English from a Global Perspective

           Why must globalization be homogenous?  This is perhaps the most interesting question to me after reading the article.  With the technology to share ideas, music, movies, and culture, why are cultures becoming more homogenous rather than diverse?  The Kubota articles describes the heavy influence that American culture and the English language has on Japanese society, and more specifically education in Japan.  Although Western culture can have positive impacts, the growing presence of American culture throughout the world can be seen as an unofficial form of imperialism.  Japanese values are not shared with Americans so that ideas are reciprocated; this sharing of values is one-sided. 

            Resistance to Western influences has resulted in an increased sense of nationalism.  Nationalism refers to a citizens’ pride for his country or promotion of his country’s ideals or superiority.  In my opinion, this is not a positive development.  In school settings, nationalistic attitudes can lead to fights, discrimination, and the development of racist attitudes.  Outside of the educational realm, the effects of increased nationalism can be even more dangerous.  Nationalism and emphasizing the differences between nations is what has led to two world wars and a variety of other conflicts.  As teachers, I feel it is necessary to promote diversity but to ensure that we are not highlighting differences in a confrontational manner.

            The discourse of Kokusaika or internationalization refers to educating Japanese students about world cultures, languages, and viewpoints.  The concept of producing students that are competent in international contexts is a great educational aim.  However, Kokusaika views English as the international language of the world and is said to be extremely biased toward western culture and values.  Learning English does not make one internationally competent though (6).  Neither does having a broad knowledge of Western culture. 

            The most interesting point of the World Englishes article was the contention that second-language users should be held to the same English writing standards as native speakers.  As noted on page 371, this controversy could provide a moral dilemma for teachers.  Second language English users are not punished for having accents or using incorrect idiomatic expressions when speaking; however, many teachers expect them to be perfect writers.  I do not believe that L2 speakers should be held to this higher standard in writing.  Although errors should be identified through corrective feedback, they should not be downgraded for not using perfect “Standard English” when writing.  Many ESL students are incapable of using “Standard English” because they never learned this standard; they most likely learned a World English.  This is not a lower class of English, simply a different variety spoken in different regions around the world.  Page 373 discusses the idea of discourse negotiation and the appropriate use of different variations of English based on the context.  Appropriate English for a job interview and for a pick-up basketball game are completely different.  It is important that as teachers that we do not value the so-called “Standard” variety more than World Englishes though.  If our opinions reflect this bias, then our students will likely develop these attitudes our well.  The way we teach will impact how our students view language and culture. 

The Complexity of the Standard English Issue

           Myths and mystification are two central concepts to this week’s readings.  The readings do not tell fairy tales, but they include myths such as the commonly held belief that there is no accent in Standard English.  Chapter 2 of Lippie-Green states that all language speakers do have an accent.  From my experiences traveling throughout Europe and other parts of the United States, I know this to be true.  What sounds normal to me may sound strange or foreign to English speakers from other regions.  The reading goes on to talk about accents, which can be defined in a variety of ways.  To simplify, I will define accent as a reference to phonological differences in speech between two speakers of the same language.  Among L1 speakers, different accents are normally separated by geographical barriers.  These accents are typically much less noticeable than the accents of L2 speakers.  L2 speakers often have much more phonological differences than native speakers because their native phonologies do not produce certain sounds common in the target language.  Although most accents are portrayed in a negative light or to be signs of inferiority, the truth is that there is no ideal way of speaking a language. 

            Chapters 3 and 4 of the Lippie-Green reading reveal why there are negative connotations associated with certain accents and dialects.  The use and dominance of Standard English is a social and political construct designed by the upper class.  Page 58 lists the characteristics common to speakers of Standard English: those who reside in the Midwest, above average educations, and those in the media and education.  People who speak with a Southern accent and are in the lower class are perhaps the two biggest targets of language discrimination.  Since racial and economic discrimination are largely illegal, language discrimination is used as a way of maintaining the social hierarchy by the upper class.  Page 64 elaborates on this theory with the concept of gatekeeping.  A different accent is a way of recognizing someone as not belonging to the elite social class.  It prevents them from entering into the upper class even if they meet all other requirements.  This discrimination and portrayal in the media eventually has an effect on how people see and view themselves.  The concept of Standard English is mystified and glorified so that those who do not belong can only seek to obtain it.    

            The issue of Standard English again arises during Chapter 5 of the McKay book.  The most interesting concept to me was the issue of intelligibility (140).  This debate centers on the ability of speakers that use different dialects of English to understand each other both now and in the future.  One of the major advantages of Standard English claim the movement’s proponents is that Standard English ensures mutual intelligibility worldwide and will maintain this intelligibility in the future.  Without a universal way of speaking English, it is feared that separate languages may emerge or that the differences will simply become too great to enable mutual understanding.  From this perspective, the idea of a Universal English to communicate across borders and cultures is appealing.  Certain rules to regulate the use of English in international contexts could prevent conflicts and ensure understanding and efficiency.  However, the challenge is to make sure that this dialect of language is not considered superior to all other versions.  If there is going to be a universal way of speaking or writing English, it needs to be for business, educational, and communication purposes—not as a social construct.  Some Spanish speakers from different countries cannot understand each other due to such differences in the language.  I do not think English speakers would benefit from the language becoming so diverse and mutually unintelligible across cultures similar to how Spanish has.      

Can flawed thinking in the past prevent a more productive future?

The topic of this week’s readings was language planning and policy.  The Farr & Song online article was very similar to chapter 4 in the McKay book.  Both selections focused on the connections between societal ideologies, politics and policy, and language.  The McKay reading distinguishes early on the important difference between language policy and language planning.  Deumert describes language policy as more general and states that linguistic, political, and social goals underlie the language planning process (89).  Haugen defines language planning as “all conscious efforts that aim at changing the linguistic behavior of a speech community” (89).  So it can be said that language planning carries out language policy.     Unfortunately, as described in the Farr & Song article, language policy is based on cultural beliefs and politics, not pedagogical strategies or scientific research.  The motives behind the United States’ language education policies are political; quite frankly, old, racist political ideologies are holding back United States advancement in language learning. 

            One of the tenets of some United States lawmakers misguided view on language learning is that language standardization and monolingualism are desired societal outcomes.  The language ideology of conservative lawmakers can be best be summarized by the following quote from the McKay text, “A common language unifies, multiple languages divide” (99).  Although this quote is from the 1980s, educators promoting English-only use in schools refer back to similar quotations from President Reagan and other politicians from that time.  In the modern era, this narrow view on language makes even less sense.  English-only legislation would place harmful restrictions on a society growing more plurilinguistic each day. 

            English language ideologies in other countries center on the idea that learning Standard English will lead students to academic and eventually economic growth.  Although learning some form of English is definitely beneficial, research has demonstrated that English-language learners rarely speak Standard English.  Internationally, citizens of respective countries typically form their own dialect of English (Singapore English, Australian English, etc.).  Standard English throughout the globe may be the ideal, but many different variations of English across the world is the current reality.  These different dialects are often filled with code-switching—the use of two distinct languages within a sentence or conversation.  According to the Farr & Song article, code-switching is not random, but it is a strategic communicative move by bilingual speakers (656).  Bilingual speakers typically use the language that will best communicate their point; if that requires using multiple languages within a paragraph, then they will do so.  Another interesting thing I learned from the Farr & Song article is that ideologies are more persistent than policies (654).  This may seem obvious, but it worries me that people in society are more willing to change laws than incorporate new ideas into their beliefs.  Although laws and language policies change constantly, it seems that many racist values continue to persist.  As a future educator, hopefully I can ensure that these ideas are not still in practice when the next generation reaches adulthood. 

            On page 660 of the Farr & Song article, it describes teachers’ roles in regards to language ideology and policy.  Although teachers do not design the policies or create the laws, they are in charge of implementing the chosen policies on the front line—directly with students.  The article brings up the idea of teachers being empowered in this sense.  However, I disagree.  Individual teachers do not really have the power to dictate language use in classrooms; these policies are created by administrative, state, and even federal leaders.  The use of multiple languages in education is an important national issue and does not fall under the umbrella of a teacher’s classroom management.  Individual teachers could face serious consequences for undermining a district’s or state’s view on language learning and use in schools.  This is one of the reasons that I will eventually pursue higher education in the field of educational leadership; I want a role in which I can ensure that students can freely learn in a multicultural and multilingual environment. 

Evaluating Diglossia

The McKay & Bokhrts-Heng readings from this week elaborate on topics that we have previously discussed in class but also introduce new, interesting ideas.  In one of the most important parts of Chapter 2, the authors describe three different contexts in which English is studied.  These contexts are explained by the Concentric Circle model.  The inner circle describes countries in which English is the native language.  The outer circle refers to countries where English is spoken as an official or second language, but English is not necessarily the primarily language.   The expanding circle is countries where English is widely studied as a foreign language such as China, Germany, and Korea (29).  Although these circles are distinct, globalization is once again diminishing borders (in this case the differences between these contexts).  Many speakers in Outer Circle countries have developed functional nativeness similar to the levels of proficiency found in Inner Circle countries (30).  Nevertheless, each circle does have distinguishing characteristics that make it a unique English learning context.

            An interesting and significant difference exists in the manner that the United Kingdom and the United States (two Inner Circle countries) teach English in their schools.  The policy of Great Britain is to keep English Learners in general education classrooms without any kind of special kind of attention or pull-out group.  The rationale behind this policy is that identifying and separating English Learners would lead to further isolation and discrimination from the rest of society (33).  On the contrary, many educational leaders in the United States believe that it is necessary to pull English Learners out of regular classes in order to properly to support students’ language development.  It is evident that drastic differences exist between the two policies, but it is still unclear which policy is more effective.  Although the United States’ policy could be more beneficial to students’ language needs, isolation of English learning students could lead to more discrimination from other students and members of society.  I agree most with Australia’s National Language Policy detailed on page 35.  The four guiding tenets of this policy are: competence in English, maintenance and development of languages other than English, provision of services in languages other than English, and opportunities for learning second languages.  I would advocate a similar agenda in the United States, but I feel like many people would disagree with me.  Some extremists would push for English to be the only language taught in other schools.  Other educators would argue language policies should be determined by the states, or even the individual schools; they would say that it is not the federal government’s place to create national language or education policies.  Once again, the connections between language, culture, and politics are made evident.

            The most important concept mentioned in chapter 3 is the idea of diglossia.  Diglossia refers to a community that uses two different dialects or languages regularly based on the context or the level of formality.  Often there is a high language (H-language) used in formal situations while other languages (L-languages) are used in informal domains.  In the United States, English is usually the H-language used in public settings while a multitude of different languages are used in respective homes and communities.  Although English is not the official language, its status as the H-language makes learning English much more essential in the United States society than other languages.  I believe that having one common and unifying language is a good thing for society, but other languages should not be oppressed and allowed to be used only in homes.  People should have the freedom to communicate in public however they please.  However, imagine a society without one or two H-languages.  How could a society function unless the majority of people speak the same language or languages?  For this reason, I agree with the dominant use of one language in a society.  However, the learning of other languages should be encouraged, not oppressed. 

The Idea of the Millenium

            The word globalization has been repeated over and over again since the start of the new millennium.  I have read a lot about globalization’s impact on business, information sharing, and popular culture.  I didn’t realize globalization’s impact on language until reading chapter 1 of International English in Its Sociolinguistic Contexts.  However, even before reading this section, I would have been able to determine globalization’s effect on language knowing that it has dramatically affected the culture of the world.  One of the most important things that I have learned in this class is the intertwinement of language and culture, so if globalization is changing the world’s culture it must have an impact on language.

            There are two various positions on globalization in specific relation to the English language; these two views are described in depth on page 3.  The homogeny position views the spread of English as a way of unifying the world’s culture.  Some people see the dominance of one language as a way of spreading culture while others believe that this leads to the loss of other languages and reflects “imperialism and colonization”.  In contrast, the heterogeny position is where individuals describe the features of World Englishes as a sign of the pluricentricism that has been brought about by globalization.  The spread of English has resulted in the creation of different varieties of English around the world.  Ultimately, the effect of globalization on the use of English appears to be a combination of homogenization and heterogenization.  On page 3 it states that the impact of globalization on English use is “a fluid mixture of cultural heritage and popular culture, of change and tradition, of border crossing and ethnic affiliation, of global appropriation and local contextualization.”       

            I enjoyed reading the part about the incentives for learning English.  There are three major incentives for learning English according to the text: economic, educational, and mass media incentives (10).  My previous thinking and learning in this course have led me to examine the connections between these three incentives.  Learning English for educational purposes often leads to monetary rewards.  These monetary rewards can lead to the enjoyment of the world’s most popular music, movies, television, and entertainment; all of these categories are dominated by English.  From another perspective, learning English for economic motives or in the work place could expand one’s knowledge and desire for further education.  English is often a requirement move up a company’s hierarchy; moving up the hierarchy leads to more educational and enrichment opportunities. 

            In my opinion, the most compelling part of the text was an idea contained in the summary on page 25.  The first point of the summary suggests that some people feel that a shared language among all cultures is necessary.  This is a super interesting idea to me, and I agree that a shared language across all cultures would connect the world more than ever before.  Imagine a world in which the majority of humans spoke the same language.  More information can be shared than ever before and problems and concerns can be addressed without the worry of language barriers.  I am not advocating for a dominant world language because I speak English; I do not care where the dominant world language comes from.  I just like the idea of having one language to connect citizens throughout all cultures.  However, this idea seems relatively impossible.  There are so many citizens of the world that only speak indigenous languages that do not have access to the resources to learn English or another heavily spoken language.  In addition, the use of only one language would lead to the loss of culture.  As discussed in this class many times, so much of culture is conveyed through language.  The cease of a language’s use would inevitably lead to lost knowledge or cultural customs, especially amongst indigenous peoples.  So instead of forcing people to learn one language instead of another, why shouldn’t people learn two?

            In my ideal world, all people in the world would maintain their current language (no matter what it is) and then learn an agreed-upon second language.  I am unsure of a politically correct way to determine which language should be used for global purposes; I will leave that to the politicians.  This plan would prevent people from losing previous cultures but also still push for an even further increase in global communication.  Obviously it would take a plethora of resources to facilitate a world language but ultimately the benefits would outweigh the costs. 

Week 10: Is 2 cultures better than 1?

I found the “Becoming Black” article to be the most interesting this week.  This article raised numerous interesting thoughts and questions.  I have always been intrigued by the contrasting views of “black culture” by African Americans.  On one side of the spectrum, some black people are insulted by being labeled as having a separate culture from white people and other ethnic groups.  They do not want to stand out from other groups it appears.  In contrast, it seems to me that there is a large group of black people that love having a distinct and separate “black culture”.  This culture is not violent or rebellious but simply different from the general popular culture (one usually dictated by white people).  However, this distinct culture has also led to further stereotyping from whites and other majority groups.  For example, some white people may assume that all black people follow and belong to this unique “black/hip-hop culture”.  This assumption is part of a social imaginary which is described on page 353 as “a discursive space or a representation in which they are already constructed, imagined, and positioned and thus are treated by the hegemonic discourses and dominant groups, respectively, as Blacks.”  The problem with social imaginary is that it leads to black people once again being treated differently than white people.  History has certainly taught us that this is not a good thing.  Another interesting point was raised on page 366 about the potential use of rap in the classroom.   Hip-hop is an undeniably important part to the “black culture”, so shouldn’t it be included in the culture of the classroom?  Although I personally love the rap/hip-hop genre of music, I feel that many of the popular modern songs are inappropriate for use in a school setting.  Many of the song lyrics focus on drugs, drinking, and the extreme importance of money.  Aren’t these the exact same things that most teachers and administrators spend so much time turning their kids away from?  However, I do agree with the statement on page 367 that teachers should keep up with popular culture.  How can teachers connect on a personal level with their students if they’re living in the past?  

            The other two articles were more similar in nature and dealt with the issue of race in education.   In my eyes, the most important take-away of the Kubota & Lin article was the emphasis that “race” is a social construct and not a scientific identifier.  In raw terms, “race” is just a way of grouping people that look similar together.  For example, the majority of Americans and Western European citizens with lighter skin are often simply referred to as “white”.  People in this group of “whites” come from different origins, speak different languages, and have different cultures.  In many cases the only similarity is the color of their skin, which is essentially a meaningless characteristic.  I loved the quote on page 2 that emphasized that 99.9% of human genes are shared.  This is an awesome fact that I will repeat to my students often and hope that they keep in mind.  However, I am not advocating that teachers and students behave like they are color blind.  On page 16, the authors articulate why not recognizing differences is a bad idea.  Teachers need to be sensitive, not color blind.  Differences should be accepted and respected, but they shouldn’t be used to separate students. 

            The final article dealt with the treatment of Arab exchange students in the United Kingdom.  At the beginning of the article, many of the participants believed that citizens of the United Kingdom viewed them as foreign exchange students or simply as foreign.  At the end of the experience, however, multiple participants gave accounts of how they were seen distinctly as Arab or Middle-Eastern.  This often led to racial discrimination and racial profiling.  Although the previous article proved that “race” has no scientific value, this article demonstrated that concept of “race” is still very important in society and can have serious negative consequences (616).  The fear of Middle Eastern people that has resulted from the aftermath of 9/11 has been labeled as Islamophobia (617).  Although people from the Middle East have always faced discrimination, the harassment and discrimination that they faced surged after the tragedy of September 11^th.  This intense racism has made Muslims much more aware of their own identities (621).  Unfortunately, since 9/11, people from the Middle East have been othered arguably more than any other group. 

Our Representations, Their Futures

            Taylor Mendes’ article was one of my favorite readings of the year thus far.  This information will be extremely important and applicable once I begin teaching.  In addition, Taylor-Mendes caused me to pause and critically think about things that I never considered before.  One of my most important questions involves whether or not textbooks are accurate portrayals of culture.  According to most of the opinions in this article, they are not.  The reading measures the attitudes of teachers and students in Brazil towards their EFL (English as a Foreign Language) textbooks.  The students and teachers were to analyze if some groups are shown in a more positive light than others and if some groups are consistently ignored or fail to be shown in examples or illustrations.  11 students and four teachers are used in this study.  Each participant was given an opportunity to voice their opinion, questions, and concerns during personal interviewers with the researchers. 

            The introductory comments of a student named Fatima on page 64 represents much of the sentiment expressed in this article.  Fatima describes the differences in how black people and white people are represented in textbooks.  She wonders why black people are usually depicted as poor and desperate while white people are portrayed as powerful and happy.  Based on depictions in textbooks, some students may wonder if black people are capable of succeeding and if white people can fail.  Unfortunately, textbooks and other classroom resources, and even teachers, can convey these false stereotypes to even elementary school students (65).  For example, a white elementary student may consistently see white people portrayed as rich and powerful and black people shown as poor and helpless.  This white student may begin to think that all white people are rich and all black people are helpless.  These false beliefs often turn into racist attitudes and even discriminatory actions. 

            On the top of page 67, it is briefly mentioned that some people hold the belief that certain groups or people own English and should be responsible for teaching it.  Once again, this idea can be traced back to the use of textbooks and classroom materials.  How often are non-whites shown teaching English?  Why are all of the students learning English children of color?  No group of people is better English speakers than others.  Teachers—especially at the elementary level--need to be aware that their choice of textbooks and example resources could influence how their students view other social and cultural groups. 

            The study in Brazil concluded that white people dominate the positive images in textbooks while black people are typically represented unfavorably.  As teachers, it is hypocritical for us to preach about equality, fairness, and opportunity but then consistently show images of one group being superior to others.  If the given textbooks consistently demonstrate negative stereotypes, it is our duty as teachers to utilize outside resources that portray all groups in a favorable manner.  This goes beyond hanging up posters of Michael Jordan, Malcolm X, or Martin Luther King.  Minority groups need to be able to see themselves as doctors, lawyers, and teachers them.  These images could have powerful impacts and encourage them to pursue higher educations.  Negative images of certain groups will only lead to racism and negative self-fulfilling prophecies.