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.