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.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Saturday, April 14, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)