 2) they lack critical thinking abilities, 3) they do not participate in class activities (710). These three characteristics can also be found in North American language learners, and research suggests that the reason for this type of behavior lies in the complex relationships among “social, cultural, economic, educational, institutional, and individual factors” (714). Kumaravadivelu then addresses the question of why TESOL teachers subscribe to these stereotypes about Asians. He claims that it could be due to aversive racism, social identity, orientalism and/or the simple fact that TESOL educators feel the need to simplify the sometimes overwhelming complexity of teaching English.

I resonated with the issues in this article, as I realized that I sometimes stereotype my students in order to simplify what seems to be so complex. Teaching a language and reacting to cultural issues at the same time can seem overwhelming. Even though I consciously choose to get to know my students as individuals, I realize that prior to our first class, I often develop preconceptions about them due to their cultural background. (These preconceptions are usually replaced with specific information about individuals after a couple weeks of getting to know students.) Particularly with regards to East Asian students, I understand the collectivistic tendencies of their societies and recognize a lot of similarities among students that I might unconsciously use to promote stereotypes. I have never subscribed to the stereotypes that Kumaravadivelu mentions, yet I have my own list of assumptions: most Asian students are highly motivated to learn English, many Asian students are often unfamiliar with Western teaching styles, and the majority of Asian students like to avoid direct confrontation or conflict. Even though I’ve based my assumptions on working with East Asian students and interacting with Asian friends, they may still be faulty ideas and would not prove true in every case. Even though it’s good to have a frame of reference for relating to students, I agree with Kumaravadivelu that I must more fully develop a “critical awareness of the complex nature of cultural understanding” (717).

Question: I wonder what kind of cultural stereotypes Asian students might have about North American teachers…

Blog Post #3: Identity, Language, and Power

The readings for this week focused on how an individual’s identity is influenced by language abilities and vice versa. These chapters and articles explore issues of group membership, the effects of linguistic competence on cross-cultural communication, and the effects of language on social and individual identity construction. Hall utilizes interactional sociolinguistics to claim that identity is always changing yet still subject to the bounds and influences of surrounding culture. Both Holliday et al. and Peirce take this idea a step further to examine the ways in which language and power structures co-exist and affect students as they acquire a new language. Peirce tells of female language learners who reframe power relationships and claim the right to speak despite the power imbalance in the dominant culture. She claims that the key to their success was dependent on investment rather than motivation.

As I completed the readings this week, I felt overwhelmed by the realization that no language, speaker, or listener can be truly “culture free.” As Hall states, “in our every communicative encounter we are always at the same time carriers and agents of culture” (46). This means that every time I greet a friend, meet a stranger, or smile at someone in line at the grocery store, I am operating under specific cultural assumptions, exhibiting cues that point to these assumptions, and spreading my culture to others. Yet at the same time I spread my own culture through communication, others are doing the same thing. I find this fact both encouraging and discouraging at the same time. I am encouraged to realize that my identity is not fixed, so communication with others exposes me to assumptions and perspectives that I may find useful. I am free to pick up pieces of other cultures that I value as I construct my own identity. However, on the flip side, I am discouraged to recognize the negative aspects of culture that can be disseminated through communicative encounters. Particularly in the United States, language is viewed as a defining aspect of culture, so non-native speakers of English are often otherized and viewed as inferior. These attitudes can be communicated either directly or indirectly through communication and cause language learners to occupy a second-rate social position. Peirce presents Eva as an example of this situation: “Eva accepted the subject position immigrant; she accepted that she was not a legitimate speaker of English....she assumed that if people treated her with disrespect, it was because of her own limitations” (24). Rather than encouraging Eva to develop a multicultural identity, the cultural communication of her coworkers took away her right to speak.

As an English teacher, I want to develop sensitivity to these experiences that my students might go through. I am fascinated with the idea Holliday et al. present about language learners experiencing a phase of loss (loss of agency, loss of former identity, loss of primary language, etc.) prior to reconstructing a new identity that they can use to respond to their new culture. However, at the same time, I am deeply saddened by the thought that students may view this transformation into a multicultural identity as a loss of oneself instead of an “adding to” of oneself. Although I have experienced being a racial, religious, cultural, and linguistic minority at various points in my life, I have always come from a culture of power (white, middle-class, American) which makes it hard for me to truly empathize with the struggles my students face. Understanding more about the connections between language and culture allows me to think more critically about what I communicate to students, as well as how I respond to them. I want to continue to develop this understanding in order to successfully care for my students and teach them to use language in a way that encourages, not discourages, their social agency, multicultural identities, and right to speak.

Blog Post #2: Culture + Language + Self-Identity = ?

This week, Aneta Pavlenko’s article, “‘The Making of an American’: Negotiation of the Identities at the Turn of the Twentieth Century” outlines the differences between American immigrant narratives during the Great Migration (1880-1924) and current times. Pavlenko examines sociohistoric circumstances that affect these narratives and draws connections among identity, assimilation, Americanization, and English as a cultural carrier.

As I read this article, I was struck by the power of language to define and “otherize” speakers of different languages, as well as influence them. Language, a powerful cultural carrier, shaped the personal and national identities of immigrants. In the case of American English, English transformed from a language of national unity used to help immigrants assimilate to American life to a language that now entails that new English speakers in the U.S. must lose significant parts of their identities associated with their native languages and cultures. In other words, English in contemporary America implies that the idea of monolingualism is part of America’s national identity. This article reminded me of my grandmother, who was a first-generation American. Her parents, who immigrated from Sweden in the late 1800s, often spoke Swedish at home, yet they forced their children to speak English. As a result, my grandmother could understand several Swedish expressions, but she never developed any fluency in speaking the language. She and her parents viewed speaking English as an essential part of becoming American, and even today, she mentions her dad’s fluent English ability with pride. English was not only practical for conducting daily life in America, but it also became a status symbol, similar to the immigrant narratives described in Pavlenko’s article. However, I can’t help but think that a significant part of a person’s heritage is lost with the rejection of his or her native language. Language is a link to previous generations and can form an important part of someone’s personal or community identity. This history leads me to question how we teach English in an American-based ESL context today. What are some practical ways that we, as educators, can teach our students to utilize the power of English without rejecting their other cultural and linguistic heritages?

Holliday et al. also examine the role that culture can play in self-identity. The authors believe that people create and negotiate personal and cultural identity through communication, so we must view a person’s identity according to “thick description—seeing the complexity of a social event by looking at it from different aspects” (9). In addition, this non-essentialist perspective requires individuals to carefully consider their choices in the “cultural supermarket” in order to “attain maximum…credibility” (99). Identity, culture, and behavior are all interrelated. Because of the complexity of this relationship, I believe that we, as teachers, need to be careful to not only see our students as individuals, but also to see them as part of a social network in which they are using cultural elements in order to influence how they (and others) view themselves. Students may choose to assimilate to or deviate from social norms, depending on their own sense of identity. Thinking about the various elements that go into one’s self-identity can seem overwhelming, so I think it is important to make sure that students realize that their identities are always changing. Our classroom environments should provide places where they feel free to express themselves authentically, experiment, and ask questions.

Blog Post #1

Two main ideas in the readings stood out to me this week:
1. Culture is dynamic and amorphous.
2. Language and culture are connected, but not inextricably.

I have experienced life in various international and American communities, and I strongly agree that culture is always changing and difficult to capture. There are so many perspectives and nuances of culture! As Holliday, et al suggest, we must embrace a complex view of culture in which diversity is the norm (54). I believe that maintaining this view will allow us to not only develop solid relationships with students based on true understanding of their individual personalities (individual cultures!), but it will also help us avoid stereotypes that could isolate a student as “the other.” As Atkinson says, “knowing students individually also involves knowing them culturally” (643). Just this morning, I met a student at ELI who is a Brazilian of Japanese ethnicity. She was quite talkative, and I found myself surprised at her outgoing nature. Without consciously realizing it, I had stereotyped her due to her Japanese heritage and assumed that she would be quiet and reserved. (Ironically, I didn’t even consider any stereotypes associated with Brazilians!) Even though I recognize the flaws in the essentialist view of culture, I realize that this view influenced my first impressions. This experience reminded me of Atkinson’s third principle that “social group membership and identity are multiple, contradictory, and dynamic” (643). Everyone belongs to a variety of social and cultural groups, and it is impossible to pigeon-hole someone based solely on his/her membership to a single cultural group. I think that we, as both educators and learners, need to foster this idea that the concept of culture is dynamic and somewhat amorphous. That being said, I agree with Kumaravadivelu’s assertion that culture exists outside the bounds of definition; however, I also believe it still exists within the bounds of description. I think the trick is being able to describe patterns of behavior in order to talk about culture without perpetuating negative or limiting stereotypes. Believing that culture is diverse will allow us to build meaningful relationships in the classroom and take away limitations we might have due to cultural (mis)understandings.

In Chapter 2 of Cultural Globalization and Language Education, Kumaravadivelu shared information about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language determines thought and vice versa. Until my reading of this chapter, I had basically agree with this idea; however, Kumaravadivelu points out that if this theory were true, people would not be able to successfully translate languages or use English to communicate information from a variety of sociocultural perspectives (22). I also recognize that people who are bilingual are able to think and function effectively in two different languages without fundamentally changing their opinions or self-identities. So after learning about this information, I feel it is safe to say that language and culture are linked, but they don’t determine each other. Atkinson mentions that “language…cannot be developed without…developing knowledge of the sociocultural contexts in which that language occurs and for action in which it exists” (647). As an educator, I think it is important to teach students about the cultures of English-speaking communities insofar as it is useful for communication, but I do not need to pressure them to adapt their individual cultures to fit the expectations that some English speakers might have.

Question: All this discussion of culture got me to thinking…how much should we, as educators, directly engage issues of culture with our students?

Who I am...

My name is Alice, and I'm really excited about teaching English because I love meeting and hanging out with internationals. It's a great opportunity to learn, teach, and experience new cultures. Plus, I've lived and worked overseas, so I often feel a connection with people who are learning a new language or expanding their cross-cultural understanding.