English in the Era of Globalization

I was fairly impressed by the overall goals of the South African language-in-education policy. It seemed to be a great principle of action that could promote bilingualism in the classroom. Both African and European would be emphasized if the policy was carried out as it is presented. South Africa’s failure to implement this policy shows reveals many of the obstacles to creating a non-biased language education system. A lot of what this class has taught us to avoid are the things that are keeping this policy from being implemented.

It seems impossible to separate language learning from social prestige. In American, as in South Africa, English is the language of the elite, and a simple change in policy won’t change the attitudes of teachers and citizens who want to maintain the standard social hegemony.

Beside the factor of prestige, there are very real advantages to speaking English in South Africa. It “represents a unifying force, a vehicle for economic advancement, and an appropriate choice in prestigious domains such as the classroom” (McKay 41). Since English is the language of the white collar worker and Zulu the language of the blue collar worker, to advance economically, South Africans need to know English. Interestedly enough, the chart on page 70 shows that only 37% of students are taught in a Bantu language even though over 80% of the population speaks it. Contrasted to 50% and 5% with English. It is the focus of education as a result. While the school systems may get flak in the book, (deservedly so) I don’t think that changing how the education system functions will change the problem. Students are not prepared for universities or the work force if they speak a language other than English. (Reminiscent of the US) If the nation’s privilege of English is to end, then a simultaneous national effort will have to be implemented. Tertiary education will have to change, along with primary education and businesses, their English only focus to a bilingual focus. Until then, language will solidify class hierarchies and make the diglossia that McKay spoke of in the third chapter from ever becoming a large-scale reality.

Colonialism has had a great influence the primacy of English in the minds of South Africans. Language was and is just as much a tool of colonialism as armies and occupation. McKay outlines the three types of education available under colonial rule. They are “English medium... reserved for the elite members of society; two tier medium” and “vernacular medium” which was seen as inferior to English training (McKay 64). (This was the system in India, but I assume South Africa’s colonial education system would be similar) South Africa had already been exposed to authorities reinforcing English superiority for decades under colonialism. English is seen as the language of the rational and practical whereas Bantu languages are viewed as the language of the mystical and irrational. The later appears to be something that needs to be controlled and the former the thing to control it. In the end, it is only a new type of colonialism. There is Us and an Other that needs controlling for there own good.

Cultural representations: culture and teaching materials

Summary of the texts: The Holiday readings cover issues of identity and Othering in cultural representations of groups. Taylor-Mendes’ article examined how different races are represented in textbook images.

Primary colored crew necks and generic jeans come to mind whenever I think of textbook images. Usually a group of white kids with one black guy and possibly an Asian to keep things politically correct. I never noticed the class divide associated with race until it was brought up in Mendes’ article. (Looking back, I see she makes a good point) I have never seen an EFL textbook, but many of Mendes’ claims hold true for my own textbook experience—especially my language books. The article stated that race is split by continent in textbooks. This has been true in my own experience. I remember learning about difference cultures in some of my second language classes, but there were only seven or eight ‘cultures’ that we studied. African, South America, Asian, and Europe were their own collective generalized cultures. I was just trying to learn Spanish at the time, so I didn’t consider the inaccuracy of the photographs and illustrations in the book. The textbook publishers probably wanted to simplify more complex concepts in order to make the learning easier rather than purposely propagating an essentialist ideal. Regardless of intentionality, it seems that solidifying an essentialist worldview is the implicit effect of many textbooks. Each group is divided into their own group with their own people, traditions, food, and language and the differences that make each of these groups infinitely complex in themselves are ignored. Americans eat hamburgers, Asians eat sushi, Latinos eat tacos and wear sombreros. There is little divergence from basic cultural stereotypes. Mendes said it well when she said that, “this kind of world has never existed” (76).

I find it funny that many of the photographs of different cultures in textbook are taken at event celebrating heritage. (A parade, tradition dance, etc.) It would be like taking pictures at a medieval fair and putting those pictures in a textbook in the section on England. While celebrating one’s heritage is good, it never represents an entire culture and often represents a culture that only exists in the past. Despite this, these are the types of pictures that textbooks use to portray and represent different cultures.

The first discussion question in the Mendes article is really compelling. It asks, “What does an English speaker look like?” The image that comes to my mind first is a picture of a white male which I believe is consist with the images in most textbooks. In reality, white males are a minority if all the speakers of English in the world are to be considered. Whites in generally are probably a minority given the rise of English as a lingua franca and the prevalence of English in former British colonies. It would be more accurate to have someone from Indian descent portrayed as an English speaker in a textbook, but this probably will not happen in the near future. There are probably multiple reasons why whites are portrayed as the archetypical anglophones. (Not to mention that it is a Germanic language, and it is hard to get whiter than that) However, I think a major reason is the power relations between race in America. I think the identity narratives that we read a month or so ago are evidence of this.