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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)