Ethnolinguistic Diversity in Language and Literacy Education
The book begins by introducing the concept of different varieties of language, including varieties of Creole languages. The book also introduces the idea of cycles that exists in language. For example: “one cannot communicate simply by knowing the grammar and lexicon of a language, one must also understand the cultural context in order to communicate meaning.” Ethnolinguistic diversity refers to linguistic codes and cultural meaning, cultural meanings are embedded in linguistic codes but also in social structure- social structure implicates aspects of race/ethnicity and gender and social class. In defining terms like vernacular, it made me think of the issues and difficulty in defining these terms. I was interested in the section of articles that has to do with understanding the needs of students. It is important to understand their heritage and the role of their culture in their lives.
The article describes the ideologies that effect ELT and the students that are learning English. The ideology of language purism has to do with the belief in the existence of a uniform standard. This ideology leads to some unfortunate effects- people are discriminated against. Children are treated as though they are deficient linguistically, and because of this may feel deficient culturally. I believe this is an important issue to address, people should be proud of their languages and where they come from. After all, the diversity of the world is what makes it an interesting place.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
The Hidden Curriculum of Survival ESL
The Hidden Curriculum of Survival ESL:
The author refers to survival ESL as “literacy and prevocational and basic skills for students with zero to intermediate language proficiency.”
The article states that the survival approach to ESL, although being acclaimed as “state of the art”, has largely been overlooked when it comes to critical analyses of its “theoretical assumptions and implications”, and it particular, its survival texts. It is argued that survival ESL represents curriculum that should be evaluated in terms of “communicative” character. Many new materials focus on forms instead of language interaction. In evaluating survival curricula, the article suggests that it should be examined in terms of how well they live up to the goal of being realistic. In effect, the efficiency of survival ESL is all about how relevant the content is in terms of what students will actually encounter outside the classroom, in an actual L2 context. The article outlines many examples of irrelevant survival texts. For example, in most cases a “newcomer” wouldn’t realistically be able to use the dialogue about doctor’s visits (example 8). This text is misleading in that a “newcomer” would be more likely to go to a community clinic or an emergency room than to a private physician. Survival texts about finding an apartment often reflect middle class perspectives, which is an assumption that causes a gap in the actual survival issues faced by newcomers. I found it interesting that in many cases of survival texts, suggestions are very vague. They are also presented as universal guidelines when in reality, they may not be appropriate in all cases. It is argued that survival curricula doesn’t prepare students for the reality of getting a job or finding an apartment. These experiences can and do lead to people being treated disrespectfully and can cause frustration and disappointment. I’m sorry to say that I don’t have much experience in using a survival language on the same scale that is described in the article, but I have wished at times that I would have been more prepared for experiences that other people take for granted. Anytime I have traveled to another country, there is always the possibility of something going differently than you’d planned, and it’s in those times that you sometimes say to yourself “If someone had only warned me that this could happen!” For people that need to use survival ESL, I believe it’s important to be informed about the reality of the situations they may encounter, and these realities need to be included in survival texts. I also think that it’s important to note the power dynamic that’s described in the article. I find it absolutely true that there is a delicate balance of power in almost any work place, and that someone who is not aware of this balance could run into trouble (they may be ridiculed or ostracized). I agree with what the article says about promoting methods that teach students to think critically and problem solve. This makes sense seeing that life isn’t going to be like a rehearsed dialogue found in a survival text. Although they help to prepare students in the types of situation they may find themselves in, we should remember that as teachers it’s also important to help students to think on their own. In other words “give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you have fed him for a lifetime.”
The author refers to survival ESL as “literacy and prevocational and basic skills for students with zero to intermediate language proficiency.”
The article states that the survival approach to ESL, although being acclaimed as “state of the art”, has largely been overlooked when it comes to critical analyses of its “theoretical assumptions and implications”, and it particular, its survival texts. It is argued that survival ESL represents curriculum that should be evaluated in terms of “communicative” character. Many new materials focus on forms instead of language interaction. In evaluating survival curricula, the article suggests that it should be examined in terms of how well they live up to the goal of being realistic. In effect, the efficiency of survival ESL is all about how relevant the content is in terms of what students will actually encounter outside the classroom, in an actual L2 context. The article outlines many examples of irrelevant survival texts. For example, in most cases a “newcomer” wouldn’t realistically be able to use the dialogue about doctor’s visits (example 8). This text is misleading in that a “newcomer” would be more likely to go to a community clinic or an emergency room than to a private physician. Survival texts about finding an apartment often reflect middle class perspectives, which is an assumption that causes a gap in the actual survival issues faced by newcomers. I found it interesting that in many cases of survival texts, suggestions are very vague. They are also presented as universal guidelines when in reality, they may not be appropriate in all cases. It is argued that survival curricula doesn’t prepare students for the reality of getting a job or finding an apartment. These experiences can and do lead to people being treated disrespectfully and can cause frustration and disappointment. I’m sorry to say that I don’t have much experience in using a survival language on the same scale that is described in the article, but I have wished at times that I would have been more prepared for experiences that other people take for granted. Anytime I have traveled to another country, there is always the possibility of something going differently than you’d planned, and it’s in those times that you sometimes say to yourself “If someone had only warned me that this could happen!” For people that need to use survival ESL, I believe it’s important to be informed about the reality of the situations they may encounter, and these realities need to be included in survival texts. I also think that it’s important to note the power dynamic that’s described in the article. I find it absolutely true that there is a delicate balance of power in almost any work place, and that someone who is not aware of this balance could run into trouble (they may be ridiculed or ostracized). I agree with what the article says about promoting methods that teach students to think critically and problem solve. This makes sense seeing that life isn’t going to be like a rehearsed dialogue found in a survival text. Although they help to prepare students in the types of situation they may find themselves in, we should remember that as teachers it’s also important to help students to think on their own. In other words “give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you have fed him for a lifetime.”
Sunday, November 8, 2009
p. Medgyes
The Vivian Cook article didn’t work when I tried to open the email so I am writing on P. Megyes article, “Native or Non-native: who’s worth more?” since this is what we are covering on the November 9th class.
I must say that when I first read the title of this article I was a little put off. Asking the question, native or non-native: who’s worth more? entirely goes against what I thought this class was about: working toward establishing equality between NS and NNS, and raising the awareness that’s it’s not what you are but more who you are and what you do. However, after reading a little further into the article I found that in the first paragraph it states that NS and NNS have an equal chance of becoming successful teachers, though they reach success by following different paths. Many of the issues the article raises have to do with what Medgyes says are problems and issues that arise in defining the NS. Medgyes states that some “liberally minded” concepts maintain that native speakers are more or less, “more accomplished users of English,” and that because of this we shouldn’t even use the words native or non-native (instead, more accomplished users of English). Maybe I am reading too much into this, but my question is, more accomplished in what? In speaking English? I would like to have the “liberally minded researchers” explain this to me in detail. By this definition it could be an accomplished person, like a Nobel Peace Prize winner who maybe learned a little English at some point in their lives, and used it. That is, by definition, an accomplished person who uses English. I was happy to see that Medgys saw the issues in defining NS and NNS in these ways. Really, are there any completely accurate ways to define NS and NNS? It seems to me that instead of trying to define NS and NNS we should instead use our energy to raise awareness in developing established knowledge of the ambiguities in any definition of native or nonnative, but stress the idea that both NS and NNS are equally capable of becoming great teachers. After all, Medgys also says that even the question, “who’s worth more?” is counterproductive.
I must say that when I first read the title of this article I was a little put off. Asking the question, native or non-native: who’s worth more? entirely goes against what I thought this class was about: working toward establishing equality between NS and NNS, and raising the awareness that’s it’s not what you are but more who you are and what you do. However, after reading a little further into the article I found that in the first paragraph it states that NS and NNS have an equal chance of becoming successful teachers, though they reach success by following different paths. Many of the issues the article raises have to do with what Medgyes says are problems and issues that arise in defining the NS. Medgyes states that some “liberally minded” concepts maintain that native speakers are more or less, “more accomplished users of English,” and that because of this we shouldn’t even use the words native or non-native (instead, more accomplished users of English). Maybe I am reading too much into this, but my question is, more accomplished in what? In speaking English? I would like to have the “liberally minded researchers” explain this to me in detail. By this definition it could be an accomplished person, like a Nobel Peace Prize winner who maybe learned a little English at some point in their lives, and used it. That is, by definition, an accomplished person who uses English. I was happy to see that Medgys saw the issues in defining NS and NNS in these ways. Really, are there any completely accurate ways to define NS and NNS? It seems to me that instead of trying to define NS and NNS we should instead use our energy to raise awareness in developing established knowledge of the ambiguities in any definition of native or nonnative, but stress the idea that both NS and NNS are equally capable of becoming great teachers. After all, Medgys also says that even the question, “who’s worth more?” is counterproductive.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Jenkins presentation
Here are the notes that accompanied my presentation on A Sociolinguistically Based Emperically Researched Pronunciation Syllabus for English as an International Language by Jennifer Jenkins:
The article outlines the recent shift in the use of English. NNS using English for international communication now outnumber native speakers. This shift, as explained by Jenkins, has some implications for ELT. Jenkins calls for empirically established phonological norms and classroom pronunciation models for English as an international Language (EIL), where intelligibility for NNS instead of NS is the focus. She provides data drawn from NNS to NNs interaction to show the kinds of evidence to draw our own conclusions.
---
The author proposes that for a new pronunciation syllabus for EIL, the Lingua Franca Core should be followed. This approach is more effective in promoting intelligibility among EIL communicators as well as being more teachable as opposed to Received Pronunciation and General American. Finally, the article describes the importance of developing accommodation skills as an important part of EIL pronunciation teaching.
---
To begin, Jenkins states that most applied linguists are aware of the fact that English is now spoken by more NNS that NS, and there are implications with this fact.
Language teaching should pay attention to the L2 user rather than concentrating primarily on the native speaker, and it should apply an L2 model.
So far though, according to Jenkins, this shift hasn’t had much impact on linguistic research or on English language teaching. Currently, the NS remains a given, and “the NS standard measure still reigns supreme.”
---
In the phonology field, decisions about what to include in pronunciation syllabuses are still focused on the Native speaker, even though evidence is emerging that states that certain intuitions might be inaccurate. The focus is on what NSs do when they communicate with other NSs assuming that communication between NNSs should be the same.
---
Learners are encouraged to pronounce like a native speaker, despite the negative effect on the intelligibility for NNS communicators (all because these features are part of NS pronunciation).
“If we are to provide appropriate pedagogic proposals for EIL pronunciation, then these must be linked directly to relevant descriptions of NNS speech…to the findings of empirical research conducted in NNS-NNS speech contexts in terms of what constitutes optimum productive competence and what learners need to be able to comprehend.”
---
The fact is that regional variations and accents in language are now the acceptable rule rather than the unacceptable exception.
In the case of EFL: the purpose is to speak the target language as a ‘foreigner’ to communicate with native speakers of the language. Here, the goal of pronunciation teaching should be close to that of a NS accent so that it can be understood by NSs of that language. The focus is on selecting the NS accent that the learner will encounter in their target native speaker community.
---
In the case of EIL: English is learned for international communication instead of communication with its NSs. Speakers of EIL are not foreign speakers of the language, but ‘international’ speakers. The EIL target community is not specific. An important focus in this article is the right for speakers to express their identity in English through their accent, as long as the accent does not risk international intelligibility.
---
This position is supported by Bourdieu’s concept of ‘legitimate discourse.’ – An utterance must meet four conditions, the fourth being that it must employ ‘legitimate’ phonology and syntax.
---
In EFL: “‘Legitimate’ phonology entails speaking with an accent that is intelligible and acceptable to the target NS English community.”
In EIL: ‘Legitimate’ implies that phonology must be intelligible and acceptable to the target international English-speaking community. This will involve making some adjustments by both NSs and NNS of English toward an agreed international norm.
According to Jenkins: NNS English accents aren’t always acceptable. Miscommunication is a cause of concern among linguists. There is a fear that English is now so widely used around the world and by so many non-native speakers that it could possibly break up into a series of dialects, and eventually into different languages.
---
Jenkins calls for an intervention: intervention is not focused on native speakers. It’s more relevant and more realistic. The primary focus is to promote international phonological intelligibility, as well as the developing a research-based teaching model. This new model for EIL should be based on evidence drawn from non native speaker interactions and from NNS listeners.
---
Evidence gathered by Jenkins provides examples of pronunciation-based miscommunication. The data was collected over a period of three years in classroom and social settings, with the aim of looking at miscommunication caused by pronunciation. Jenkins found that although pronunciation wasn’t the only cause of miscommunication, it was the most frequent and most difficult to resolve.
---
Examples of miscommunication: ‘I failed’- An L1 Korean speaker of English has taken his driver’s test that morning. He entered the classroom and announced that he has failed the test. His classmates didn’t understand the significance of what he said, and one classmate even asked “Did you pass you test, Lee?” The typical Korean sound substitution of p and f had caused some pronunciation differences.
---
Have you got a blue VUN=’Have you got a blue one’- This combination of phonological errors caused the most serious problems in this study. (Misplaces tonic stress along with a consonant substitution within the wrongly stressed word.)
The problem of contextual cues:
Shouldn’t contextual clue clear up the pronunciation miscommunication? In interlanguage talk this appears not to be the case. It is found that: NS-NS communication makes use of contextual information to clarify meaning, in NNS-NNS communication: the receiver tends to focus on what they hear.
---
Jenkins research shows this: The listener has contextual visual clues, but tries to make sense of the pronunciation that he hears. In the experiment, a receiver chose to trust a speakers mispronunciation rather than the visual information that was given to him.
The ILT data indicate that certain pronunciation deviations, particularly in consonant sounds, vowel length and the placing of tonic stress, make NNS pronunciation unintelligible to a NNS interlocutor, and that when this happens, context doesn’t help to provide meaning.
---
Traditionally, the idea suggested in this topic is that speakers make their speech more similar to that of their interlocutors because of their desire to be liked. But, the early accommodation theorists also identified a motivation which they called ‘communicative efficiency’ which they also found to be relevant to communication in a second language; the desire to be understood. In ILT however, speakers converge on what they think is a more target like pronunciation instead of converging on each other’s pronunciation.
Jenkins proposes the Lingua Franca Core,
Reasons for suggesting the LFC: it concentrates on the items that are more effective instead of focusing too much detail into the differences between native speakers and non native speakers. It is also more relevant since the syllabus doesn’t address the needs of a NS listener when in EIL the listener is more likely to be a NNS.
---
The LFS includes: consonant inventory that permits some substitutions because they are intelligible in EIL.
---
In effect, Jenkins claims the items that are excluded from the LFC are not crucial to intelligibility in EIL contexts, therefore making the LFC more relevant and useful in this case. In addition to training in the core items, learners need EIL practice to enable them to develop their communication skills in relation to a wide range of different groups.
The article outlines the recent shift in the use of English. NNS using English for international communication now outnumber native speakers. This shift, as explained by Jenkins, has some implications for ELT. Jenkins calls for empirically established phonological norms and classroom pronunciation models for English as an international Language (EIL), where intelligibility for NNS instead of NS is the focus. She provides data drawn from NNS to NNs interaction to show the kinds of evidence to draw our own conclusions.
---
The author proposes that for a new pronunciation syllabus for EIL, the Lingua Franca Core should be followed. This approach is more effective in promoting intelligibility among EIL communicators as well as being more teachable as opposed to Received Pronunciation and General American. Finally, the article describes the importance of developing accommodation skills as an important part of EIL pronunciation teaching.
---
To begin, Jenkins states that most applied linguists are aware of the fact that English is now spoken by more NNS that NS, and there are implications with this fact.
Language teaching should pay attention to the L2 user rather than concentrating primarily on the native speaker, and it should apply an L2 model.
So far though, according to Jenkins, this shift hasn’t had much impact on linguistic research or on English language teaching. Currently, the NS remains a given, and “the NS standard measure still reigns supreme.”
---
In the phonology field, decisions about what to include in pronunciation syllabuses are still focused on the Native speaker, even though evidence is emerging that states that certain intuitions might be inaccurate. The focus is on what NSs do when they communicate with other NSs assuming that communication between NNSs should be the same.
---
Learners are encouraged to pronounce like a native speaker, despite the negative effect on the intelligibility for NNS communicators (all because these features are part of NS pronunciation).
“If we are to provide appropriate pedagogic proposals for EIL pronunciation, then these must be linked directly to relevant descriptions of NNS speech…to the findings of empirical research conducted in NNS-NNS speech contexts in terms of what constitutes optimum productive competence and what learners need to be able to comprehend.”
---
The fact is that regional variations and accents in language are now the acceptable rule rather than the unacceptable exception.
In the case of EFL: the purpose is to speak the target language as a ‘foreigner’ to communicate with native speakers of the language. Here, the goal of pronunciation teaching should be close to that of a NS accent so that it can be understood by NSs of that language. The focus is on selecting the NS accent that the learner will encounter in their target native speaker community.
---
In the case of EIL: English is learned for international communication instead of communication with its NSs. Speakers of EIL are not foreign speakers of the language, but ‘international’ speakers. The EIL target community is not specific. An important focus in this article is the right for speakers to express their identity in English through their accent, as long as the accent does not risk international intelligibility.
---
This position is supported by Bourdieu’s concept of ‘legitimate discourse.’ – An utterance must meet four conditions, the fourth being that it must employ ‘legitimate’ phonology and syntax.
---
In EFL: “‘Legitimate’ phonology entails speaking with an accent that is intelligible and acceptable to the target NS English community.”
In EIL: ‘Legitimate’ implies that phonology must be intelligible and acceptable to the target international English-speaking community. This will involve making some adjustments by both NSs and NNS of English toward an agreed international norm.
According to Jenkins: NNS English accents aren’t always acceptable. Miscommunication is a cause of concern among linguists. There is a fear that English is now so widely used around the world and by so many non-native speakers that it could possibly break up into a series of dialects, and eventually into different languages.
---
Jenkins calls for an intervention: intervention is not focused on native speakers. It’s more relevant and more realistic. The primary focus is to promote international phonological intelligibility, as well as the developing a research-based teaching model. This new model for EIL should be based on evidence drawn from non native speaker interactions and from NNS listeners.
---
Evidence gathered by Jenkins provides examples of pronunciation-based miscommunication. The data was collected over a period of three years in classroom and social settings, with the aim of looking at miscommunication caused by pronunciation. Jenkins found that although pronunciation wasn’t the only cause of miscommunication, it was the most frequent and most difficult to resolve.
---
Examples of miscommunication: ‘I failed’- An L1 Korean speaker of English has taken his driver’s test that morning. He entered the classroom and announced that he has failed the test. His classmates didn’t understand the significance of what he said, and one classmate even asked “Did you pass you test, Lee?” The typical Korean sound substitution of p and f had caused some pronunciation differences.
---
Have you got a blue VUN=’Have you got a blue one’- This combination of phonological errors caused the most serious problems in this study. (Misplaces tonic stress along with a consonant substitution within the wrongly stressed word.)
The problem of contextual cues:
Shouldn’t contextual clue clear up the pronunciation miscommunication? In interlanguage talk this appears not to be the case. It is found that: NS-NS communication makes use of contextual information to clarify meaning, in NNS-NNS communication: the receiver tends to focus on what they hear.
---
Jenkins research shows this: The listener has contextual visual clues, but tries to make sense of the pronunciation that he hears. In the experiment, a receiver chose to trust a speakers mispronunciation rather than the visual information that was given to him.
The ILT data indicate that certain pronunciation deviations, particularly in consonant sounds, vowel length and the placing of tonic stress, make NNS pronunciation unintelligible to a NNS interlocutor, and that when this happens, context doesn’t help to provide meaning.
---
Traditionally, the idea suggested in this topic is that speakers make their speech more similar to that of their interlocutors because of their desire to be liked. But, the early accommodation theorists also identified a motivation which they called ‘communicative efficiency’ which they also found to be relevant to communication in a second language; the desire to be understood. In ILT however, speakers converge on what they think is a more target like pronunciation instead of converging on each other’s pronunciation.
Jenkins proposes the Lingua Franca Core,
Reasons for suggesting the LFC: it concentrates on the items that are more effective instead of focusing too much detail into the differences between native speakers and non native speakers. It is also more relevant since the syllabus doesn’t address the needs of a NS listener when in EIL the listener is more likely to be a NNS.
---
The LFS includes: consonant inventory that permits some substitutions because they are intelligible in EIL.
---
In effect, Jenkins claims the items that are excluded from the LFC are not crucial to intelligibility in EIL contexts, therefore making the LFC more relevant and useful in this case. In addition to training in the core items, learners need EIL practice to enable them to develop their communication skills in relation to a wide range of different groups.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
McKay Chapter 4
McKay Chapter 4: Culture in Teaching English as an International Language.
This chapter explores the roles of culture in EIL teaching in terms of the cultural content of teaching materials and in reference to the use of EIL in specific discourse communities. When it comes to teaching materials, Mckay focuses on what cultural information is taught in EIL classrooms. In the case of discourse communities, the focus is on the way in which sociocultural practices influence how texts are developed and used.
In order to understand cultural content, the chapter argues that it is important to understand it in terms of the problematic assumptions that were made in Chapter 1. These assumptions are:
1) As it is an international language, the use of English is no longer connected to the culture of Inner Circle countries
2) One of the primary functions of English, as is the case with any international language, is to enable speakers to share their ideas and cultures.
McKay includes information on the role of culture in language teaching. Traditionally, this involves providing cultural information that includes things like literature, film, and music. One of the problems with this approach is that, if one of the goals of using culture in EIl teaching is to help individuals interact in cross-cultural encounters, then merely knowing about a culture will not be sufficient to gain insight into how to interact in these encounters.
According to Spradley, as cited in the chapter, culture involves what people do, what people know, and what things people make and use. Culture is ‘the knowledge that people have learned as members of a group.’ It is suggested that for a classroom to become culturally extensive, there are a few goals that should be considered:
1) Establishing a ‘sphere of interculturality’
2) Teaching culture as difference; within each culture exists a variety of national characteristics.
There is a question concerning whether to include the source culture, the target culture, or an international culture in EIL materials. It is argued that there are advantages to each of these, depending on how ‘the materials are approached.’ The materials should be used in a way that students are encouraged to reflect on their own culture in relation to others. Also, the diversity that exists in all cultures should be emphasized. I was especially drawn to the emphasis that was put on diversity in this chapter. I’m glad that she is suggesting that in EIL teaching it is important to show the students that there is diversity in every culture and that it is important to understand this when learning a second language.
This chapter explores the roles of culture in EIL teaching in terms of the cultural content of teaching materials and in reference to the use of EIL in specific discourse communities. When it comes to teaching materials, Mckay focuses on what cultural information is taught in EIL classrooms. In the case of discourse communities, the focus is on the way in which sociocultural practices influence how texts are developed and used.
In order to understand cultural content, the chapter argues that it is important to understand it in terms of the problematic assumptions that were made in Chapter 1. These assumptions are:
1) As it is an international language, the use of English is no longer connected to the culture of Inner Circle countries
2) One of the primary functions of English, as is the case with any international language, is to enable speakers to share their ideas and cultures.
McKay includes information on the role of culture in language teaching. Traditionally, this involves providing cultural information that includes things like literature, film, and music. One of the problems with this approach is that, if one of the goals of using culture in EIl teaching is to help individuals interact in cross-cultural encounters, then merely knowing about a culture will not be sufficient to gain insight into how to interact in these encounters.
According to Spradley, as cited in the chapter, culture involves what people do, what people know, and what things people make and use. Culture is ‘the knowledge that people have learned as members of a group.’ It is suggested that for a classroom to become culturally extensive, there are a few goals that should be considered:
1) Establishing a ‘sphere of interculturality’
2) Teaching culture as difference; within each culture exists a variety of national characteristics.
There is a question concerning whether to include the source culture, the target culture, or an international culture in EIL materials. It is argued that there are advantages to each of these, depending on how ‘the materials are approached.’ The materials should be used in a way that students are encouraged to reflect on their own culture in relation to others. Also, the diversity that exists in all cultures should be emphasized. I was especially drawn to the emphasis that was put on diversity in this chapter. I’m glad that she is suggesting that in EIL teaching it is important to show the students that there is diversity in every culture and that it is important to understand this when learning a second language.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
McKay Chapter 1
McKay Chapter 1: English as an International Language.
Ch1 is all about exactly what the title states. It explains the present use of the English language and the history while giving reasons why the English language is the way it is. According to McKay, defining a language as international relies on many factors. It could be a language that has a large number of speakers, but to be an international language as described in the book, it must be spoken by a large number of native speakers of other languages as well. A language achieves global status when it develops a “special role” that is recognized in every country. The special status can be achieved by making it an official language of the country or by requiring it as a foreign language.
This chapter contains a graph explaining the various roles that the English language takes. There are three circles, each containing information on the speakers of English. A) the inner circle-where English is the primary language. B) Outer circle- English serves as a second language in a multilingual community and C) the expanding circle-English serves as a foreign language. There are some drawbacks to this categorization, as McKay explains, but it is helpful to provide an estimate of current English speakers.
The author gives reasons for the spread of English; 19th and 20th century British and American colonialism and the migration of English speaking people to other areas were “of central importance.” Things like motion pictures, popular music, international travel, and publications in today’s world all contribute to the spread of the English language. The widespread use of English makes it important for countries wishing for economic development to have access to it.
Mckay also talks about things that might impede the spread of English. In the expanding circle countries, there is little need for people to learn English. This may be because they often have little need to use English in their daily life. I liked that McKay mentioned technology as a possible factor that could impede the spread of English. I’ve often thought that with so many translation methods available online, some people may be able to bypass learning a language. However, I believe that technology cannot completely replace the learning of a language in many contexts. I also liked that she mentioned the negative aspects of the spread of English, one of them being the rise of social inequalities based on a lack of access to instruction in the language.
Ch1 is all about exactly what the title states. It explains the present use of the English language and the history while giving reasons why the English language is the way it is. According to McKay, defining a language as international relies on many factors. It could be a language that has a large number of speakers, but to be an international language as described in the book, it must be spoken by a large number of native speakers of other languages as well. A language achieves global status when it develops a “special role” that is recognized in every country. The special status can be achieved by making it an official language of the country or by requiring it as a foreign language.
This chapter contains a graph explaining the various roles that the English language takes. There are three circles, each containing information on the speakers of English. A) the inner circle-where English is the primary language. B) Outer circle- English serves as a second language in a multilingual community and C) the expanding circle-English serves as a foreign language. There are some drawbacks to this categorization, as McKay explains, but it is helpful to provide an estimate of current English speakers.
The author gives reasons for the spread of English; 19th and 20th century British and American colonialism and the migration of English speaking people to other areas were “of central importance.” Things like motion pictures, popular music, international travel, and publications in today’s world all contribute to the spread of the English language. The widespread use of English makes it important for countries wishing for economic development to have access to it.
Mckay also talks about things that might impede the spread of English. In the expanding circle countries, there is little need for people to learn English. This may be because they often have little need to use English in their daily life. I liked that McKay mentioned technology as a possible factor that could impede the spread of English. I’ve often thought that with so many translation methods available online, some people may be able to bypass learning a language. However, I believe that technology cannot completely replace the learning of a language in many contexts. I also liked that she mentioned the negative aspects of the spread of English, one of them being the rise of social inequalities based on a lack of access to instruction in the language.
Friday, October 2, 2009
"Breaking Them Up, Taking Them Away"
In response to: “Breaking Them Up, Taking Them Away” by Kelleen Toohey;
The article describes a research project conducted by Kathleen Toohey in Grade 1 classroom filled with both L2 learners and Anglophones. In the study, the author examines some classroom practices that she argues contribute to the “construction of L2 as individuals and in doing so, reinforcing traditional perspectives.” The article argues that in this traditional perspective, some students become defined as deficient and are coincidentally excluded from practices in which they could have otherwise used to their advantage and grown in knowledge. The classroom that the author examined is described as being a particularly difficult classroom, meaning the children made visits to the guidance counselor often. She included information about the children borrowing and lending their materials, which she concluded was to maintain interaction with each other.
The practices that the author observes that contribute to the “breaking up of children” are a) location of the students. b) the management of the materials and c) the source of the intellectual resources needed to complete school tasks.
The author indicated from the research conducted that lending and borrowing among students was “reflective of the social relations of the children. Practices like copying and borrowing were frowned upon by the teacher. By the end of the year he children would physically protect their written works from other children in the class. The author argues that the practices she observed in the classroom (encouraging students to stay at their own desks, concentrating on their own work) establish each child as an individual. It is in these practices that the community learns to see children as “more or less adept.” In other words, it contributes to children being unfairly seen as more or less literate, intelligent, creative, etc.
When reading this I was reminded of my experiences in elementary school. Are there any of us out there who doesn’t remember how it felt at some point in their childhood not to have the “cool” lunchbox, backpack, or crayons? I feel like the author was illustrating what goes on all over the world in this article, and in doing so, connecting things like the seating position and the students’ materials to possible hindrances in the classroom. It’s important to learn all we can from studies like these in order to be more effective as teachers.
The article describes a research project conducted by Kathleen Toohey in Grade 1 classroom filled with both L2 learners and Anglophones. In the study, the author examines some classroom practices that she argues contribute to the “construction of L2 as individuals and in doing so, reinforcing traditional perspectives.” The article argues that in this traditional perspective, some students become defined as deficient and are coincidentally excluded from practices in which they could have otherwise used to their advantage and grown in knowledge. The classroom that the author examined is described as being a particularly difficult classroom, meaning the children made visits to the guidance counselor often. She included information about the children borrowing and lending their materials, which she concluded was to maintain interaction with each other.
The practices that the author observes that contribute to the “breaking up of children” are a) location of the students. b) the management of the materials and c) the source of the intellectual resources needed to complete school tasks.
The author indicated from the research conducted that lending and borrowing among students was “reflective of the social relations of the children. Practices like copying and borrowing were frowned upon by the teacher. By the end of the year he children would physically protect their written works from other children in the class. The author argues that the practices she observed in the classroom (encouraging students to stay at their own desks, concentrating on their own work) establish each child as an individual. It is in these practices that the community learns to see children as “more or less adept.” In other words, it contributes to children being unfairly seen as more or less literate, intelligent, creative, etc.
When reading this I was reminded of my experiences in elementary school. Are there any of us out there who doesn’t remember how it felt at some point in their childhood not to have the “cool” lunchbox, backpack, or crayons? I feel like the author was illustrating what goes on all over the world in this article, and in doing so, connecting things like the seating position and the students’ materials to possible hindrances in the classroom. It’s important to learn all we can from studies like these in order to be more effective as teachers.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)