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.