Week 15 Reading Response

Globalization and language teaching


SUMMARY

There were two readings for this week's assignment. I unfortunately did not read the first required reading, but instead read the optional reading written by Ryuko Kubota and Sandra McKay. It was titled "Gobalization and Language Learning in Rural Japan: The Role of English in the Local Linguistic Ecology". In the article the authors re-examine the role of English in a local context in a midsized city in Japan with a population of about 160,000 people. The city had an increasing ethnic population, with foreign residents from Brazil, China, Peru, Korea, and Thailand. The authors then examine a few different individuals who have differing language attitudes about the role of English, Japanese, and other foreign languages in their city. The authors then discuss the issues raised by these individuals' attitudes. An interesting point: "attachment to English observed among the learners seems to be influenced by social, cultural, and historical backdrops that reflect symbolic colonialism involving the superiority of English, American culture, and Whiteness."

"It is clear that the spread of English in Japan in the form of increased emphasis on teaching and learning English does not threaten Japanese langauge. Instead, Japanese threatens the maintenance of the heritage language of migrant workers in places like 'Hasu' because of the monolingual/assimilation orientation for newcomers... What is also threatened or undermined seems to be mainstream people's willingness to learn other languages and embrace linguistic and cultural heritage of minorities." - Ryuko Kubota, Sandra McKay

The second reading was by Aya Matsuda and Paul Kei Matsuda and was titled "World Englishes and the Teaching of Writing". In this short article the authors discuss the complexity of the term "English language" and its relation to "World Englishes" or WE. They argue that the pedagogical implications of WE are complex. They state that determining an appropriate target variety of English in expanding circle contexts is difficult. There is a wide variety of contexts in which English will be used for any particular English speaker when you take into account the intranational and international contexts that occur in expanding circle countries. The authors then go on to argue that while these issues apply to speaking, they can also apply to writing, but with different expected norms.

"The impact of the traditional focus on normative features is particularly serious for English, which is one of the most extensively described languages. Although the textbook industry is becoming increasingly aware of issues surrounding WE, the development of specific strategies for addressing language differences is only beginning to happen. The dominance of codified varieties of English is constantly being reified by well--intended teachers and editors who try to help students and authors learn features of standardized written English." - Matsuda and Matsuda, Arizona State University

The authors then end their article with some "principles that can guide teachers who wish to help students negotiate the complex push-pull relationship between standardization and diversification."

They are:

• Teach the Dominant Language Forms and Functions
• Teach the Nondominant Language Forms and Functions
• Teach the Boundary Between What Works and What Does Not
• Teach the Principles and Strategies of Discourse Negotiation
• Teach the Risks Involved in Using Deviational Features

RESPONSE


It was interesting to read the Kubota/McKay article and see that the relative prestige of English and Japanese in Japan was influencing the maintenance of immigrants' first language. It reminds me of attitudes of assimilation in the United States. I suppose this could just be what happens when two languages are used in proximity with one another. One language will take the dominant role. I wonder if this is a colonial or post-colonial notion. But I am also sure that there are situations where two or more languages exist in proximity to each other that hold equal status. Really though, it just seemed to me kind of silly to type that sentence out. I realize that that idea is probably and idealization, and probably won't occur frequently, if at all.


And with the other reading, the Matsuda Matsuda article, it was fascinating to see that all the issues we talked about with teaching the speaking of English also apply to the writing of English. I suppose it is easy for me to forget how critical literacy and the ability to write are, since they have been part of my life since I became a conscious human being. But then also the standards I have been taught and reinforced to abide by, I took all these for granted too. I can't just go around the world being an English teacher teaching these proscriptions all willy-nilly.  I gotta stop and think about what I am teaching, to who am I teaching it to, and how are they going to use it. Will I be equipping them with the tools necessary to achieve the tasks they wish to complete? Or at the very least, equip them with the tools to discover ways in which to complete a task?


I never though ESL would be this complicated. It's good though, because I like a challenge.


Regards,
TfM

Week 14 Reading Response

Language Variation, Language Policies

SUMMARY

There were two readings this week. One was chapter 5 from the McKay Bokhorst-Heng "International English in Its Sociolinguistic Contexts". In this chapter the authors discuss language variation in context, citing pidginization and creolization. The authors discuss features of variation on a number of levels including phonetics, grammar, and vocabulary. The authors then go on to talk about standard language ideology within a particular context. They argue that "the definition of each Standard English should be endonormative (determined locally) rather than exonormative (determined by outside its context of use)." The authors then discuss the issue of intelligibility with regard to English use. They cite two opposing viewpoints: Quirk who argues "for the need to uphold standards in the use of English" and Kachru who argues that "the spread of English had brought with it a need to re-examine traditional notions of codification and standardization". The authors argue that at the core of these opposing viewpoints is the idea of intelligibility.

The second reading was from Rosina Lippie-Green and was called "English with an Accent". In this text Lippie-Green discusses aspects of the ideology that states there is a neutral, accent-less variety of English that could be taught to people. The author problematizes this concept by talking about the metaphor for a Sound House, which is a house built during youth that comprises an accent which is picked up contextually. The author argues that some people are better than others at building a sound house. The author also argues that no one can completely rebuild a sound house, that the phonology we acquire as a child will never be erasable. Pretty interesting stuff.


COMMENT

I really liked both readings from this week. The more I learn, the more I realize that any methodology I choose to teach by will necessarily have to be informed by the desires and goals and aims of the students I teach. My question is, then, do we as TESOL instructors focus on phonology at all? If we do, to what extent should we focus on it? It's seems kind of problematic that L1 phones will interfere with the L2. But, this shouldn't mean that we ignore phonology. But then again, some students could excel at accent adoption or learning. So it should probably be approached on an individual basis.

As for the debate between a monolithic standard of English versus multiple world-English dialects, I would have to fall with Kachru. I would rather challenge the concept of a standard world English. I think learning a variety of English is a good thing, as long as the students understand the general differences between the English variety they know and the standards of English that they will be expected to know in the context that they hope to enter by learning English. This, though, is another problematic notion. Perhaps there will be students in my classroom that do not need to learn any variety English. Perhaps they are content knowing their first language, while their government demands that they learn English. Why is this the case? Why should students have to learn STANDARD ENGLISH? Why can't we also legitimate the varieties they also know, while educating them on the differences between their varieties and the ones we wish to teach?

Am I on the right track?

I don't know.

TfM

Week 13 Reading Response

SUMMARY

The readings this week focused on Language planning and policy and how these are highly influenced by the language ideology of a culture.

The first reading was from Sandra McKay and Wendy Bokhorst-Heng. It was the fourth chapter from "International English in Its Sociolinguistic Contexts". In this chapter the authors discuss the interplay between language policy and language planning. The authors discuss how these policies and plans interfere with how language is taught in the classroom. They use a number of different case studies to examine different aspects of how language politics influences language learners. The discussion about Singapore involves the Speak Good English Movement (SGEM), where politician decided that the non-standard form of English known as "Singlish" in Singapore was to be removed.The goal was to get Singaporeans to turn away from Singlish and begin speaking Standard Singaporean English. The motivation for this change comes from the idea that it would be economically advantageous to speak a form of English that the rest of the world can understand. Closely linked with this attitude is the idea of a standard world English, which is a problematic notion because internationally English has taken on many forms and the idea that there is one standard is very misled. The other part of this chapter dealt with attitudes and policies of English in the United States. The authors discuss the English-only movement and move on to discuss the impact these attitudes have had on bilingual education in parts of the US. Lastly the authors examine the role of English policies and language ideologies in Expanding and Outer circle countries such as China and South Korea.

The other reading for this week was Farr and Song's 2011 "Language Ideologies and Policies: Multilingualism and Education". In it the authors discuss the concept of standardization in the Western world and how that has influenced the language ideologies and policies toward English in the rest of the world. The concept of one standard English.The article describes how language ideology arose, and further how this ideology influences language policy. Summed up, perhaps, the authors write

"Language policies, then, are ideological constructs that reflect and reproduce power differentials within a society (McCarty 2004)... a English-only policy adopted for the schooling of students whose multilingual realities challenge the notion of a monolingual standard not only deprives such students of learning opportunities, including developing (and becoming literate in) their home languages, but it also furthers an ideology of contempt toward subordinate languages and dialects" (6).

COMMENT

I was really surprised to hear that some TESOL teachers were fining students for using their native language in the classroom. This to me is an egregious offense. I do not hold the opinion that ESL classrooms should be English only. It is a really delicate line to toe, though. I think native languages should be used in the cases where their use will benefit or aid learning of the second language. If a concept needs to be explained in their native language, then let that be so. Closely linked with this is the idea of native language maintenance, which I also believe is a good thing. I think studies have shown that greater skill in the first language can transfer to greater skill in the second language. Also, first or native languages are a large part of the identity of the language learner, and to dismiss this aspect of their identity is to deny a large part of who they understand and represent themselves to be. Well, this is likely the case, not always the case. So when a teacher fines students for using their first or native language in an ESL classroom, what is that saying? It says "You're first language is not valued here...." (Where here is arguably a microcosm of portions of the larger English speaking world that presumably these language learners want to become part of. I think the practice is really discouraging to students and should definitely be avoided. It might be interesting to reverse it the fine and do some sort of positive reinforcement for the students. For example, everytime someone answers a question correctly (or something to this effect) I will put a nickel in a jar. At the end of the semester we as a class will decide what to do collectively with the money. I don't know, its just a thought.

Regards,
TfM

Week 12 reading response

Reading Response

Chapters 2 and 3 of "International English in Its Sociolinguistic Contexts" by Sandra Kee McKay and Wendy D. Bokhorst-Heng

Chapter 2

This chapter discussed the social contexts for English as an International Language learning. The authors use the frame of Kachru's concentric circle theory to discuss the context of EIL education in different contexts across the globe. The authors acknowledge the limitations of Kachru's theory to accurately describe the actual situation in these countries, but they note that it is an easier way of looking at the situations. The authors then go through some examples of Inner Circle, Outer Circle, and Expanding Circle countries and describes some aspects of the language learning environments in these countries. The authors discussed critically developed pedagogical approaches to education in each of these environments.

Chapter 3

This chapter discussed the issue of diglossia in multilingual societies. In particular the authors focused on South Africa and India, and examined the aspects of multilingualism within the countries. The authors discuss the differences in the aspects of EIL with diglossia as compared to EIL without diglossia. The authors point out that maintaining the use of the mother tongue in the classroom will ultimately be beneficial for ELLs. "Studies... consistently show that children in bilingual programs outperform their counterparts in all-English programs on tests of academic achievement in English."


RESPONSE

I am not sure if I've commented on this before butI think this class has been giving me an existential crisis. A year ago I would have had no issues saying that I want to be an ESL teacher abroad, but now I am not so sure. This class has made me rethink my position of wanting to be an ESL teacher. It's a lot more complicated than I thought. Like, my motivation for making this decision was that I wanted to help people while also traveling the world. I thought I would make a good ESL teacher because I am a native speaker of English, with an above average education. But these readings have made me feel guilty for thinking this way, and also for wanting to do what I want to do. I just looked and I did post about this two weeks ago. Yes, it is still bothering me, and I am not sure if I will find an answer.

Perhaps I should talk to Dr. Seloni for encouragement or advice on how to cope with these feelings.

TfM