Towards a transformative and empowering teacher education agenda: Revisioning TESOL

When reading “Appropriating English, Expanding Identities, and Re-Visioning the Field: From TESOL to Teaching English for Glocalized Communication (TEGCOM),” I was reminded of the tendency I have to not consider words/acronyms that I believe are neutral. For instance, Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). While this may seem like a meaningless distinction, the emphasis of the acronym is on Other Languages. More specifically on Languages Other than the English I am speaking. Maybe there isn’t anything wrong with the acronym other than it doesn’t challenge the overwhelming underlying assumption that English can be something owned, spoken, and taught by people other than native Americans or Britons. TEGCOM challenges the traditional dichotomy of native vs. non-native by emphasizing the purpose of teaching English. Namely, improved communication for ELLs. Even the word “glocalized” (I think the authors made this up) emphasizes a divergence from the idea that there ever can be a standard English and that one can or should be taught.

With this said, there is an implied sense that there is a wrong and right way to use language outside of this communicates well or does not. The authors confirm this through their testimonials of the Otherness they felt when living in Canada or when interacting with Native speakers. (e.g. Wendy’s pride at being bilingual was removed with a sense of inferiority during time working with native speakers as a graduate student). This is especially so in academia. For example, I am an English studies major and if I were to make up a word like “glocalize” and use it in a paper I would probably be marked down. I find it interesting that this emphasis on right and wrong came with the rise of English grammars in the 17th and 18th centuries which correlates nicely with colonialism. Before this, the creation and re-appropriation of words was common. Shakespeare did it all the time! Once English became the language of an empire, a need to preserve and enforce a certain type of “correct” English was felt, and the language became more static. Even the greatest author of modern English (in my opinion) would not be able to function well within the ideal of language that a majority of people hold today.

I believe that greater flexibility could only help ELLs and English language learners. For one it help develop the confidence for which the authors of todays article are striving (Lin et al. 305). Students will feel that they have a claim and partial ownership of the language, and that they have just as much right to use and be creative with it as someone who was born speaking it. This will help confidence and make the learning experience more enjoyable, and it will also make the post-learning (if there is such a thing) experience more enjoyable. ELLs won’t have to worry if they missed some aspect of grammar as long as they get the point across.

Globalization and Language teaching

Several parts of Kubota’s article on Globalization and ELT in Japan stood out to me. The first one is “although kokusaika literally means internationalization, it often implies  Westernization or, more specifically, Americanization with a focus on learning English while championing and essentializing the Japanese culture” (Kubota 602). It would seem more beneficial for kokusaika to be more inclusive Brazilians and the Portuguese language. However, it seems that the influx of non-English speaking immigrants has only increased the desire to learn English and “Americanize.” This is evidenced by the three testimonials of Japanese born women mentioned in the article. Mrs Honma’s and Mrs Nakai’s infatuation with English and how they stress the importance of learning despite the fact that it is there job to effectively interact with Portuguese speaking peoples. Unfortunately, though I can’t say for sure as I don’t have personal experience with the culture, it appears that these women represent the views of the majority of the population. They are hard to blame, though, because they are part of a framework that keeps “local people from fully affirming linguistic and ethnic diversity” (Kubota 614). As a result the native languages and cultures of Japan’s rising minority groups is being threatened, and, unless attitudes change, they will probably disappear.

Reiko’s interview brought up a point that has been discussed in class—namely the emphasis placed on native speakers. (aka white middle class speakers). She rightly believes at teaching “that she is better than unskilled native speakers,” but she can’t change parents wish to have there students trained by a native. Ironically, most native-speakers of English don’t speak what is considered by most people to be “native English.” Moreover, many non-native speakers have a better grasp on the grammar and linguistic nature of the language because they have had to study it objectively over time.  A native speaker may have taken some grammar classes in high school or college, but wouldn’t have nearly as much expertise in communicating how English actually works, especially if he or she is monolingual. All the same, communicating this fact to people who want to learn or want their children to learn native English is a difficult task.

The tendency of some Japanese to value white middle class discourses over the discourse of other people groups is interesting because many middle class white American’s have a similar obsession with mainstream Japanese culture. I am curious to what exactly makes certain cultures more attractive to people than others. For instance, there isn’t much said about Zimbabwean culture in the American, yet I doubt Zimbabweans are culturally deprived. With this said I really don’t have any concrete ideas as to why, except that certain culture are often looked upon as uncivilized or primitive. 

Language variations, language ideologies

Rosina Lippi-Green’s chapters from English with an Accent provides a thorough and fair assessment about the perceptions and prejudices towards different spoken Englishes. She brings up many instances of this, but, for me, the most salient is that of the testifying speech pathologist who said,

I urgently recommend [Mr. Kahakua] seek professional help in striving to lessen this handicap...Pidgin can be controlled. And if an individual is totally committed to improving, professional help on a long-term basis can produce results (Lippi- Green 45).

This isn’t exactly a confidence booster for Mr. Kahakua. Underlying this is the belief that certain non-native dialects of English are handicapped or that these dialects need to be controlled. Lippi-Green gave a comprehensive examination on why changing one’s phonology is impossible on a physiological scale so I won’t comment on that. However, I do find the belief that certain types of English are inferior, a stance that is commonly held in the United States, to be very inconsistent. If the logic of standard English only is followed, then we would have to see our American English as a non-standard variety of British English. Proposing that all Americans seek professional help in order to control their American accents would seem absurd to most (probably all) proponents of exclusive standard English. This is what is being asked of speakers of HCE, AAVE, and other non-standard English speakers. Standard English proponents might answer by saying that both standard American English and the Queen’s English are okay because they are the norm for both contexts. While both may hope to normalize language, neither has been successful thus far. Consider Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary editors who state without any sense of guilt that “there can be no objective standard for correct pronunciation” (Lippi-Green 54-55). I think Lippi-Green touches on the real reason for the fervency of proponents of standard English. She says “The myth of standard language persist because it is carefully tended and propagated” (Lippi-Green 59). In other words, standard English is an abstraction. It serves an idealogical purpose, but doesn’t actually exist. Non-dominant dialects are seen as Other and described with mis- in front of their adjectives because they don’t fit into mainstream culture.

Language Planning and Policy

“Language thus has both a ‘constituted and constitutive role in the world; it is not merely a passive presence, nor just a language acted upon by its material circumstances, but also an active agent” (McKay 91).

I think the above quote is a good summary of this weeks readings and reinforces much of what we have learned in class. Language is at the center of most activities people do. We communicate, learn, think, and buy coffee with language. It cannot help but be a necessary and enlightening part life as well as a coercive. Recognizing the different roles various languages play in different context will help understand how language is used as both.

Learning about Language Politicking was interesting for me because I disagree with it yet understand why it is done. It seems intuitive for leaders of a country whose primary language isn’t a “world” language to implement policies that would give their people greater relevancy in global dialogue. Speakers of English or Mandarin have greater economic opportunities (And often greater social prestige) given that English and Mandarin are the two most prevalent languages of global trade today. Singapore’s actions seem to be (and are) coercive, but there are clear reasons for stressing the need to speak English or Mandarin.

However, from a purely practical standpoint, the negative repercussions language politicking seems to have on education and economy seems to outweigh any potential positives. Also, the divide between the rich and the poor is only reinforced by these methods. Those who have the most monetary resources possess the most opportunity learn dominant languages while the poor are speaking an increasingly irrelevant native language. For my interview, I had a conversation with a Ghanian man who explained the politics of language in his country. Essentially, those who spoke English had the opportunity to go to universities and find jobs with significant salary. Ghanians who spoke only the native language of Twi had no job opportunities aside from manuel labor. It seems that speakers of less prevalent native languages struggle with identity because the default discourse is definitely and hegemonically other than their own. When a language such as English is seen as the ticket to affluence, it only follows that people would put more value on speaking English. People who do not speak English in this context would be subject to feel that there language is something less, which is clearly not the case though it is reinforced through simple day to day actions.

If the logic of Language Politicking is followed to it end, uniformity among a nation is appears to be the ultimate goal. It sounds like a pipe dream, but a nation whose people are more alike is generally thought to have more stability than one with radical diversity. (There are several countries that have had high degrees of stability and diversity, but it hasn’t changed the thought that uniformity is a strength) This is actually really sad because it is basically asking several people groups to give up their past and conform to another group’s culture.