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.