Stephen van Vlack
Sookmyung Women`s University
Graduate School of TESOL
History of the English Language
Fall 2006
Week 9 - Questions
Sonntag (2003) Chapter 6
1. There seems to be a correlation between global integration and the local politics of global English. Explain the nature of this correlation in the countries we studied.
The basic idea here, and this has panned out in the different case studies that we have looked at in this book, is that the more globalized a country is (the more integrated it is into the global community) the more concerned this society is going to be about linguistic globalization. At the extreme and we saw examples of this in both the United States and France. Both of these countries are extremely globalized, the United States actually being the figurehead for globalization, and in both of them there is an extreme concern for linguistic globalization. Interestingly, in both countries this concern takes two totally different directions. In France they are greatly concerned about the intrusion of English on a zone of French hegemony, while in the United States they are concerned about retaining English hegemony within the borders. In South Africa and India which are marginally globalized countries there seems to be a mixed reaction. Some people are still embracing the idea of English while others are starting to resist the intrusion of English onto linguistic minorities. In Nepal, a highly marginalized country in terms of globalization, there seems to be a wholly rosy outlook as regards global English and the role that English can play in developing Nepalese society.
Since, to a certain extent at least, we can equate globalization with economic development these results should not at all be shocking. The more developed a country is the more time its people have to worry about linguistic issues. This tells us that linguistic issues really are a luxury. With the tremendous push of globalization over the last few hundred years or so many local languages have come under threat and have either died or are in eminent danger of dying. Often, people don`t realize the threat until it is to late. For us, we need to think about how Korea fits into the basic correlation. Korea would seem to be well on its way to becoming a fully integrated society as regards globalization. We may not be there yet but we certainly are moving swiftly in that direction. Based on this general trend we could then possibly predict that linguistic issues related to English hegemony are just around the corner.
2. What are the different groups that affect global English in local communities and how do they do so?
The three main groups that affect global English and local communities are the state, the elites, and of course the subalterns. We have already mentioned in this course, and it bears repeating, that in Korea it is obviously the case that the state (the government) plays and extremely important role in the process of globalization and this includes of course linguistic globalization. As regards linguistic globalization, in particular, it should be crystal clear as well that its leaders also play an increasingly important role. What we have yet to see in Korean local politics as the rise of the subalterns. When we think about language issues in the country who controls what goes on? The answer is obviously the elites, the parents of elite children who loudly proclaim their rights to particular education issues, the most important of which is currently English, and in doing so really control politics. The government finds itself prey to the whims of the elites. We`ve seen several times that the government has tried to limit certain aspects of extracurricular education only to be forced into repealing such laws. The elites pretty much get what they want. This is pretty much the same everywhere.
Based on this distinction we can identify globalization from above ( which includes a globalization directed from both the state and the elites) as well as a globalization from below (which is obviously a globalization pushed for by the subalterns). Much of what we see as a problem related to globalization is that it often and most generally is pushed from above. Subalterns, on rare occasions, do appropriate the globalization process and even the code of globalization (English) as a way of opposing the top-down force of globalization, but this is rare. There is an inherent conflict in this.
3. Why is globalization, both economic and linguistic, such a political issue?
Globalization is a political issue because it revolves around power and access to resources. This is the access to resources both from the top-down perspective (access to global markets and global natural resources) as well as the bottom-up aspect (access to national wealth and jobs). From this we can see that there is an inherent conflict not only between to the top down and the bottom up aspects of globalization, but between nations. To a certain extent globalization is a laissez-faire/survival of the fittest type of system. Different countries or companies are competing against each other for increasingly scarce resources and markets. The basic idea of globalization from above is that everybody should have free access to every thing. In this view, all the players on the global market are inherently equal. But the problem is that really not all countries or companies are equal.
Certainly more developed countries are going to be more equal than less-developed countries. They will have both capital and know-how to be able to function in a more global world. This is main reasons why globalization is such a political issue internationally. Smaller, less developed countries feel overwhelmed by this globalization. They don`t necessarily have the capital or experience to lead globalization so they wind up becoming pawns, providing both resources and markets for more established global players. So in effect, these smaller less developed countries give global powerhouses the materials to make goods and then the goods are even made there (cheaply) and sold there (not so cheaply). The global company walks off with all the money leaving just a small amount behind for local developing populations to usw for buying global goods. It really sounds like a dream come true for the global powerhouses, but somewhat exploitive for developing countries. This is why it is a political issue. Globalization is not necessarily fair in the short-term.
The view is that in the long-term globalization will foster a more development and more equal development across the world. But of course, and most unfortunately, even if the rosy view is to occur long-term this is going to take time. In the meantime people have to put up with increasingly large discrepancies between rich regions and poor regions in the world. There is inevitable political fallout both in the rich end poor regions relating to national policies on tariffs and other protectionist measures. Some countries feel they need a buffer to globalization. Governments want to control the rate or specific aspects of globalization so that their countries can be more stable, for globalization isn`t only about economics. Globalization is also about information and culture. People in poor countries now have much more access to information about rich countries and are now much more fully aware all of the actual differences between their lives and the lives of people in richer places. Such realizations are often a seed for the massive discontent, and a cause of political fervour. To survive governments need to somehow show their people that they are doing something to help them or to diminish this tremendous imbalance.
From the bottom-up perspective we have a similar type of struggle evolving, but this struggle is not between nations but between peoples within nations. One important thing we saw in this course (in looking at different countries and the different linguistic makeup of different countries) is that most countries are extremely diverse in their ethnic and/or linguistic makeup. This of course would not necessarily be a problem if all languages and cultures were seen as being equal, but of course we know that they are not. Some languages are much more equal than other languages. English is the most equal language in the world today. In countries which are more globalized (which have a greater need and use for English) English is going to play a more important and an overall wider role in the society. Within that local society people will need to use English more in order to have access to local opportunities. We certainly see this happening in Korea, as our most familiar example. This, of course, causes conflict. More and more people begin to learn English, often at the expense of their own local languages. As more people abandon their local language to learn English, English becomes more equal while local languages become much less equal. Again, we see this happening in Korea right now. Eventually, when enough people shift from one language to the other, conflict breaks out (as we see in Breton).
4. How can the adage `think globally - act locally` be used to help us in Korea in the future?
This adage is an extremely important and powerful one and really needs to be used in order to counteract some of the tremendous conflict not only between nations and globalization but between the opposing forces of globalization imposed from above. We need to take some of the ideas of globalization and use them effectively ourselves. Globalization shouldn`t be something that we allow to happen to us. It needs to be something that we embrace and use on a daily basis, for ourselves and our own betterment. As citizens of the world, we need to act ourselves. Globalization not from the top, but from the bottom (from regular people) is the type of globalization which will save our world and not destroy it and that is really what this adage is all about.
There are two different sides to this adage which we need to embrace. The first of these is that we need to take global knowledge (knowledge of the world and how different systems function in the world) and apply them to our local situation. What this really refers to is simply using more creative problem-solving techniques, rather than relying exclusively on a specific and extremely limited set of local traditions and practices. Don`t just know about the world but use that knowledge to help your own local situation. From the other side we also need to think about how our local actions also affect the world. In a world where we now fully understand that everything is deeply interconnected, not just ecologically but also economically and socially, we must not just that knowledge but fully embrace the idea that our local actions have global repercussions. Dropping a dirty paper cup on the ground on the Sookdae campus may very well affect a person in Tanzania because your dirty paper cup may very well wind up in their backyard someday, or in the future maybe a Tanzanian will need to actually come here and pick your filthy cup up for you. That is globalization.
Canagarajah (1999) Chapter 3
1. What are some of the ways in which the British were able to entrench English in the colonies?
As we already discussed in Crystal (2003) one of the chief ways in which English became entrenched in different colonial situations was through the economic importance. Interestingly this was made stronger through the limited availability of English. As we mentioned earlier in this course, the British were not particularly willing to educate the entire population of the different colonies in English. It was simply not possible to do so, so English was really only ever available to a very small group of elites. These elites reaped great benefit from their association with the British through the English-language. This obviously created class differences within these colonial societies, but access to English was not based on status within the local culture. This meant that, in theory, anybody could access these opportunities provided they were able to learn English to high enough degree. Canagarajah (1999) mentions this when he tells us about lower caste individuals trying very hard to learn English and doing well as a result, thus, in a away, forcing higher caste elites to also learn English in order to retain their status.
Another important aspect of the success of English in the colonies was that while it was available to some people, it was not forced upon the general population. The people who ultimately learned English in the colonies were those who chose to learn English. While there were some particularly harsh practices involved in the teaching of learning English, such as separation from friends and family who might reinstill local cultural practices, basically people who are learning English because they wanted to and to be able to do so was a great privilege within the societies. Thus, during the colonial period there was very little opposition to English. Canagarajah (1999) also points out that this in part was due to the local population which somehow found a way to use English for their own means. Indeed, there seems to have been some degree of conflict not over English but over the way English was to be used within the societies.
This is interesting for because the situation is not necessarily changed very much when we start to look at some of the expanding circle countries like Korea. In fact the pattern city so similar they might be able to argue that expanding circle countries like Korea are undergoing some sort of de facto distance colonialization in the present. English is certainly available and plays an important role in the society here as determined by global aspects, but it is not being forced upon people from the outside. Globalization simply makes English available. The English frenzy that we currently see in countries like South Korea, and this is virtually the same at all expanding circle countries, is internally determined. Ultimately, people in the expanding circle choose to learn English and they do so for a multitude of different reasons. It is not inner circle countries which are telling people why and how they should be learning English simply because they can not do so. The situations are remarkably similar.
2. What are some of the ways in which former colonies can and have resisted English in the post colonial period?
One of the chief ways in which people in colonial societies during the colonial period were able to resist was to take English and use it for purposes (in ways) the colonial powers had never envisioned or Sibley didn`t want. The colonial powers never thought that English would be used to empower the locals, either culturally, economically or religiously. Even the Orientalists mentioned in Canagarajah (1999) ultimately wanted to use Orientalism to help English prevail, or at least establish a more important role in these colonial societies. The natives of course had a somewhat different idea. Their main interest was in survival, first economically and then ultimately culturally. The English language was used as a way of uniting disparate groups and empowering locals both on the local scene and on the international scene. After learning about different parts of the world through English, locals used English to demand local rights and equality. This was the local resistance during the colonial period and it was this resistance which eventually led to the of the colonial period.
3. What are some of the reasons for the enduring presence of or ambivalence to English in the former colonies?
In order to answer this question we first need to go back and think about the nature of the colonial endeavor. Most of the colonies which the Europeans carved out of land all over the world were not nations, as we would understand them today. If we look at Asia and Africa the countries that are there now most of these countries are former colonial states but they are not really countries. For the most part before the colonial powers came these were very different tribal groups who had little or nothing in common. For this reason when the colonists left it was very little sense of nationalism between the different groups in these countries. In fact in some places there was often downright hostility between some of the different groups. In such a scenario, and this scenario is by no means uncommon in the colonial world, then there is no precedent set for a local language to achieve national language status. In most all cases we see the continued use of English as the official or national governmental/educational language. This is simply because there was no one local language within these strange national units that the colonists set up which could fill the role of English without opposition. As Canagarajah (1999) mentions, as soon as the colonists leave their language is no longer a local entity. It becomes neutralized and therefore much more open to use. This kind of situation has created a very strong ambivalence towards English. We saw this in Nepal where speakers of local languages are much more worried about the dominant presence of Nepali than that of English. English speakers are far away and can do little direct harm (supposedly) while the native speakers of dominant local languages are right there and can do a huge amount of harm.
Kecskes and Papp (2000) Chapter 1
1. What is a mother tongue?
While the idea of a mother tongue is straightforward to virtually all Koreans, Japanese, or Han Chinese and most Americans, Britons, or Australians it is not necessarily a very simple concept to many people in the world. In particular where people not only move around relatively freely, thus exposing themselves to more varied languages, but also where English (in particular) is given an official status despite the lack of an actual speaking community, we find that people`s linguistic profiles are much more complicated then linguists would like us to believe. In fact, modern generative linguistics (the most dominant theory in linguistics since the 1960s) is completely reliant on the idea all of a native speaker. What we find in discussing this term `mother tongue` is that maybe there is no such thing as a native speaker, as linguists might try to define it. Certainly the concept of multilingualism creates tremendous problems for the term `native speaker` or `mother tongue`.
While for many monolinguals, or what we will term successive bilinguals, the first language they learned is in fact the language in which they are most efficient and therefore feel a closer connection to, this is not necessarily true for people who have grown up in a multilingual environment or have experienced tremendous diversity in their linguistic exposure in practice. A person`s mother tongue is not necessarily the language that they were taught by their mother or even the language which they learned first. Certainly there are many Korean Americans, for example, who grew up in Korea speaking Korean and at some later point moved to the United States and sometimes stop speaking Korean entirely. At some inevitable point English eclipses Korean and at this point English might be seen as mother tongue even though this individual`s mother has been no idea how to speak English. A mother tongue may also simply be the language which a person uses the most or feels the most comfortable in, even if that person is not particularly proficient in that language. Fabbro (1999) records a multitude of interesting examples in which people who had incurred certain brain trauma, such as a stroke or being whacked over the head with a piece of wood, upon waking up from the trauma sometimes prefer to speak second or third languages in which their proficiency is highly limited and will actually report an inability to be able to speak their first language. The power of emotion is not to be underestimated. Human beings can really convince themselves of almost anything.
What is also interesting is that a person`s perception of their own `mother tongue` may vary throughout their lifetime depending on experience. As I mentioned in class, one I was living in Germany and speaking German to the exclusion of virtually every other language I was certainly living under the impression that German was more like a mother tongue than any other language at that time. This is really a byproduct all of an immersion situation. Human beings simply can not avoid being affected both cognitively and emotionally from their environments and, to a large degree, to do so is to really reject the power of our brain and our humanity itself. What is interesting about this in relation to globalization is that all of us, regardless of where we actually are live under the pressure of an English environment. While the pressure varies dramatically depending on where someone is it is nonetheless always there. It would be strange to assume that such pressure would have no effects on our cognitive or certainly our linguistic makeup.
2. What is a foreign language?
Simply put, a foreign language is a language which had little or no place in the society in which it is being studied/learned. There are virtually no native speakers or at least no native speaker community and the speakers within the society do not need to use this language to talk to each other. Certainly English in Korea is a foreign language, as is every other language. In describing the Korean linguistics situation Katzner (1995: 348) states,Korean is the official and universal language. Interestingly this is all that can or need be said about the Korean linguistic situation. This means then that all languages aside from Korean are restricted to study in the classroom. In a very true sense, once people hit the streets there is very little use for English. Uses for English are more artificial than realistic or practical. Koreans generally and often refuse to speak English with each other, in part because the simply not used to it. This is a strong reflection of the foreign nature of the English language in Korea.
So what about this pressure that I mentioned in the answer above? Well, certainly it is there, and in being there undoubtedly has effects on both the status of English and have English may be viewed and used, but it is pressure still and pressure is not something that leads to particularly good learning or happy feelings for that matter. Because this is an outside pressure which has been turned into an inside pressure it is really not something that people actually want to do as much as they feel they need to do it. Certainly, because of this pressure English does adopt certain elements all of a second language, but it remains, nonetheless, a foreign language.
3. What is a second language?
In contrast to a foreign language a second language has elements of use and within a given linguistic community. While there may not need to be a large number of native speakers of the second language, or any native speaker community really, the language is nonetheless used in this society for certain purposes. It might be used as a general lingua franca, as in the case of English in The Philippines or India, so that speakers within a highly multilingual society can contact each other for a wide variety of different purposes and more generalized functions. In other cases, such as in Algeria, a second language like French or English may also be used for a particular type of function within a society. If we think about English in Korea we might say that English is developing into a second language (albeit relatively slowly, or least with a certain amount of consternation) through its increased and more exclusive use in the area of education. Looking at this example we can see that in societies second languages are granted special status because they are used for doing something deemed special or necessary. A further common type of second language situation is a regional one, as in the case of Belgium, Switzerland and a large number of sub-Saharan African countries. In this scenario different languages are spoken within a continuous political entity, a country. In Belgium there are three languages, Flemish (Dutch) in the north, Walloon (French) in the south and German in the east. At least for the two majority languages (every country has its minorities and in Belgium it is the German speakers) one can speak their own language freely in their own region, but once one travels or moves to another linguistic region she or he will need to shift into the language of that region. Not to do so would cause problems. So, regionally multilingual societies require that their citizens master all the major regional languages.
4. How does a second language differ from a foreign language?
There are many options in how we might choose to differ a second language and a foreign language as regards the way they are learned in a particular environment. In doing so we must acknowledge that the differences but in second in foreign languages are far from being absolute. They do blend together at some points. So, it therefore make sense to put them instead of different places, to put them along what we can call a continuum where one slowly blends into the other.
-Continuum Approach = functional -vs- formal
The basic idea here is that because second languages are learned in a more natural environment and in a more natural way then they will be more functional in nature. To say that the second language is more functional is to simply say that the actual reasons underlying instances on language use are a parent and second language learning because this language is learned in a more real context. Foreign languages little bit different in that it is generally learned in the classroom where the emphasis is not on language use so much as on simply acquiring knowledge about the language. Honestly, many of the teachers over for a foreign language don`t know it themselves how to use the language because they also have lived their entire lives in a foreign language environment. Based on this then students are generally exposed more to forms alone and very little attention is paid to have these forms might actually be used. The functional nature of language is undervalued because it is simply not familiar and the society does not know how to deal with that element. Certainly for us in Korea we can to feel this distinction.
-Completeness, Nativelike proficiency = the level of cognition involved
Here, what we are focusing on is the basic idea that second languages seem to be learned in a much more complete manner which more closely resembles native-like proficiency in that language. It is often said about foreign languages that learners are in its hands doomed from the very start because they will simply never be able to achieve high levels all proficiency if they stay in a foreign language mode. These are stereotypes, and like all stereotypes are not true although they might have sprung from grains of truth. Part of the reason for the more complete learning of a second language as opposed to a foreign language is simply the amount of exposure. Because second languages are actually there, embedded somehow in the society they are more easily accessed. Exposure is not only longer loss of the different nature as we will soon see.
-Content of context = Is the content from the local region local context or from a foreign context?
This is actually a very interesting concern and one which I know Koreans think a lot about these days. The basely revolves around the idea that in a second language situation the second language is learned often in an environment or society different from the one from which the language originally sprung. A simple example should clarify. English is a second language in India based on its important to use as a lingua franca. Indians must learn English in order to speak with other Indians. But the English which they speak is certainly not the same as the English spoken in Britain. This is because the Indians have been taught English not by British or American teachers but by Indian teachers in an Indian society. English is not being used in India to contact foreigners so much as it is being used to contact other Indians and as a result the societal factors on India have become superimposed on their version of English. Of course we see similar things happening in all second language environments and this is why English as a widely spread language across the world is changing dramatically from region to region. A foreign language does not go through the same change because the purpose of the foreign language is not for people in a local environment to speak to each other but for them to be able to speak to the native speakers of that language, and in the same forms from which the language has sprung. The local culture is not fused onto the foreign language because the foreign languages never intended to actually be spoken in the local environment.
-Tasks and processes = Real-World tasks - vs- Pedagogical tasks (+/- conceptual structures)
Because of the different environments for second and foreign-languages different types of actual tasks both for learning and for practice are available. In the second language environment it is easy for learners to be able to engage and what are called real-world tasks. In fact they probably have to do this whether they want to or not. What these real tasks are simply things that people actually have to do in their lives for real or authentic purposes. That could be something as simple as going to the store and buying a bag of rice or as complicated as not only by buying a car but registering the car as well as getting insurance for the car. These are the types of things that people in second language situations are not only able to do but sometimes must do. In a foreign language situation things are obviously different. Because the target language is the distance and not used in the learners` society learners will often be restricted to what are called pedagogical tasks. These should be extremely familiar to you because they are exactly what you did your whole life in school. They are tasks which really have no purpose in the real world like reading a text and answering a barrage of annoying questions about it, but have value in pedagogy or learning. Of course in the foreign language environment we can get real-world tasks through things like role plays and simulations, but they often lack authenticity.
-Conceptual fluency = knowing how thoughts are encoded - how meaning is conveyed
I think is what we spent most of our time talking about in class and really this is what all the other ones come down to. To understand this idea we need to first introduced the idea of cognitive linguistics, which stands in diametric opposition to the principles of generative linguistics. Cognitive linguistics claims that linguistic structures do not come from some sort of underlying representation which is the same for every speaker, but which is altered to fit the surface demands of the linguistic situation, as is claimed in generative linguistics. Cognitive linguistics, in turn, claims that linguistic forms are generated from an underlying conceptual structure, which varies from person-to-person to a limit extent and from society to society to a much, much greater extent. A simple example should make this a little bit clearer.
(1) The tree stood tall in the field.
(2) The field spread out beautifully under the tree.
In generative linguistics these two sentences have the same underlying structure and therefore the same semantic structure or meaning. Cognitive linguistics sees these two structures, however, as being constructed from two very different conceptual structures, and their meanings therefore are different. And cognitive linguistics meaning comes not from the language itself but from the conceptual structure which is underlying the language structure. To put it as simply as possible: thought is language.
Now, what this means for us is that in a second language situation, where learners have access to more real-world type tasks as well as much more direct contact with actual speakers of the language, they will adopt the conceptual structure all of the speakers of that language. The simple truth is that different speakers all of different languages think differently in that they employ different conceptual structures to deal with the same situations. To be an effective language learner, as we have been claiming second language access allows one to be, one needs to be able to like a speaker of that language. In a foreign language situation where a learner has little or no access to native speakers and might never actually perform very many functional tasks it will be very difficult to figure out how speakers all that language structure their cognition/ thoughts. As a result foreign language learners end up using the forms of the foreign language what with their own conceptual structures, which do vary from those of the target language speakers.
-Metaphorical competence = literal -vs- metaphorical meanings and understanding
This difference expands on what was mentioned above. What it basically claims it is that speakers of languages not only have an underlying cognitive or conceptual structure from which language is created, by thought is by no means as straightforward as we might imagine. While meanings are sometimes literal in that they are based on a one to one connection between the conceptual structure and the linguistic structure, this is not always the case. According to this idea, much of our human thought is actually metaphorical in nature. Interestingly, or sadly if you are a language learner, these metaphorical underpinnings all of thought are highly individualistic and vary not only from person-to-person but on a societal basis. Lakoff (1987) cites the importance of ICMs (Idealized Cultural Models) in being able to understand how other people speak, and in turn think. A simple example of one of these ICMs for English speakers would be the metaphor of heat as anger (heat = anger). Native speakers of English make extensive use off this metaphor in their day-to-day communication. Again, the argument goes that in the second language learning situation the second language learners because of their very exposure to the language will be able to understand some of this metaphorical structure within the thought of the target line which speakers. Foreign language learners often will not.
References
Fabbro, Franco. (1999). The neurolinguistics of bilingualism. Hove: Psychology Press.
Katzner, K. (1995). The languages of the world (3rd edition). London: Routledge. Lakoff, George. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.