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.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
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.).
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)