Thursday, April 4, 2013

WE, diglossia, and practical high school classroom plans for critical awareness




McKay and Borkhorst-Heng’s Chapter 3 describes the various roles of English as an International Language within countries with diglossia and bilingualism and countries without. McKay and Borkhorst-Heng define diglossia as the state of “a community where two or more varieties of the same language have different roles to play in society” (60). The authors use the example of Singapore English to describe classic diglossia. Singapore Standard English (SSE) functions as the formal (or high, H) language while another variety of Singapore English – Singapore Colloquial English – functions as the informal (or low, L) variety. The key here, according to the authors, is the functionality of each of the dialects (60). Thus, the dialects have specific rhetorical functions, depending on the situation. In contrast, communities with no diglossia have bilingualism without any guidelines (overt or covert) distinguishing the rhetorical use of the dialects/varieties.

McKay and Borkhorst-Heng juxtapose the sociohistorical backgrounds, past and current roles of EIL, and problems inherent with the various uses of EIL of both of the prior categories (bilingual contries with diglossia vs. bilingual countries without diglossia). Then, they compare the situations in South Africa with those in India (bilingualism with diglossia), and they compare the situations in the United States with those in Britain (bilingualism without diglossia).

The main picture is a complicated one. The situation and way of dealing with languages in India differs from the methods in South Africa. Both countries have colonized histories, making English a language introduced to (forced upon) the community members. In India, the function of English was to supply the elite with a way to communicate with the colonizers. Now, it is a source of monetary capital, as India is a leading source of off-shore operations for many companies (my sister has to schedule conference calls at odd hours because some of the computer systems work at her company is now handled by people in India). McKay and Borkhorst-Heng state, “In broad strokes, the overriding incentive for the learning of English in diglossic multilingual societies is the very status of English as the H-language, and its use in H-domains” (63). India, however, has attempted to instill a sense of linguistic balance with its Three Language Formula (65). Likewise, South Africa instituted its Language in Education Policy to help ensure that all South Africans would become bilingual.

These efforts, while well-intentioned it seems, also furthered an ideology of English as an “Aladdin’s lamp”:  “Indians secretly believe, if not openly say, that competence in English makes a considerable difference in their career prospects…” (Gupta 1995 qtd. in McKay and Borkhorst-Heng 67). The belief in the importance of learning English to further one’s social/class standing, increase income and opportunities, etc. not only places English on a pedestal in the hierarchy of languages, but this belief also aids in the demise of local varieties/languages by not valuing the mother tongue as EIL is valued. Languages are disappearing as a result of the placement of EIL in a supreme position among languages. For instance, the use of Zulu in the South African classroom is discouraged or prohibited (71).

But while parents and officials may demand education in English, they don’t necessarily want English-only policies (71). And, the English the students are exposed to or taught in the classroom does not have as its outcome speaking fluency; rather, the students are often taught grammar or literature. Thus, they cannot utilize their English learning for what they need it for (job interviews are mentioned on p. 69); they are not equipped to succeed. Yet, as the authors contend, the students “nonetheless continued to maintain belief that these classes would somehow improve their social status and life chances” (69). What a frustrating situation: A post-colonial community attempts to utilize a tool used to colonize them, and ironically end up not well equipped at all to use that tool to improve their situation (as they would see it). McKay and Borkhorst-Heng state that the current learners of EIL “do not necessarily want to learn or internalize the cultural norms of native speakers of English from the Inner Circle. Rather, they want to learn English for very particular purposes, to gain access to the benefits that knowledge of English brings” (70). Yet, not every is gaining that access.

Continuing concerns with these two bilingual diaglossic communities:
not all members have equal access to learning/practicing/participating in English
code-switching in the South African classroom, for example, is not necessarily used to maintain or support the mother tongue (for example, Zulu), but it is used primarily to learn English.
English input may include colonial overtones in post-colonial communities
the situation remains complicated, as policies enacted to limit language inequalities have little effect. McKay and Borkhorst-Heng state, “It is not a story of English imperialism and the unstoppable killer effect of global English. Rather, it is a story of the mediations between languages and their ecologies, and of the negotiation of power relationships between languages” (74).

The situation in bilingual countries without diglossia (such as the United states and Britain, as examples in this text) is complicated, yet it seems to me as if there is more room – more agency – to make the changes necessary to abolish harmful language ideologies. McKay and Borkhorst-Heng contend that the overriding goal of these countries – despite the different histories and policies – is to make their communities monolingual.  The authors cite “a strong economic interest in Britain to promote the hegemony of English” (75) and the desire in the U.S. for bilingual programs to serve as transition programs which would “promote rapid transition to English” (77).

The authors list citizenship and social integration as well as socioeconomic factors as motivations for learners to acquire English in these two countries. When it comes to English input, the question arises of whether to mainstream ELLs or to pull them out to separate classrooms. McKay and Borkhorst-Heng use Harklau’s study and findings as support that mainstreaming provides more positive, authentic input for language learners, but that the instruction available is often lacking as teachers are not often trained to deal with the great diversity of languages in the mainstream classroom. The language diversity in the classroom, the authors point out, “is commonly seen as a temporary barrier to ‘real’ learning” (81).

Some continuing concerns/complexities:
the diminishing number of Equal Education Opportunity programs (82)
the pressure on districts to raise AYP thresholds due to the NCLB (which, the authors note, could have been a way to increase opportunities for ELs but instead took time and resources away from EL programs). Farr and Song (2011) also discuss NCLB, specifically how the foundational policies can be interpreted in two very different ways (655).

Farr and Song (2011) demonstrate how beliefs and political orientations can inform language policies. The goal of this article is to raise awareness, especially among teachers, so that they can “negotiate language policies in their local contexts in ways that best serve their multilingual learners” (651). This, to me, is perhaps the best way to attack the problem of damaging language policies that are informed by ignorant language ideologies. Attempting an overhaul from the top-down is a huge task, and raising awareness so that action can be taken at the local level is an easier task to undertake (“easier” is a relative term, of course). Farr and Song insist that “the negotiation between top-down and bottom-up processes in the implementation of language policy, in fact, is both common and necessary in adjusting policies for different parts of society and groups of people” (655).

Kubota and Ward (2000) had the same idea in their article in The English Journal: Equip high school English teachers to raise critical awareness among their students of the issue of language diversity. Instilling damaging (or even neutral, at times) ideologies in the public school system is questionable ethically; however, instilling critical awareness using the public school forum is, essentially, one of the purposes of public education. Kudos to Kubota and Ward for providing a detailed, day-by-day unit plan on raising awareness of language diversity. I know as a former high school English teacher, time is short and a unit plan like this takes time to design; resources like The English Journal are invaluable and help teachers stay current with theory and methods.

Farr and Song (2011) reiterate this bottom-up action: “When language education policies conflict with research findings on language learning, bottom-up initiatives seomtimes pressure to alter the policy” (659).  The authors cite as examples of grass-roots efforts “Multilingual Chicago” and the notion of “English Plus” as initiatives to maintain mother-tongue varieties and promote true bilingualism (resisting English-only practices) (659).

These readings created more chaos that understanding in my mind regarding language policy. McKay-Borkhorst-Heng’s chapter especially complicated WE and multilingualism. What I did get from the readings is a better awareness and an example of how to raise awareness among high school students in countries that have bilingualism without diglossia (the U.S.). While these global issues seem overwhelmingly complex (who among us is on his/her way to South Africa with all of the answers?), Farr and Song as well as Kubota and Ward charge us as educators:

Teachers produce, affirm and/or disconfirm language policies every day – when they allow or disallow the use of one language or variety rather than another, when they choose to use a particular variety of a language to communicate with their students, when they prefer a certain structure over another in the curriculum, when they show their lack of knowledge about certain languages or varieties, etc. (Farr and Song, 2011, p. 660).

The future of our local and global society depends on human communication across cultural borders. Younger generations must become aware of linguistic diversity and must take communicative responsibility in intercultural interaction. (Kubota and Ward, 2000, 86)


(I really want to close with those two powerful paragraphs, but I have two questions regarding Farr and Song’s statements: How can I as an individual choose a certain variety of a language to communicate with my students? My variety is my variety. Is the intent that I learn a different variety in which to communicate?

My second question is related: There are so many languages and varieties. How do I have adequate and applicable knowledge of all varieties, as implied in the last sentence?)

No comments:

Post a Comment