Week Fowr-teeyn.

For starters, this chapter began with referencing the growing presence of English in our modern world. It says that, “the current Growth of English is due largely to the increasing number of second language speakers of English who are learning English within their own country.” This is directed at Kachru’s outer and expanding circles. This increase of English speakers for which English is their L2 means an increase of bilingual children those countries. This bilingualism, along with a few select forward-thinking parents, means that future generations may very well acquire English as their L1, or simultaneously with the traditional language of their country.

This raises to me a few questions regarding the future linguistic effects of the outer and expanding circles on Standard English. As for right now, there is Standard British English, the Queen’s/King’s English, American English, and half a dozen other types from the main English-speaking states. But, if the majority of English-speakers someday are not in an inner circle community, then would their way become the standard? Or would whatever country has the most economic power reign supreme?

This transitions smoothly into my next observation. The book cites four varieties of English in Nigeria. The first is socially unacceptable and “internationally intelligible.” Number two is socially acceptable but has “low international intelligibility.” The third is socially acceptable and “internationally intelligible.” Lastly, the fourth variation is “identical with Standard British English in [its linguistic forms].” This leads me to wonder if the standard is the best route. Sure, it is internationally understandable, but the book says that only 10% of the population speak that fourth variety. Shouldn’t the standard be the most common? Should the international community put more emphasis on an Earthly Standard English or just let the tides flow as they may?

If the standard English were to change, or a global standard were to form, what would be its accent? Would the accent matter as long as the syntax and pragmatics were appropriate? And to change this accent, could an individual permanently change their own? The Lippie-Green reading for class says that “it is not possible for an adult to substitute his or her phonology (one accent) for another, consistently and in a permanent way.” It goes on to explain that this is the typical linguist’s view, whereas the non-linguist will give an example about their third cousin who ‘dropped’ or ‘gained’ an accent to be more socially acceptable. This is bologna in my opinion. Yes, we may consciously train ourselves to speak one way, but when we are our most tired, most pissed-off, or drunkest, the original version grace us with its presence. If this does not seem to be the case, then the accent is being completely faked—go ask Dr. Smith upstairs his opinion and your dissenting one will be shut down. I believe in being able to train oneself to a point where an accent is nearly undetectable, but it takes years and does not fully envelop the language used. This seems impossible to me.

Week Eleven

I have always been confused by the term globalization. Although there are an abundance of definitions for the term, they all have overlapping gray areas. The biggest controversy I find is that some define the term in a positive light while others cast a negative shadow across the term. Our McKay text supposes that “perhaps no other term has been as widely used and abused during the twenty-first century as the term globalization.” I found it interesting how they used the word abused. But this makes sense. Every time a culture was spread to another area, it was globalization, even if it was then abandoned in its original locale.

To try and clarify the gray areas of this term, McKay includes a list of categories this includes globalization “as internationalization, liberalization, universalization, westernization and deterritorialization.” The most common definitions I hear associate the spread of liberal and western ideas.

Keeping the different types in mind, I then thought about whether globalization is a good thing. The discussions regarding this are typically with other language majors. Since language majors are more liberal in their views and require globalization/spread of languages for jobs, they are normally all for it. When I go home, the Amuricans (yes, with a ‘u’) think it’s horrible and all immigrants should stop stealing their jobs. The under-educated don’t know enough about it to hold an organized conversation. The migrant workers are out in the fields when these discussions happen. So finding a neutral place to hold such a discussion is a little challenging.

It can be said that globalization can be seen “as the cause of a loss of cultural and linguistic diversity…which has contributed to greater disparity between the rich and the poor.” In many countries being bilingual, especially with English proficiency, can help attain greater financial prosperity. This motivates learners of more obsolete languages to abandon passing on their mother tongue to their children in hopes of greater prosperity for their bloodline.

In other respects, it allows for different communities to come together and share ideas. They can share food, clothes, technology, etc. The need for a Spanish teacher would be null, leaving me trying to find a job that fits my linguistic, pattern-recognizing brain. But in this notion of globalization, McKay notes that “while capital and goods can ‘freely’ move, the human element should stay where [it ‘belongs’]. While the United States may welcome foreign music, food and style, immigrants are not as easily accepted. If too many come to the land of, seemingly, plenty, it will no longer be the land of plenty.

Settimana Otto

The sections from our Holliday textbook this week focused on othering. Cultural misconceptions are at the center of this lovely concept. Section 3.1 opened with the tale of Reza, an Afghan refugee in Canada learning remedial English skills. The teacher made a few generalizations about his background, which helped isolate him. He was already transitioning from a male-dominated culture into a Western world, but that did not mean that his ideas were completely different than those of already naturalized Canadian citizens. A year later the teacher ran into her past student and they had a conversation. He explained his feelings about being treated as just a refugee. He expressed that he felt like part of the underbelly of this new society, when he used to be a Judge. His sister became a professor, but he was stuck doing menial labor. The teacher then gathered that her stereotyping him, along with the rest of that society stereotyping him, just isolated him. Being isolated, he was not in a habitat that was particularly conducive to learning a new language, and he then was not as motivated as a learner. In our ENG 344 class (theoretical foundations of TESOL) we have covered the idea that motivation is key to learning a second language.

There are a few adults we have talked about that were able to successfully require an L2 to a very proficient level. They were not othered as Reza was. Othering is detrimental to a learner’s motivation, and thus ability, to acquire a new foreign language. Encouragement and understanding are necessary to help the learner feel comfortable enough to cross cultural barriers that may inhibit or even prohibit them from learning a new language.

The Taylor-Mendes article I found really interesting. My friends and I have joked around before about how the media works to target certain groups. When I’m watching TV alone, I like to think about what kind of person or what group of people a commercial is trying to reach out to.

In regards to the author, I found it interesting how she referenced finding work in São Paulo. Her knowledge of the English language and education allowed her to get a number of job offers upon arrival, whereas a Joe Shmoe sans unique skill sets could be looking for a job for an entire year. English is such a commodity, and this class has helped teach me to not take for granted my Native Speaker of English status. I will always be able to find a job in our globalizing world thanks to my linguistic background and education.

I also found it interesting how she acknowledged her personal cultural adaptations to Brazilian culture. She stopped apologizing for silly things and was more direct. From living in Spain for 5 months and talking with friends from Central and South America, it seems that the Spanish-speaking and Portuguese-speaking cultures share this. As a white girl from North America, I understand how it can shock you when you are called “my fatty” by a friend. Although intended neutrally, it is hard not to take such things offensively given a certain cultural background. This seems to be reflected in the media. In Spain we did not see violence as much as we do in America, but people were much more direct about the truth. By the results Taylor-Mendes received from her participants, it seems that they noticed that American media portrayed the US as a happy land free of conflicts. This censorship of the truth, to me at least, seems to stem from social origins. I do not believe we are as open about negative things as some cultures.

Week Seven

In the Baker article we examine Englishes being used a sort of lingua franca. We know that in the westernized civilizations English has become a common languge used in the business and international realms, making it a quintessential language to know in many areas. When it comes to English, though, there is not one culture in particular that has laid claim to its entirety.

Yes, it started back in the United Kingdom and the United States are seen as a very prominent country on our little planet, but English is a language. Languages transcend borders. Kachru elaborated with his circles of English. The Inner Circle is more the typical native-speaking countries like the US, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, etc. The Outer Circle primarily includes old colonies whose government spoke in English. This includes places like India, Nigeria, etc. The final portion is the Expanding Circle, which includes all other countries that are cultivating their use of English. This would be most of the European countries, Korea, etc.
With this in mind, it is easier to see how no one culture has been able to lay claim to the Lower-West Germanic language that we call English. Each of Kachru’s circles employs its own cultures to create socio-dialects. It is very possible that two people trying to speak English will not understand each other since they could be learning staunchly different dialects. So you would think that a true “native speaker” from the inner circle would then be the basis for the standard used as the lingua franca? Not so much.

Defining a native speaker is like nailing jello to a tree. If you make a specific parameters that the jello, or native speaker, is going to follow, it eventually won’t work due to change. You can freeze the jello with a hole in the middle, but eventually the jello is going to change states and fall off. The world is an ever-changing place, just like the state of the jello.

Are children raised in a bilingual household native speakers of two languages or neither? Even if it was perfectly, down the middle, bilingual, is the glass half full and they have mastered two languages equally in their childhood or are they NNS since there are parts lacking in their lexicons. If you started speaking a different language as a child and switched to English at school at a young age and stopped using your L1, is the L2 that you’ve spent 20 years perfecting after abandoning your L1 considered your native language? If we cannot define a native speaker, why should we set the standard English to be used around the world as NS English? It seems that the cultural need at whatever moment is to determine what ‘type’ of English is used.

The other article by Marra was a little different. It was studying trends in workplace communication of the Maori people. For those who don’t know, they are among New Zealand’s native population. The study was very dense, and hard for me to follow. It examined cultural implications on workplace dialogues, and also talked a lot about being ethical in studies. By ethical, I mean culturally responsible as well as respectful in general. Understanding the background of test subjects is very important in gathering accurate data.

Week Six

I did not do the homework for week six. Sorry folks!

Week Five

I like how the Holliday book defined four different parts of Othering. Othering is a term used when someone is trying to set apart someone/thing else, and typically has a negative connotation to it. There was story about a student who used the Culturalism concept of Othering to explain what a woman was doing. Just because Mrs. Smith was Amish, he would explain any of her habits by adding that she was Amish. The book explains, and I agree, that by that concept, she could just as well have doing everything she did because she is a woman, or married, or in America. Generalizing one concept to make a blanket statement that all of a person’s actions are directly related to that cultural identifier. As I posted last week, different identitites are based on different parts of a person’s life and are thus used in different parts of a person’s life. It is erroneous to think that just because a person is a woman she will wear a skirt, or that someone doesn’t drive a car because they are Amish. In large cities it can be economically and environmentally absurd to own/drive a car. Not all girls like skirts (for the record, I love them). Just because I’m bilingual does not make me a liberal pansy (liberal, who knows. But pansy I most certainly am not.).

Week Four

This weeks reading in the Holliday et. al book are sections 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5. The first paragraph of section 1.3 brings up good points. It argues that narrating your own life is a helpful way of discovering a personal identity. Also, being able to apply your identity to a larger group, or a “Dominant Narrative,” helps you feel included. In reference the Great Migration, the Dominant Narrative was English-speaking and trying to reach the American ideal of speaking fluent English and having a steady job to support a family. Those who did not learn English were excluded from this blanket narrative, and thus cast as social outsiders. The inability to communicate effectively in English in present-day America still excludes many from realizing certain goals, like having a steady, well-paid job.

Later in section 1.5.1, Ehrman and Dornyei are quoted as saying that “language learning frequently entails new thought processes, identity, and values that can present a threat to learners.” I agree-ish. Learning a new language undoubtedly requires new thought processes to analyze foreign grammar structures, alphabets, etc. This can shift a few thought in your brain by just making you more open-minded, but it is the culture behind the language that causes the rest of the aforementioned changes. Examining a new way of life, a new perspective, allows the learner to see the same world, or task, through a different light. The acceptance of the existence of other cultures is what opens our frame of reference and allows us to edit our own values, which in turn edits our identities.

Although identities are very important, the Hall article says that “it is not the case that all of our identities are always relevant.” I agree. It is hard to put a definition on exactly when they are and are not relevant, but there are circumstances when your background has no pertinence to a present situation. My favorite childhood stories do not affect my dinner choice for this evening. If someone’s favorite story was Dr Seuss’ Green Eggs and Ham, then it may—but this is not my case. Having multiple identities means that some will overlap while others will not. Those that do not overlap with a present situation do not affect the individual’s course of action.

Just as one of our identities may not apply to a situation, it is possible that none of them do. Since our identities are limited to our past experiences, it is possible to have many foreign concepts. This can happen when a new topic is covered in class for the first time, or in Eva’s case in the Norton article, someone moves to a new country and doesn’t know all the cultural norms. This leads me to wonder how long it takes to form a new identity, and when can one identity split into two? For example, when living in a new culture, when do you switch from “Tourist” to “Resident?” Are some identities so engraved into people’s minds that they never let go? Can identities fade away with time or shame? Can they come back when nurtured?