Kuma:
How does a language become a "standard" variety?
In a world where technologies like the internet spreads and develops language, it is inevitable that the English language will develop a large number of local varieties. However, how can we judge what should be considered "standard?" All varieties are considered "rule-governed" (Kuma, p. 240), that being they are conditioned by phonological, syntactic, semantic, and rhetorical rules. There is a great debate that brews over which standard or variety one should adopt for the purpose of learning and teaching English in the educational setting.
In my opinion, I think it is logical to teach the standard or variety that is used around the region in where the instruction is taking place. I remember in my year of taking Spanish in high school, we tended to learn more of the standard of Mexican-Spanish, because my teacher was from Mexico. However, in college, my first teacher was from Spain, so she tended to instruct towards the variety of Spain-Spanish. I believe that this should be the tendency of us as future educators. I would love to teach English abroad in South America or Europe. What makes me ponder though is if I was to teach English in Spain or Italy, should I direct my instruction more towards British English? Or American English?
I understand that the we as educators face a challenge between helping learners balance between holding their linguistic identity while at the same time "prepare them to face the sociopolitical and economic imperatives that point to the need to master and use the dominant language" (Kuma, 266). I feel the best way one can do this is to value students' culture and language, however, we have to realize that there exist powers above us that want to be the puppet masters.. #buzzkill
Leki:
"...several scholars have posited that schools perpetuate prevalent societal images of immigrants and minority
groups through a hidden curriculum of schooling" (Auerbach, 1995; McGroarty, 1985; Tollefson, 1989). They contest that the hidden curriculum functions as a means of socializing immigrants to take on certain roles and positions in society (e.g., consumer, worker, tenant). Leki argues that "these sorts of archetypes or representations of ESOL learner identity inevitably exist in all institutional settings (and in all classrooms) in which students are educated" (pg. 40).
On one hand, I see Leki's point, there are barriers and stereotypes out there that hold back students. The idea of "if you work hard, you will have success," just isn't there anymore. The Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island ideal is very outdated. In the education realm, there are examples of schools that could have these hidden curricula. For example, in response to the fairly broad and open-ended essay prompt, "Give an account of an event that actually happened or that you imagined,"Claudia told the story of how she had been singled out for harassment by U.S.-born peers as a newcomer in elementary school (D, English, November 9, 1993).
However, I am still conflicted in believing that all institutional settings of education categorize ESOL learners by socializing them into society by placing them in certain roles and positions in societies. Then again, I think of my internships in Chicago where I have seen students not even offered opportunities to research into higher education like a four-year college. They had military recruiters at lunch, but never a college recruiter.
I feel that immigrant students are not given as much an opportunity as well, because many higher-ups think of them as not capable because of their proficiency in the language, and that just is not right.
I am interested to hear others' thoughts/experiences about this topic.
See you all tomorrow!
Blogfully yours,
Tommy T.
No comments:
Post a Comment