On the two articles we got through email last Wednesday, we discussed ① what the main thesis and the authors’ positions are and ② whether we are swayed or unswayed by the authors’ position, first in a group of three, and then in a class. For the class discussion, we took either swayed /unswayed side and debated our points.
Article 1.
Ellis,E. (2006). Monolingualism: The unmarked case. Estudio de Sociolinguistica 7(2), 173-196.
The main thesis
Although there are far more bilingual and multilingual speakers in the world than monolinguals, linguists and monolinguals themselves (especially English speakers) tend to consider "Monolingualism" as the norm and thus invisible, whereas bilingual or multilingual speakers are viewed as exceptions. This paper reviews three representations of monolingualism in applied linguistic.
-Monolingual bias: monolinguals are presented as a preferred, normal, neutral,
default state. (other bias in our society: gender, race, language, etc.)
-Three representations of monolingualism
1. unmarked: state of normality, invisible
2. limitation: missing on really good values such as intellectual, cultural, social, emotional, and economic benefits.
3. disease, sickness: The forefront advocate, Skutnabb-Kangas:
"monolingual reductionism", "monolingual stupidity" etc.
-Which one of the three does the author take a position with?
#3, the most radical state.
We can tell from the way the presented this view. (It was presented in the end. Difficult point to make, but no need to be aggressive. Be reasonable and state carefully)
In conclusion, "It's the monolingual's turn to be marginalized!"
Article 2.
Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of
English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2),
133-158.
The main thesis & the author's position
There is a huge gap between the phenomena of English as a lingua franca and an English teaching reality. What we need is a systematic description. In order
to narrow this gap, an ELF corpus is now in progress.
Our Voices
- A systematic description for ELF is helpful because it can concretely explain what ELF is and goes deeper than just emotionally appealing for the existence of ELF.
- The phenomena in which the majority of English users use ELF does exist. ELF should be introduced as a means of communication. The fact that non-native teachers teach English tells us that there is no way that they are introducing ENL in the first place.
- how do you assess students' ELF if there is no standard? In order to spread ELF, a model to teach, assess, and test will be needed.
- Students still want to learn ENL.
- Do we always teach what the students want? We don't need to.
- Understanding what the students need/want is not enough. Language policy and how the language is actually viewed in the society should be concerned.
- The notion of ELF is great, but when it comes to making a curriculum for ELF, it is difficult because it involves many sociocultural, political, economical, and language ideological aspects. It's hard to decide where to start.
- How about academic writing? We are sometimes evaluated by the way we write, and are expected to reach a certain level of academic writing.
- The reality is that professors are already accepting ELF products and what we do in class is already ELF (product of ELF).
- How do we introduce ELF to beginners? Introducing many different kinds of English may confuse them. (process of being ELF)
- Three different pronunciations of "hello" does not harm children.
- Isn't it just enough to teach "English"? It doesn't need to be ELF. Just teach to be tolerate and flexible about English.
- 50 years ago, there was no language school which focused on spoken form. Written form was the best variety possible. Now, we have a description of spoken language and communicative language teaching attracts many interests. Things can change.
My Voice
First, I'm sorry if I could't get your opinion correctly or missed completely. The topic was exciting and I almost forgot my role as a recorder.You might notice that I was taking the "unswayed" side. I totally agree with the fundamental concept of teaching ELF as "the majority of English speakers are non-natives who have their own right to use English as a lingua franca, and shouldn't be discriminated against because of their variety of English". But my big question was "Isn't it good enough to change the students' perspectives about English by dealing with many topics related to global issued including many different countries, people, cultures, and languages?". "Does ELF have to be taught?" As for English skills, teachers are mostly producing the students who use ELF in FL contexts, no matter how hard they try to introduce ENL using ENL materials. So, ELF users are already right there with/without being taught ELF intentionally. All we need to do is to change the students' attitudes and perspectives toward varieties of English, and reconsider the ways to evaluate the students' ELF. And thanks to the ELF corpus in progress, teachers may be able to prioritize linguistic skills treating in class. That way, teachers can spend limited English class hours more effectively focusing more on essential aspects. I assume all I mentioned here can be done without actually teaching "ELF". Or do I still have a bias in terms of linguistic skills accepting only the concept of ELF? I wonder.... In addition, not only non-native but also native speakers of English should make efforts to communicate in ELF. Maybe, "It's the native English speakers' turn to learn ELF!"
Announcement: No reading but do something on next Tuesday.
Happy Thanksgiving !!
Megumi (ELF writer)
3 comments:
Megumi-- Thanks for the sunccinct and lively commentary of our discussion last Tuesday. Maybe teaching global topics and issues is a beginning towards boosting L2students' confidence and making the realities of ELF a bit more visible in our consciousness and our classrooms...
You should talk about it with Hatsumi, she is doing her paper precisely on this issue! Emiko too, she is looking at how attitudes towards Englishes change as a function of extended experience with many kinds of Englishes in Hawaii... Maye when both of them finish their papers, we will have some viable answers to the difficult ELF questions :-)
Thanks a lot for the reflection, Megumi. I totally agree with your last few lines: It's high time native speakers of English "learned to communicate" with people allover the world who speak Englishes rather than their own! The example of the Danish Foreign Minister’s use of “so-called” and how native speakers/media misunderstood his message in Seidlhofer’s (2001) article is a vivid evidence to support our voice, I guess :-)
Besides, what I found interesting is that Seidlhofer used ELF while addressing this very topic. For instance, although she used the so-called American English spelling throughout the article (eg. “recognized”, “realize”, etc. ), the British version of spelling was also used elsewhere(eg., “centres” on p.142).
Ky-- Interesting observation about the "mixture" of English conventions in Seidlhofer's article (I missed it). I wonder if it was intentional... Maybe it was! Or maybe it was a result of the copy editor of the journal doing a poor job, I wonder.
Usually journals will ask all authors that they use the British or the US conventions, depending on whether the publisher is based in the UK or the USA.But in the end the author writes however they want, and it is mostly the copy editor at the final stage who will look for such details and make the changes...
You have a fine eye for world Englishes, though!
Post a Comment