April 23 readings

Chapter 7 summarizes some of the factors that affect L2 classrooms and L2 learning. It reminds teachers that L2 classrooms don’t exist in isolation and that it is influenced by outside forces that could either alienate students or benefit them in their journeys through learning the English language. One factor is the extent and importance of multilingualism in the sociolinguistic context (i.e. in the country and within the classroom’s/local speech community). The chapter advocates the tailoring of English in certain contexts. Within a country that has diglossic societies—in which people choose different languages for different domains—the importance should be in “designing English learning environments that support the development of bilingualism rather than monolingualism. What is needed is a productive theory of bilingual teaching and learning that recognizes the various ways in which English is used within multilingual communities, and the specific purposes learners may have for using the language” (McKay 181). Another factor that influences L2 classrooms is the official recognition/placement of English. For example, in countries that places English as one of the official languages, English becomes one of the medium of instruction or as a subject taught in the educational system. In diglossic communities where English is the medium of instruction, students typically learn a more standard form of English; in English as Subject context, on the other hand, students are being exposed to and acquire a more colloquial form of English. Due to this difference, one could assume that students exposed to English as Subject situations will have an advantage in natural interactions or that they’d have ore “street-smart” knowledge of English. The students exposed in English as Medium situations would have an advantage in or knowledge for standardized tests such as the TOEFL or in writing contexts. Another factor that influences L2 classroom is English standards. In multilingual communities that foster macroaquisition, it is inevitable for ENlgish to be influenced by other languages in the community and this influence would result in new lexical items, new pronunciaitnos, and new discourse styles. It is important not to see these changes as “errors, interlanguages, or fossilized forms of incomplete acquisition of Standard English, these forms of World English need to be seen as languages in their own right” (182).

April 9 readings

One of the notions that Farr and Song discussed was the “close alignment of an ideology of standardization with an ideology of monolingualism, as exemplified in both England and France” (652). Although I’ve learned about these ideologies, the connection hadn’t been explicitly stated until I read the article. There’s a lot of implications that the connection implied, both positive and negative. One of the positive implications is that the standardization of a language means there could be one language that a group of people can rally behind and could identify themselves with. It also means that there’d be less confusion in what language a society would use for official, educational and economic matters. However, there also negative connotations. One of the negative implication is that “the pairing of nationalization and language standardization yielded an ‘ideology of contempt’ toward minority languages and dialects, which turn contributed to the disappearance of ‘small languages’ worldwide” (652). For example, some of the younger generation such as students wouldn’t see the point in learning any of the other languages that the country has since they won’t be used in the society anyway—some of them wouldn’t see the value of learning another language. The Welsh language, for example, in UK wasn’t being used until the educational system forced the students to learn it. However, even with this process, the some students feel hostile at learning a language that they won’t even use even if it was their heritage language. Another negative implication that the connection carries is that there’s no room for appropriating a standardized language by a previously existing language (such as AAVE). Vernacular usage and code-switching are seen as diluting a language and people who have appropriated the language can’t find a corner for themselves in the society or find themselves suddenly without a voice. This is especially captured by Herder who said “by making language seem faceless, decontextualized, abstract, and socially and historically disembodied, practices of purification could imagine Others by virtue of their…failure to speak this language of the modern subject” (652). Minority languages thus become the abject of a society that advocates in monolingualism; it becomes something that taints the standardized language. Instead, it is transformed into an unincorporated cultural body.

However, Farr, Song, McKay and Bokhorst-Heng also stress the fact that not all societies believe in monolingualism; that more and more, local agents recognize the importance of and the need for bilingualism. There are some societies that advocate in bilingualism even though they stress the importance of having a national language, that “when local agents negotiate or challenge the hegemony of language policies in their interpretation and implementation of them, they contest the ideologies that underlie the language policies, and they acknowledge the sociolingustic reality of language use within multilingual contexts, including classrooms. In such contexts actual linguistic practices involve the creative and emergent mixing of different languages and dialects, and sometimes these mixtures become named languages themselves” (656). For example, McKay and Bokhorst-Heng illustrated how “the majority of Singaporeans use multiple language varieties in their everyday lives, depending on the particular age and educational qualifications of the persons involved, the situation, and the topic” (94). The linguistic ecology, the varieties of languages in Singapore, creates an atmosphere in which English is appropriated into a completely different language: Singapore English. And this language is not at all devalued. Instead, it acquires importance in certain domains.

chapter 2 and 3

One of the things I found interesting was that in Outer Circle countries, which had bilingual policies, rarely had bilingual programs that worked. Something always wrong happened in implementing the policies. For example, in South Africa where the language education stated that “the education sector should encourage the acquisition by all South African students of at least two but preferably three South African languages, even if at different levels of proficiency,” most of the other languages were ignored in favor of teaching and using English in the schools; Zulu, even if it was one of the first languages that most students had, was given little attention as it was thought to be a “handicap than a resource” (McKay 41). This shows one of the negative effects that English has in a global context. It’s being taught as the only language that is worth investing on, which translates as being the only language that students want to learn. McKay illustrates that this phenomena isn’t only applicable in outer circle learning contexts but also in inner circle learning contexts. In Australia, where the language policies state that there should be “provision of services in languages other than English,” which should give opportunities to students in order to learn foreign languages as well as English, it’s still an unpopular concept to the Australian students because they see no point in learning another language which doesn’t carry as much status, prestige and power that English already possessed.

I agree with the main finding that the bilingual education project had in considering the study of Philippine bilingual programs. In it, the project stated that, “English proficiency is a necessary but by no means a sufficient condition for academic success. Rather, socio-economic status and urbanization are also important factors” (McKay 45). The main thing that helped me learn English, while maintaining my first-language, was my socioeconomic status and all the opportunities that status entailed. Because I was well off, my parents were able to take me to a private school that offered more resources devoted to teaching using English and Tagalog as mediums. I also think that the teachers who were competent in English chose to teach in private schools because these schools paid more which resulted in public schools having teachers who weren’t as experienced. Moreover, the teachers who knew both English and Tagalog probably had more socioeconomic status, thus were afforded the chance to study in private schools, and chose to teach in private schools as well. All these could have resulted in the fact that public schools didn’t have teachers who were competent enough to teach English as a language as well as a subject.

There are a lot of incentives for learning English. One of them was the legacy of colonization. As we read from chapter 2, Philippines had a bilingual program as a result of it being colonized by the US. Another incentive is the post-colonial policies which seeks to redress inequality by giving access to English for the citizens. Globalization has also become an incentive for the fact that English has become a global language. For example, the status of English in India has increased because of the increase of job opportunities offered to those who know English.

McKay Chapter 1

“English in an era of globalization” explores the dimensions and implications carried when one considers English as an international language. Some of the dimensions that are considered include incentives for learning English in the globalized market, and the situation of English in the current era. This chapter also explores how the spread of EIL affects local languages.

McKay offered that one of the reasons why English has earned such an economic status and prestige is the proliferation of narratives that insists learning English carries with it the influence and power the language entails. She said that “in reference to English learning there are powerful narratives of English acquisition that lead learners to believe that if they ‘invest’ in English learning, they will reap the benefits of social and intellectual mobility” (9). I would have questioned this claim if I didn’t experience first hand how powerful narratives can be, especially when one considers whose narratives they are—either when they are expressed by people I know or when they are expressed as propaganda by education systems and governments. One of the things that I remember clearly when we were interviewing ELL students from class was their answer when we asked them why they were learning English. Although their wordings varied, their message was clear—they learned English because it was a tool that they could use in being seen as a prospective employee in their chosen fields.

Moreover, McKay also offers three major incentives that facilitate the continuing rise of English as an international language. These incentives include economic incentives, educational incentives and mass media incentives. Two main factors that are to be considered in economic incentives include the use of English in transnational corporations (i.e. Ford in Germany requiring its employers to speak English but not German), and outsourcing (i.e. the “brain mining” in India as economically rewarding when the workforce knows English). McKay offers that educational incentives occur through the mechanisms in policies in educational institutions and government policies. These two mechanisms enforce the English learning in school systems. However, McKay problematizes this phenomenon by illustrating the economical divide created when government institutions decide who are “worthy” and who should have the benefits of learning English. The mass media also plays a role in making English a global language. Through movies, music and the Internet, more and more people especially the younger generation, find reasons to learn English separate from knowing it as an advancement of their economic status. One of the more enjoyable reasons I had for learning English was the movies. Movies are such a fascinating medium for entertainment not only because of the moving pictures but also because of the hidden messages and sentiments that they entailed. I wanted to know what my current version of Prince Charming was talking about and to do that, I had to pay attention in class while my English teacher was talking.

week 8

“Construction of Racial Stereotypes” addresses how race and gender are portrayed in the textbooks that are being used in EFL contexts – by asking the participants to examine the images that are being used in the textbooks. This is done through a study in Sao Paolo, Brazil using ten student participants and four teacher participants in privileged, affluent universities. While interviewed by Taylor, the participants pointed out that the white Americans were displayed as rich and powerful, while the visible minorities were portrayed as submissive, poor and voiceless. Some of them pointed out the “injustice in their [minorities] lack of representation in the EFL text” (Taylor 74). One result of the interviews explored how the textbook images presented an unrealistic picture in which races were divided by continents: only white Americans lived in America and the Spanish lived in Mexico. It didn’t portray people who emigrated from one country to another. The participants also pointed out that the images only portrayed a monolithic culture that existed in a vacuum. Like Taylor-Mendes, I agree that these images need to be modified and I also agree with Taylor-Mendes when she said that “if teacher educators have not provoked thoughtful discussions with pre-service or practicing professional teachers on the implicit meaning of images, one cannot expect that all teachers would know how to begin examining the race and power issues in an EFL image and handle these topics with sufficient sensitivity” (77). I would like to think before I took TESOL classes, I would have been able to address such inequalities when I’m a practicing professional teacher. The truth is, I probably wouldn’t have been as effective. In the worst-case scenario, I most likely would have been a passive consumer and enforced the racial inequalities that are already portrayed in the textbook images. Now, one of the ways I could do is to portray America in a realistic way—where most people are middle class, the privileged few really do not constitute most of the population, some live below poverty, and certainly not all citizens—whether they are white or minority—even have basic rights.

Theme A3: Representation explores how some of our beliefs—especially those that are shaped by the media—sometimes portray an eschewed image of the world around us. It is our duty to be more critical and not let our uncontested beliefs prevent us from influencing facts and prevent us from examining what’s before us. For example, when Martha met Reza, she thought that he was sexist—that he was appalled at how women in Canada were acting and that he disapproved the fact that women weren’t subservient to men. She failed to account for the fact that Reza may have been ambivalent because of other reasons—such as starting out the bottom in Canada when he was a lawyer in Afghanistan or being isolated. I think sometimes it’s easier to take things at face value, to become passive consumers of the media (or to think that the media as an evil platform who encourages inequalities), but if we don’t take a minute to question widely held beliefs, like Taylor-Mendes said, we wouldn’t be able to address such inequalities.

Week 7

The article I focused more on was the ELF article. It stated that “second languages operate along ‘cultural faultine” in which communicative practices are freed from the norms of both L1/C1 and L2/C2, opening up new perspectives on languages and cultures” (Baker 572). This reminds me of the time when I was still learning English when I was in the Philippines. Back then, I wasn’t concerned about the cultural trappings that speaking English entailed. I wasn’t concerned with what the norms were; I wasn’t even aware of English beyond the context of the classroom. To me, the language almost existed in a vacuum, suspended in tenses and spellings, in constructing the most grammatical sentences, in trying to sound the least bit idiotic while asking for a glass of water to my classmates in English. I wasn’t concerned with the power dynamics that existed between English and Tagalog back then. I think what my friends and I enjoyed the most—and possibly one of the few things that existed outside of that vacuum—was finally understanding the words behind the lyrics of English songs we loved so much. Instead of just mumbling along with Backstreet Boys, we finally understood what Nick Carter was crooning and it made us, girls that we were, fall in love with them even more.

Another thing that The Cultures of English as a Lingua Franca that I liked was that its definition of culture as: “Culture can be viewed as a discourse or discourse community which is dynamic, complex, and negotiated and one of many possible means of interpreting meaning and understanding in interactions that may or may not emerge as relevant” (Baker 573). The way I tried to deconstruct this passage was in thinking that culture isn’t static. It’s not a monolithic entity on which it tries to inflict influence and power on people. Nor is culture a rigid structure that is immovable of human interference. Instead, culture is a discourse where there’s almost a balance in which an individual negotiates his/her way around and into culture. As the ELL tries to learn his C2, there is a lot of give and take in which the ELL tries to find what and doesn’t fit into the ELL’s perspective of the culture. For example, some of the beliefs that the ELL may have thought of as “true” before he was truly exposed to the culture may be changed depending on the experiences he goes through later on. Which leads to Baker’s point that “it seems unlikely that a culture of ELF could ever be established or described owing to the scale of diversity of cultural references, forms, and norms across such a vast array of users…as previously posited, languages and cultures are always linked at the individual level; there must always be cultural references, meanings, and communicative practices in each instance of communication” (Baker 573). In a way, culture is problematic because there can truly be no one definition of culture unless you have essentialist tendencies—but then you’d run into the problem of deciding what is the “right kind” of culture. For me, the register of English that I use is mainly academic English. I highly doubt that once I go out of the university setting, I’d still encounter (whether to read or discuss) the kind of English I’m currently exposed to while I’m reading through academic articles and discussing about different notions and philosophical perspectives.

Week 6

I agree with Kubota’s main points when she says, “the prevalent view on culture in teaching ESL reflects teachers’ good intentions to respect cultural difference rather than denying it altogether. Nonetheless, this liberal view of cultural difference tends to fall into cultural relativism, essentializing cultures, and creating a dichotomy between ‘us’ and ‘them’” (Kubota 12). When you essentialize culture, not only do you run the risk of sounding condescending but you also run the risk of alienating the students you actually want to teach. However, I don’t know whether stereotypes are intrinsically bad. I think of them as crutches you have to use in order to support your body, but there’s a point where you don’t need those crutches anymore. Stereotypes may be like crutches you need to use in an unfamiliar situation but once you become familiar with the situation and with the students, you have to let go of those stereotypes and not let them cloud your judgment about people.

I also agree with Kubota’s statement that, “when two people from different cultures meet, misunderstanding tends to occur, she said, because we tend to judge the other person with our own cultural frame of reference. However, neither culture is right or wrong or good or bad. They are just different” (13). I understand while some people might do what Barbara did. Sometimes, it’s easier and more convenient to let our stereotypes handle unfamiliar situations such as finding for the first time that you have ELLs in your class. As I’ve alluded before, the reason is because those stereotypes make the unfamiliar somehow familiar. When we first meet the unknown, the only tool that we have is our own cultural reference. But we shouldn’t get to the point where we create an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality. And one of those ways to prevent this is by asking the students, listening to what they have to say, and seeing from their perspectives. In Kubota, Barbara does this by asking “more critical questions about students’ perceptions about culture…responding to a student’s comment that English communications is more direct and assertive than communication in Asian languages, [and] ask whether this perceived characteristic of English applies to all social situations and all people” (Kubota 14). With this kind of method, Barbara not only learned from her students but she also allowed the students to use their own cultural banks. In this, Kubota portrayed a symbiotic relationship which should be one of the ideal dynamics in teaching.

Blog 5

Holiday talks about the construction of Othering. Holliday talks about how our sense of the Other prevents us from truly communicating with other students. Sometimes, we interpret someone not based on their action but based on what we believe they should act and be. A.2.1 talks about the Smith family and how John interpreted Mrs. Smith’s actions as her just being Amish. Moreover, if she did something un-Amish-like, he’d just chalk to her being secularized. A.2.2 talks about the negotiation of culture and dealing with cultural differences. A.2.3 talks about the power play that exists in different cultures. This is illustrated through Jeremy and Jabu’s interactions. This is shown when Jeremy thought that he knows what Jabu’s culture is like. “Cultural Assimilation and Its Delusions” defines what is assimilation and what are its limitations. Assimilation includes “linguistic assimilation…[an expectation for immigrants] to discard their home language and start learning and using English” (Kuma 78). With this way of thinking, it seems like immigrant students will more likely lose their mother tongue. The nativist notion of assimilation goes against recent findings that “show that maintenance of the mother tongue among immigrant children can in fact facilitate their successful learning of the target language” (Kuma 93).

“Cultural Stereotypes” discusses three specific stereotypes that are held about Asian students. These stereotypes are that they are passive in class, they lack critical thinking and they obey authority (Kuma 710). From what I recall during my school years in the Philippines, there really wasn’t much blind acceptance to authority. I think part of the reason why we didn’t question our teachers was because we had to show respect to our elders. Talking back to them was never a line that we could cross. It simply was part of our culture. It’s not to say that we always obeyed and never questioned. We did. My classmates and I certainly never questioned our teachers in their presence, but we didn’t agree to everything they said. There were times when we couldn’t help but sometimes disparage our teachers especially when we didn’t agree with their opinions, but that was always done when the teacher wasn’t in the room. The classroom context wasn’t that different from any American classrooms except for one thing—our classmates have no compunction whatsoever in saying that what our classmates has said is wrong. Almost all my teachers have said, one time or another, that we should always respect each other. When I was in the Philippines, however, we were free to make fun of the other especially when their comments are so off the mark. That, more than obedience, prevented me at least from participating in a subject I wasn’t comfortable with. This reflects what Liu has said, “we need to take into account, besides cultural beliefs, factors such as ‘the relevance of the students’ familiarity with the subject, the students’ motivation to participate, the students’ anxiety and tolerance of risk-taking and their speaking abilities and communicative competence” (Kuma 712).

Week 3

I was like Parisa in the sense that I wanted to be represented as something else that other people from my culture did not get nor understand. I was at a party at one time and people from my extended family kept asking me what I wanted to be when I grew up. As a Filipino, they were expecting me to say I’m going to be a nurse or learning to become a doctor. When I told them instead that I wanted to become a professor of English, they gave me incredulous looks and told me all the ways why being a doctor was such a better idea. They went as far as to say that being a professor wasn’t as worthy as being a doctor would be. All the while, I had to keep my mouth shut because talking back against them would have been considered disrespectful even though I would have only defended my case. However, I was thinking, this is not how I see myself, I want to become a professor who is not only successful in my field but also viewed as one of the reason why others want to become a professor as well. I wanted to be represented as one of the people who made others possible to learn to appreciate English. I wasn’t someone who became a doctor just because my culture demanded it of me. I wasn’t going to have an unsatisfying job just because every other Filipino have chosen to ride that particular bandwagon.

One of the things that I struck me was the quote “America not only promotes stereotypes but in fact constructs ethnicity, with ethnic identification and self-identification being another outcome of the immigrant experience” (Pavlenko 42). In the micro level, if you’ve admitted that you were born in the country, some people will already labeled as a hick. With this labeling comes attributes that people readily associates you to even though it’s clearly not the case. Attributes such as unintelligent, old-fashioned, strict, and naïve will become part of your identity. Without the act of negotiation, those particular sets of attributes will have been part of who you are and it will take years before you break out of those stereotypes. As such, what ends up happening is that not only do you have to fit in as an “American”—and struggle to be one since it’s such an elusive concept—but also break from the stereotypes that others have placed on you. All the while, you have to make sure that the process of assimilation and renegotiation does not take away all the things that make you the person you are.

I also agree with Pavlenko’s conclusion that in the present era, “second language learning was transformed into a painful journey, involving a loss of primary identities linked to the mother tongue” (63). This rings true for me in that my cousins haven’t been taught how to speak Ilocano or Tagalog since their teachers told the parents that my cousins would be confused between their mother tongue and English; that they’d have a harder time learning English if they were bombarded with knowledge from Tagalog. Because of this, my cousins can no longer communicate properly with our grandmother and their families from the Philippines.

Week 1/Week 2

I agree with Baumann in his evaluation that individuals belong to different communities. Sometimes, those communities—at a superficial level—may not be compatible and even seem to contradict each other as well. For example, as part of a university community, I am encouraged to participate in social norms such as being outspoken, disagreeing and questioning professors as well as standing out to be noticed. However, as a member of the Filipino culture—at the risk of exaggeration—I am expected to fade into the background when I am in the presence of people with authority. At a personal level, I belong to a community of friends as well as a community of family. There are practices that I would not perform depending on the community I find myself in. For example, there are some topics I wouldn’t talk about with my family that I would gladly share with my friends such as what happened Friday night. I wouldn’t necessarily talk to my friends the same way I would talk to my parents as well. With my friends, I’m more sarcastic and open. I don’t curse but my vocabulary, in general, is more liberal and less polite. Moreover, there’s also a certain divide within those communities as well. Depending on the friend I’m talking to, I’m either more or less lax. I can act more silly when I’m talking to one roommate than I necessarily would with the other.

One of the things I found interesting in the Kumaravadivelu section was Bourdieu’s idea of “habitus.” He described it as the different ideologies or qualities that an individual acquires from the different environments he/she experiences in. These habituses are also a result of what the individual thinks or believes while in that specific environment. At a point, both individual and environmental factors shape a habitus on certain degrees. These habitus then shape a person’s way of thinking and viewing the world. Depending on how we view a factor’s importance, there’s a certain degree to which we are influenced by that particular ideology, experience or environment we are faced with. As such, one culture might have a more impact on our individualness compared to another. As far as language education and culture is concerned, there are differences from one educational system to another, different sets of social norms from one university setting to another and each is as rich in its political, social and educational complexity. However, when we only emphasize on those differences, we run the risk of Othering as well. We run the risk of polarization and in thinking that one system is better than the other. We might not even consciously think so and it might not even be an overt act.