While I do believe that the re-visioning of TESOL as TEGCOM, laid out in by Lin et al., is an admirable course to set with for the future of the field, I find that some of their other arguments, especially those by Richardson to be troubling.
When I tried to work out if the dichotomy set up by even the nomenclature of TESOL or ESL or EFL rely on essesitalizing and othering paradigms, I realized that no matter how you dissect the rhetoric they all offer superior status to those who already have English within their cultural capital. Changing our perspective to observe World Englishes or EIL, through the Teaching English for Glocalized Communication seems to be a powerful forward thinking, and true attempt to neutralize English. My concern however, is that the approach laid out in this article will be met with great opposition by politicians who are not experts in the field.
I understand how "present day applied linguists 'objective' writing is but another example of how unequal power relations between the allegedly rational objective researcher (Self), who is constructed a capable of conducting meta-analysis and rational theorizing on the allegedly subjective researched (Other)" (297), to a certain degree perpetuates dichotomies across the board. Yet, I fear that if we move away from empiricism, no matter if it is merely an appearance, in the humanities (which has been the case for many many years, until recently, at least in literature), then in many respects the credibility of our studies may be lessen. We look to science as a space for factual evidence. Granted the human narrative, both epistemologically and cognitively may be skewed from understanding facts, or unchanging scientific laws, these gray areas of Arts Based Research seem hard pressed to create actual change in government policy.
So while I applaud these brave scholars in their work, and wish them the best, I fear that the improvements that they and I would like to see enacted in our world, may have difficulty coming to fruition.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Monday, April 15, 2013
Linguistic Ecology
This metaphor seems to be very fitting for the varied and interdependent relationships between dialects and it seems to be a necessary paradigm that should, but most often is not, recognized. Bi-dialectism seems to acknowledge and move towards a solution,y et it only appears to address "oratory" language issues.
My question then with regards to TESOL pedagogy is, are we working toward a reading/writing comprehension, or a "Standard English" literacy, or is it necessary that we teach our students how to speak standard English.
Perhaps, it comes down to the simple appreciation of dialect difference, and "a pedagogy of critical language awareness. [That] involves a pedagogy that teaches students how 'notions of facts' about language are actually 'elements of a larger narrative, an elaborate construction deployed for larger social needs and political ends, and that as such the should be question, and if necessary, made differently"(Bokhorst-Heng and McKay 117).
Encouraging students' critical awareness of their own heritage, both culturally and linguistically, will inevitably be the driving force that pushes English through its process of evolution. What we romanticize about standard English of the past, will one day be the sentiment of the "standard English" we use today. It joys me that the term "standard English" is so problematic, because if it were a stable entity then English would be considered a dead language, like latin for example, which is reliable in its unchanging form that we can apply it universally in service of other stalwart phenomena like scientific laws. The reason perhaps that there is so much quarreling about the standardization of English is that the language's future is yet to be determined. English, like any ecology is in a constant state of change, and it is this linguistic volatility that requires our constant and vigilant attention as educators.
My question then with regards to TESOL pedagogy is, are we working toward a reading/writing comprehension, or a "Standard English" literacy, or is it necessary that we teach our students how to speak standard English.
Perhaps, it comes down to the simple appreciation of dialect difference, and "a pedagogy of critical language awareness. [That] involves a pedagogy that teaches students how 'notions of facts' about language are actually 'elements of a larger narrative, an elaborate construction deployed for larger social needs and political ends, and that as such the should be question, and if necessary, made differently"(Bokhorst-Heng and McKay 117).
Encouraging students' critical awareness of their own heritage, both culturally and linguistically, will inevitably be the driving force that pushes English through its process of evolution. What we romanticize about standard English of the past, will one day be the sentiment of the "standard English" we use today. It joys me that the term "standard English" is so problematic, because if it were a stable entity then English would be considered a dead language, like latin for example, which is reliable in its unchanging form that we can apply it universally in service of other stalwart phenomena like scientific laws. The reason perhaps that there is so much quarreling about the standardization of English is that the language's future is yet to be determined. English, like any ecology is in a constant state of change, and it is this linguistic volatility that requires our constant and vigilant attention as educators.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Well, Folks, Go-on Home and Undastand Y'all Family First
I came across a very interesting yet saddening article from my hometown of Raleigh, NC this weekend titled "Raleigh has lost its drawl, y'all". And indeed it has lost it's distinctive Southern drawl. I cannot count the number of times in my travels that people have asked where my Southern accent is, if I am truly from North Carolina, and I have not been able to provide them with an answer. But apparently this is what I should be telling folks:
I would take this one step further in saying that Raleigh has undergone, via the influence of increased immigration from other linguistic regions of the US, a turnover in diglossic power. In the past, our quaint Southern dialect was once considered the H-varity, yet as more people relocated from large urban centers (and by this I mean to imply areas such as New York who bring with them a large degree of cultural capital), and the rise in international technology industry in the area, a less dialect heavy language became more prevalent. As the southern dialect began to lose dominance it also lost its H-varity status. Now, unfortunately, the Raleigh dialect, is moving into an L-varity, one that is less suited for business and government and understood as an antique.
Much of the discussion in both the Kubota and Ward (2000) and McKay and Bokhorst-Heng (2008) articles for this week call for an integration of both L-varity and H-varity into the classroom. My point in calling attention to the gradual but definitive loss of the Raleigh dialect, is that the effects of globalization on English should not exclusively be concerned with foreign-immigration, and that many distinct and historically valuable diglossia's are present in every region of our own country. When we look at the pedagogic and ethical concerns presented in both of these articles, they highlight the struggle that First Circle countries experience when creating ESL policies in primary schools. I found that most of the policies presented, as well as the solutions by the authors, still toiled with issues of Otherization.
I do not mean to have a solution for this tremendous problem, however I believe that a vital part of helping students comprehend World Englishes is to have them first understand local Englishes. Brief exposure to a WE from India that they may never experience in person does not seem that it would have lasting affects on their conception and empathy for other WE. If they were to start in their own backyard however, and could identify WE in their own community, perhaps they would more readily understand and empathize with the vast multiplicities in which English has taken shape.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/06/2806388/raleigh-has-lost-its-drawl-yall.html
“There’s no question as to when the change happened, based on the birthdates of the speakers,” NCSU linguistics professor Robin Dodsworth said. “You went within the space of two or three generations from being an unambiguously Southern-speaking city to an unambiguously non-Southern-speaking city.”
If anything, people in Raleigh are sounding more Eastern than Southern, linguistics experts say. While characteristic accents linger in the rural South, urban centers along the East Coast talk more like each other.
“Raleigh has some features that other cities along the Eastern Seaboard share, and Philadelphia has, historically, been one of these,” Dodsworth said in response to a question about Raleigh’s linguistic brethren. “Also D.C., Richmond, even Charleston, to some extent.”
I would take this one step further in saying that Raleigh has undergone, via the influence of increased immigration from other linguistic regions of the US, a turnover in diglossic power. In the past, our quaint Southern dialect was once considered the H-varity, yet as more people relocated from large urban centers (and by this I mean to imply areas such as New York who bring with them a large degree of cultural capital), and the rise in international technology industry in the area, a less dialect heavy language became more prevalent. As the southern dialect began to lose dominance it also lost its H-varity status. Now, unfortunately, the Raleigh dialect, is moving into an L-varity, one that is less suited for business and government and understood as an antique.
Much of the discussion in both the Kubota and Ward (2000) and McKay and Bokhorst-Heng (2008) articles for this week call for an integration of both L-varity and H-varity into the classroom. My point in calling attention to the gradual but definitive loss of the Raleigh dialect, is that the effects of globalization on English should not exclusively be concerned with foreign-immigration, and that many distinct and historically valuable diglossia's are present in every region of our own country. When we look at the pedagogic and ethical concerns presented in both of these articles, they highlight the struggle that First Circle countries experience when creating ESL policies in primary schools. I found that most of the policies presented, as well as the solutions by the authors, still toiled with issues of Otherization.
I do not mean to have a solution for this tremendous problem, however I believe that a vital part of helping students comprehend World Englishes is to have them first understand local Englishes. Brief exposure to a WE from India that they may never experience in person does not seem that it would have lasting affects on their conception and empathy for other WE. If they were to start in their own backyard however, and could identify WE in their own community, perhaps they would more readily understand and empathize with the vast multiplicities in which English has taken shape.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/06/2806388/raleigh-has-lost-its-drawl-yall.html
Monday, April 1, 2013
English Neutrality or Ubiquity…?
"Indeed there is a constant insistence on the neutrality of English, a position that avoids all the crucial concerns around both the global and local politics of language"(qtd. in Bokhorst-Heng and McKay 3)
It seems that claiming English as a neutral linga franca of the world is a double edged sword—"a join us or die claim" if you will (ironically, this was one of the slogans used by the American Revolution when they split from England, and now we see the globalized power of the US perpetuating the linguistic hegemony of English throughout the world). I say this because English's spread has not come without an exertion of power. I find it dubious to believe that people around the world just simultaneously decided that English seems to be the best language that they could all learn to communicate together. In fact, I would argue that there has been resistance from the the first spread of English language and western culture, and there is a strong resistance to it still.
The problem however with such a global phenomena perhaps, is that English's gradual spread has grown to such a large degree that it has developed a ubiquitous presence it begins built a following that supports the dominate position it has taken in the world:
It seems that claiming English as a neutral linga franca of the world is a double edged sword—"a join us or die claim" if you will (ironically, this was one of the slogans used by the American Revolution when they split from England, and now we see the globalized power of the US perpetuating the linguistic hegemony of English throughout the world). I say this because English's spread has not come without an exertion of power. I find it dubious to believe that people around the world just simultaneously decided that English seems to be the best language that they could all learn to communicate together. In fact, I would argue that there has been resistance from the the first spread of English language and western culture, and there is a strong resistance to it still.
The problem however with such a global phenomena perhaps, is that English's gradual spread has grown to such a large degree that it has developed a ubiquitous presence it begins built a following that supports the dominate position it has taken in the world:
"It is the main language of books, newspapers, airports and air-traffic control, international business and academic conferences, science, technology, medicine, diplomacy, sports, international competitions, pop music, and advertising" (qtd. in Bokhorst-Heng and McKay 7).My question then is: How can people resist such a hegemonic force? Or how can do we insure that the architecture and history of this power structure is made plain to see for all, no matter where they stand in relation to hierarchy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)