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