Stephen van Vlack
Sookmyung Women`s University
Graduate School of TESOL
History of the English Language
Fall 2006
Week 11 - Answers
Canagarajah (1999) Chapter 5
1. What are some possible problem with central teaching methodologies?
Similar to what we have already addressed, teaching methodologies descend on the periphery from the center. Almost all the teaching methodologies we can think of have been developed in central core countries that are often designed for use it no central core countries with very little consideration of the outer circle and particularly the expanding circle. As Canagarajah (1999) has already mentioned, many of these methodologies come with inherent beliefs about the learning process which are seen as being the same or universal. I think Canagarajah (1999) overall does a fair job in explaining this rather carefully, but there is one important element which I think he is missing or at least has not focused enough attention on.
Methodologies come as pre-packaged systems which teachers are supposed to pick up and use. This, as mentioned by Canagarajah (1999), is one of the reasons why methodologies have been so successful in particularly language teaching over the last century or so. They are supposed to make language teaching easy for the teacher. All a teacher needs to do, in theory, is a methodology which they believe works well and study it so that they can use it. Now, what interests me is that methodologies also include particular techniques or sets of techniques which teachers are supposed to employ in the classroom in accordance with that methodology. Following what we have already studied in Canagarajah (1999), one of the chief areas in which we might expect students from different cultures to differ would be on how they react to different techniques. Certain techniques are going to work very well for certain students and not at all for others. As language teachers in the referee I`m sure we can all come up with examples of techniques which have failed us miserably. The failure of certain techniques is often one of the main problems with teaching methodologies.
Some of the general ideas underlying the methodology might be okay but the entire package which comes with the methodology will never be completely okay. At some point a teacher whether in the periphery or not, but this applies much more specifically to people in periphery settings, will not be able to use all the specific techniques endorsed from a specific teaching methodology. As Canagarajah (1999) correctly mentions this is a. period of post-methodology. No one methodology is seen to work for all students and in all situations.
2. What are periphery pedagogies and how do they work?
The basic idea behind peripheral pedagogies is that education is a prevalent in every culture regardless of what teachers from the outside might believe. Education comes in both written and oral forms and this must be remembered. Matter where you are teaching there is a cultural background for education which I probably varies from educational background which if not the teacher at least the prevailing methodologies for ELT are coming from. In this case teachers from local cultures may have an advantage over teachers coming in from different cultures and particularly hegemonic cultures.
The methodology you as a teacher of a foreign language are implying is probably at odds with local pedagogical traditions. We are certainly aware that Korea, for example, has its own pedagogical tradition which still plays a huge role in Korean society. As teachers trying to use different methodologies we often find ourselves needing our heads against a proverbial wall. It is quite hard to get students to follow or adapt to different traditions. This is particularly true when teachers of other subjects may or may not be embracing similar methodologies. It is important to remember that these peripheral pedagogies or what we can see we can call local pedagogies are extremely difficult to supplant entirely and to do so is probably folly. The effort it takes to try to get students to change all their habits in order to adapt to your particular methodology is probably not worth it. Rather than forcing students to bed 100% there needs to be some sort of negotiation between teachers and students or rather between global situations and local situations. For efficiency`s sake one can not prevail entirely over the other
3. What are some ways of dealing with or coping with methods in the periphery?
As mentioned above, one of the chief ways of dealing with methods in the periphery is to create some sort of hybrid. This follows the basic idea of linguistic accommodation and linguistic appropriation which are used to explain language acquisition from a pragmatic/sociocultural approach. The basic idea is that a person will accommodate their language to a person they are speaking to if they like that person. Very often people will like another person if they also feel that that person is also accommodating. So one of the main ways that we can deal with methods in the periphery is by simply accommodating certain aspects from the local situation and mixing it with more global pedagogies, for example. If the students feel that the teacher is accommodating the students will then in turn also accommodate and at some point we get a system which works.
Having simply gone over the idea of accommodation we need to explain a little bit more in depth how accommodation works. One of the chief aspects of accommodation is appropriation. People accommodate by appropriating language from somebody who they generally have a positive relationship with. The simple idea behind language appropriation is you will simply say things that other people say. It is a very simple `monkey see monkey do` type of situation, but the ideas we will only copy from monkeys who we like and who also copy from us. Looking at pedagogies we can see that what Canagarajah (1999) is suggesting to us is that we appropriate certain elements from the local pedagogies or local pedagogical traditions. We appropriate the things that seem the most useful to us. If teachers begin to appropriate elements of the local situation, the learners in turn will begin to appropriate elements from the global situation from the teacher (this means teacher does need to present some contrasting pedagogical views to the students).
Kecskes and Papp (2000) Chapter 3
1. Where do you stand on the issue of multi-lingual language systems integration?
The basic idea underlying this question is how closely languages may rely on an underlying conceptual base. It should be clear to all of us at this point that language is an encapsulation the world around us. This includes both the real world (the concrete) and the world we create in our minds (the abstract). By using the word `encapsulation` what we are really highlighting is the fact that particular concepts are, to a certain extent, frozen in time as they are captured by language. Language does this by taking concepts from the world and codifying them. It is important to realize though that this linguistic code (language generally in the form of words) has a conceptual basis from which it springs, or is developed from (based on). Before we can begin to answer the question of integration or separation we need to understand these basic ideas about what language itself is and how language itself works.
Once we understand that language comes from an underlying conceptual base then we have to start thinking about what happens when one person controls or has developed control over more than one linguistic code. To put the question as simply as possible, do speakers of more than one language think differently in each of those languages? Do they rely on different underlying concepts and configurations of those concepts? This is the million-dollar question for bilingual research. What we get in this chapter is a fairly detailed discussion on some of the most important results relating to this question.
Before we delve into these results though I really want you just to think a little bit about yourself and how you go about using your own different languages. Can you feel any differences between elements of your different languages in relation to some sort of underlying conceptual meaning? If you are like most bilinguals you will be quite sensitive to some of these differences, much more sensitive than a monolingual might be. You will probably be able to feel that not all elements of each of your languages are the same. If this is indeed the case then we need to argue that the languages or the underlying conceptual basis of the languages are, at least to a certain extent, separated. In the recent past, because of the concept of monolingual dominance within the field all of language study, including language acquisition studies and not just radical approaches to linguistics, there has been an over-evaluation of the separation hypothesis. Theoretical linguists like Chomsky have claimed that concepts are separate from language. That is, concepts are housed separately and function separately (remember generativists like Chomsky see the brain and language itself as being strictly modular). This modular view would mean, in the end, that different linguistic systems are totally separate from each other because they will have different links to concepts. But there is also the other side of the coin which is the integration aspect.
The position we are going to take in this class is similar to one that Kecskes and Papp (2000) take in their book; namely, that different linguistic systems, to be efficiently used, need to be integrated at some point, but that the degree and amount of integration will vary greatly from speaker to speaker. We are going to follow their proposal that there is a Common Underlying Conceptual Base (CUCB) for all the different languages that a person might speak. The evidence for this is overwhelming certainly in bilingual studies, but surprisingly also in studies of monolingual language use. Let`s look at this for a second.
In order to understand parallels between monolingual and bi/multilingual aspects of language we need to look at language use (pragmatics) and the simple phenomenon of code-switching. When a speaker goes to use their first language they don`t just to use any possible code (string of sounds, words, sentences, etc.). A speaker has to go through a series of careful decision-making processes analyzing several different aspects of the context in order to determine which particular code (e.g. formal versus informal) will be the most effective in that particular situation. For example, if somebody accidentally steps on your foot you are probably going to say something, but what you will stay will vary tremendously depending on the situation. Such factors which must be taken into consideration will include things like:
Who stepped on your foot?
Were you talking to them at the time?
Do you know them and, if so, how well?
How hard did they step on your foot?
What kind of shoe were you wearing?
Were you wearing any shoes?
Did they kick you at the same time?
Where were you when they stepped on your foot?
What were you doing when they stepped on your foot?
Etc.
If the person is older than you and really didn`t mean to step on your foot and didn`t actually step on your foot too hard, then you will say something vastly different than if they were young, stepped on your foot on purpose, and did it in a very hard way while you were wearing no shoe. The bottom line is that for all of us, monolinguals included, we have a vast array of different things we can say in a similar type of situation. In more technical language we can say that our form to function mappings are highly complex. For every situation we are faced with we have possibly hundreds or thousands all different forms we can use and we must choose which ones are the most suitable. Language use is about making the right choices.
Multilingualism, for obvious reasons, involves the same set of choices but with some added dimensions. While a monolingual speaker of English may need to decide between saying something like, Excuse me that was my foot.or What the hell, dammit!! a multilingual or bilingual speaker can and must decide between different actual language codes. Really it`s the same exact thing but to a much more variant degree.
Another thing that we must understand is that in a bilingual or multilingual situation languages are not equal. They never are. As we should know well by this point, within multilingual societies different languages are used for very different specific purposes and while there is sometimes overlap between what each language is supposed to do there are also areas (functions) where one language takes precedence over another. Based on this, it would seem very strange to argue that a multilingual individual would have equal competence in both or all of her different languages. This simply does not occur, except in the most rarest of circumstances. This inevitable dominance and disparate valorization has a large effect on language (code) choice.
2. Briefly outline Levelt`s (1989) model.
Levelt`s (1989) model has been so popular and is still used today, despite its age, because it is one of the few models of language production and processing which actually allows for the decision-making which we mentioned in the above answer. The real beauty of his model is the conceptualizer. It is in the conceptualizer that a speaker actually decides which, of the many possible forms they might have available to them, the particular forms they are going to use for that situation. In order to make this important decision different information must be analyzed and weighed. The model recognizes the importance of both macro and micro planning for message generation. Second language acquisition researchers have jumped onto this model because it is flexible enough to allow for different conceptual bases to be used in message generation. This is possible because the formulator is separate from the conceptualizer.
Levelt`s model is especially interesting for us here because it is been made on purpose to be able to account for differences between written speech and spoken language. In looking at monolingual language usage we find that even though people are making particular decisions about which forms they can use in certain situations because these are still very limited in relation to multilingual situations for example, these decisions tend to be automatic. Monolingual speakers simply are not aware of the decisions they are making when they are going about using their language in the spoken form and in speaking situations. When monolinguals, however, are engaged in producing written speech, as we have already discussed, they need to consciously make decisions about the type of language they are going to use. This is because in writing a language user has a much larger inventory all the potential forms to use, and which must be used for the writing to actually be very good/effective. (Remember there is a vast difference between how speaking is effective and how written speech is effective.)
This distinction between spoken language and written speech has parallels in a monolingual/multilingual distinction. Multilinguals, even in spoken language, have more forms available, which means they must have more conscious control over these different forms. This is particularly important because using the wrong form in a multilingual situation will have much more dire results that it will in a monolingual situation. Imagine making the mistake of speaking to your grandmother in Japanese. Yikes! Multilinguals must plan their language use much more effectively then monolinguals all the time. They have to. Sometimes their very survival depends on it. Levelt's model, again because of the distinction between the different levels, allows for such considerations.
3. How are concepts lexicalized and what role does culture play in this process?
The answer here is really simple. Concepts are lexicalized through experience. In the initial stages of a naturalistic type of language acquisition this usually occurs as a result of contacting concepts in the world. The concepts that we first lexicalize are the ones that are most important to us and most meaningful to us. Simply put, we lexicalize concepts in context. Now, at this point we should clearly understand that any kind of context is going to be embedded or surrounded by a particular cultural setting. In a naturalistic type of language learning it is the principal caregiver (mother) who controls the process by lexicalizing for the baby/child what she herself feels is significant and this is determined by her culture. In an artificial language learning situation (foreign language learning) it is the teacher or the input which controls the lexicalization process. (This is one possible advantage a native speaker of the TL might have over a NNS teacher) It is in this way we can now understand that the way in which concepts come to be encapsulated through the lexical process is somehow part of a cultural process. If culture does not exactly manage the process it has at least an important presence in the process.
4. How might concepts be linked between different languages and what is said to affect this?
The authors claim, and rightfully so, that there is no doubt that there is a common underlying conceptual base (CUCB) for all languages that a person might speak. This, however, does not mean that there are not language specific concepts which may or may not be able to be used in some of the other languages a speaker has. We all know from our own experience with language, and we have talked about this already in class, that there are some concepts which do not transfer easily or at all from one language to another. While they might share certain specific elements, or what we might call nodes, they do not share enough nodes to be able to actually move into a common conceptual store. It is these concepts, and their lexicalized encapsulations which can only be used in one language. While it is true that any language can talk about anything in the world, certain languages have encapsulated or lexicalized particular aspects efficiently or more efficiently. Imagine inviting a foreigner to a traditional Korean dinner. Think about trying to explain to somebody who doesn't know any Korean about a typical type of kalbi or other specifically Korean food items (and there are a lot of them). If they're really interested and they want to know in detail what everything is like it's going to take a very long time to explain in a different language all the different things on the table. If you're explaining to somebody who has experienced a Korean dinner and knows some of the words for the different types of kimchi for example then you can use Korean terms (lexicalized items) to explain everything much more efficiently. Such an example shows how different languages encode different concepts which often can't be simply rendered in a different language. Yet, to focus on these specific highly culture-specific examples though is to deny the very basic element or essence of the common underlying conceptual store and language acquisition in general.
One of the main controversies in this underlying conceptual store idea is to try to determine first and foremost if there are universals in concepts and secondly if concepts can transfer from one linguistic system to another. The answer to this first question is not at all clear but what is clear is that even if there are universal concepts which are biological as opposed to experiential or cultural then they are very few indeed. Once more, any biological type of concept would have to be really abstract so that it would be able to fit into any type of culturally based conceptual store system. So, this question, while it is one that people focus on a tremendous amount due to the effects of generative linguistics and the dominance of monolingual points of view, really isn't particularly important.
What is more important is the second question which tries to focus on taking concepts or ideas originally encoded in one linguistic system and trying to determine if they can be recoded or somehow transferred into another system. An extremely important part of this transfer process would be quite has come to be known as neutralization. Neutralization is a process whereby certain particular aspects of a concept will be pruned away so that some of the more general aspects remain. These general aspects will be heightened in the conceptual store so that the concept appeals to and can actually function in all of the different linguistic codes a speaker might have.
In reality neutralization is a process which can always occur, but sometimes doesn't simply because a speaker finds certain aspects of a concept too important to prune away through the process of neutralization. To a certain extent it is a conscious process wherein people need to retain or choose to retain aspects of a concept. In discussing the nature of neutralization we also must discuss different aspects of our linguistic systems. We can generally posit two different levels of conceptualization.
There is the level of the conceptual store. This conceptual store simply houses specific meanings. It does not house things like usage. There is also the level of the lexicon. These two levels are distinct in that the conceptual store holds neutral meanings about specific concepts. While the lexicon takes these neutral meanings it is constructed out all of a series of connections which link these neutral meanings to other more specific elements of language based on usage patterns. While Levelt (1989) makes a strong distinction between the mental lexicon and conceptual knowledge (this means that the lexicon houses only linguistic knowledge and does not have direct access to things like schemas as well as other aspects of long-term memory) other researchers in the area of the lexicon specifically are not so sure. To go back to some examples we talked about in our previous class, if we look at the English word house and the German translation equivalent Haus, we would probably be correct in assuming that these come from a common underlying conceptual store. Certainly if English is learned first the neutralization process will ensure that the German word learned later has the same basic conceptual base. In reality they're not that extremely different. So conceptually they come from the same place. Lexically, however, they are somewhat different entities. English house has different associations with other concepts then German Haus. For one, at least for Americans, the size is different. The materials from which the house is made will be different. Information about collocations will also vary. So what we find is that even though these two words come from the same conceptual store their actual usage in the reality of the linguistic code in which they are used will be different. They do have a different things associated with them so that their surface level meaning will never be exactly the same even though the conceptual store for which they spring might have been neutralized to a point where they are the same. Things change as they move from one level to the other. This explains why bilinguals and multilinguals are so adept and apt to codemix when the opportunity arises.
5. If there is a common underlying conceptual base for bilinguals how does this work in the day to day use of language and cognition?
If there is a common underlying conceptual base for bilinguals then this is something that a bilingual will use to their great advantage when engaged in language use situations. It is also something which enables them to think in a slightly different way than monolinguals in relation to the possible advantages they have. It is this common underlying conceptual base which allows them to process information in a slightly different manner and particularly in a more conscious manner than monolinguals. Bilinguals need to be able not only to notice the different underlying aspects of a particular concept but they need to be able to know which underlying aspects can be pruned away and which ones must stay. Once more, if a concept has been neutralized to the point where it enters the common conceptual store it can still be used in a language specific manner based on lexical patterning which bilinguals are aware of. This is where code mixing comes in. When a bilingual is speaking to a monolingual they are going to call on the neutralized versions of the concepts so that the monolingual will understand what they're talking about more clearly. When a bilingual, however, is speaking to another bilingual (who happens to be bilingual in the same languages) they will not rely on the neutralized versions but will actually switch back and forth between different codes picking the best rendition of the concept. In doing so they are able to convey more specific elements of meaning in their encounter with the other bilingual. This is the power that multiple codes gives to them.