|
'Welcome to the Club': Helping to foster a positive self-image in English learners by Charles Kowalski (Tokai University) |
|
Abstract Keywords: world Englishes, identity issues, self-image, language awareness |
|
'Welcome to the Club': Helping to foster a positive self-image in English learners by Charles Kowalski (Tokai University) |
|
Abstract Keywords: world Englishes, identity issues, self-image, language awareness |
After attending Watanabe, Usui & Bayne's (2002) workshop on world Englishes and identity issues faced by non-native speakers of the language,
I was reminded of how Prof. Robert Oprandy, in his language pedagogy courses at the Monterey Institute of International Studies,
would stress that one of the primary goals of any language class should be to instill in its students a feeling of "membership in the club"
as users of the language worldwide. Borrowing my mentor's phrase for this paper, I explore the question of how teachers can help students
acquire a sense of membership in the international "club" of English speakers, first by stating some of the principles underlying the
position that learners of English as a second or foreign language should be regarded as full-ranking members of the English-speaking
community, and second, by exploring some practical ways that teachers can help students achieve this awareness.
This section outlines three principles underlying the thesis of this paper: (1) No one owns English; (2) Nobody's perfect; (3)
All communicative language is authentic.|
Principle 1: No one owns English |
"Whoever is stiff and inflexible is a disciple of death.
Whoever is soft and yielding is a disciple of life."
- Tao Te Ching 761
English, like all human languages, is in the public domain. No one can copyright a language, and even if they could,
it would defeat the purpose of language: free communication and the expression of original thought. This is especially true with English,
which is spoken as a first or additional language in so many countries throughout the world. As Widdowson (1994) states:
The very fact that English is an international language means that no nation can have custody over it . . . It is a matter of considerable pride and satisfaction for native speakers of English that their language is an international means of communication. But the point is that it is only international to the extent that it is not their language. It is not a possession which they lease out to others, while still retaining the freehold. Other people actually own it. (p. 385)
The more the English-speaking world expands, the more tenuous any claims of ownership made by any one country become.
Some may say that without a "standard variety" ordained by some authority, the language will fragment into mutually unintelligible dialects,
but as Widdowson (op. cit.) points out, half this prediction has already come true independently of the other half. English may have
fragmented into distinct dialects, but they are mutually intelligible - as they must be, with such frequent communication among users
worldwide, accelerated by the Internet and other dramatic advances in telecommunications. Kachru (1992, quoted in Watanabe, Usui & Bayne, 2002)
also discloses the fallacious assumption implicit in this prediction: that diversity and variation in language are signs of decay.
A counter-argument could be offered that since language is a dynamic entity (which Watanabe, Usui & Bayne's students listed as one of
the main revelations they had gained from their "World Englishes" course), change is its natural state; rigidity and stagnation are the only true signs of decay.
[ p. 82 ]
If there is no ordained "standard", then no variety can be regarded as "substandard". English that is different from the variety spoken
in the country of its origin cannot be regarded as "imperfect". If learners can communicate their intentions to their own and their listeners'
satisfaction, that should fulfill the conditions for membership in the club.|
Principle 2: Nobody's perfect |
Medgyes (1994) examines several versions of an "interlanguage continuum" in which all users of the language fall somewhere between a
"zero proficiency point" and an "absolute proficiency point". The goal of this analysis is to address the question of whether a non-native
speaker can attain a higher level of proficiency (i.e. one closer to the absolute proficiency point) than a native speaker.
Can one really say, though, that there is such a thing as "absolute proficiency"? In the first place, language proficiency is not a
one-dimensional concept; there are numerous variables involved in measuring it. Medgyes addresses this point himself:
I have to ask at this point: what constitutes language proficiency? Well, there are the four skills, grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, functions, and so on. But, to use the analogy of cooking, this is not yet a full recipe. The list of ingredients alone does not indicate the relative quantities to be used, nor does it give instructions about the steps to be taken. Without such information, we may arrive at two or more entirely different dishes or, worse still, bungle the whole meal. (Ibid., p. 13)
With so many variables at work (four skills, grammar, vocabulary, etc.), the concept of a linear proficiency continuum is itself misleading;
a star diagram, with multiple lines radiating out from a central zero point, would be more appropriate. The question remains, though,
of whether any of the lines terminate in "absolute" points, or whether they all extend into infinity. In terms of vocabulary, for example,
does "absolute" proficiency mean the ability to use accurately every word in the Oxford English Dictionary? If so, then any given native
speaker and any given non-native speaker would both most likely be so far from the goal that the distance between them would be negligible.
If "absolute" grammatical proficiency simply means 100% accuracy, then a learner who only knows how to say "Where is the bathroom?" qualifies.
If, on the other hand, it means unerring accuracy in the use of all possible grammatical structures, then it becomes practically impossible to
prove, since the criteria would include countless constructions almost never heard in speech or seen in writing (such as the perfect progressive passive).
The measurement of language proficiency is a statistician's nightmare. Each of its many facets can be difficult to quantify, especially as
the quantity approaches an imaginary "absolute" value. Furthermore, as Medgyes (op. cit.) illustrates, the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Language proficiency also includes highly subjective qualities, like eloquence, persuasiveness, poetic talent, and the importance of the message
conveyed, that defy quantification. To trade Medgyes' culinary analogy for a musical one, "absolute proficiency" in terms of minute knowledge of
the rules of counterpoint and chord progression may be sufficient to make a professor of music theory, but not a Mozart.
It becomes increasingly evident that perfection in language is not only unattainable, but in fact nonexistent. If perfection does not exist,
native speakers can be no nearer to it than non-native. Native speakers may be able to claim certain natural advantages along some continua,
though not necessarily all, and they have no reason to assume that their superiority is absolute or permanent; they and their non-native
counterparts are on an equal footing as members of the club of fallible human souls.|
Principle 3: All communicative language is authentic |
Many teachers and teacher-training courses stress the benefits of teaching using authentic language, but the definition of the term "authentic"
is sometimes elusive; it is often used to mean "language produced by and for native speakers". It could be argued, however, that authenticity
is relative. Widdowson (1998) points out that what makes language authentic is knowledge held in common by speaker and listener, or writer and
reader, and non-native users cannot be assumed to have this background knowledge in common with native users, on the grounds that "the classroom
cannot replicate the contextual conditions that made the language authentic in the first place" (p. 715).
A more appropriate definition of "authentic language" might be any language used for meaningful communication. It need not involve native speakers
at all. As Widdowson (op. cit.) argues, what is authentic for native users may not be authentic for non-natives. Moreover, Kachru (1992, quoted
in Watanabe, Usui & Bayne, 2002) points out that the idea that language is learned in order to interact with native speakers is a fallacy;
non-native speakers use English to interact with one another in a variety of contexts. An article in a medical journal written by a doctor
from Riyadh would be no less authentic, and certainly no less helpful to others in the field, than one written by her colleague from Dublin;
a conversation in English between Brazilian and Pakistani participants is no less authentic than one between a Canadian and a New Zealander;
and the language our students use, if they use it to convey real information or express their thoughts or feelings, should by no means be regarded as less than fully authentic.
This section will explore four ways in which teachers can put the above principles into practice to help instill in students a sense of full membership in the English-speaking community.[ p. 83 ]
1. Raise awareness of world Englishes
As Watanabe, Usui & Bayne (2002) demonstrated, familiarity with the diverse varieties of English throughout the world can be of great benefit
in fostering a positive self-image in English learners. Students in the International Christian University class discussed in the workshop
reported that learning about world Englishes had broadened their perspective and given them confidence as non-native speakers, even a sense of pride in their own variety of English.
Examples of non-native speakers who have made their mark on the English-speaking world help dispel the misconception that all a non-native speaker
can do is stand in awe of the creations of native speakers and try to learn something from them. Joseph Conrad and Vladimir Nabokov are two
examples of non-native writers who became highly influential figures in English literature. More recent examples (mentioned in Kramsch and Lam,
1999) include Salman Rushdie, Woyle Soyinka, and Chinua Achebe, the last of whom intended not only to use the English language to convey his
thoughts, but to transform it:
"I feel that the English language will be able to carry the weight of my African experience . . . But it will have to be a new English, still in communion with its ancestral home but altered to suit its new African surroundings." (Achebe, 1975, p. 62, quoted in Widdowson, 1994, p. 384)
Stories of non-native speakers becoming literary giants are inspiring, but students may perceive them as too far removed from their own
experience to be relevant. As an alternative, Murphey (1998) proposes using examples closer to home, "near peer role models" who approximate
students in age, background and interests, and are working with the English language and making contributions to the English-speaking world.
The idea that teachers should seek opportunities for students to use the language for actual communication may seem to go without saying.
What is meant here, however, is that communicative teaching at its best reflects the belief that "everyone is talented, original, and has
something important to say" (Ueland, 1938, p. 3). Applied to teaching, this principle becomes the realization that students have interesting
thoughts and stories to share, and things to teach each other, their teacher, and perhaps the world at large. English is a vehicle to promote
this sharing. When communication exercises (such as journal writing, in-class or out-of class letter or e-mail exchanges, speeches, projects,
presentations, etc.) are designed with this principle in mind, grammatical accuracy and mechanics take second place to the articulate expression
of original thought, and students come to the empowering realization that English is neither an academic subject to be studied analytically,
nor a language spoken by "people out there", but a medium through which they themselves can share their thoughts with the world.
The logical extremity of the principle discussed above is that students can use English to change the world.
Students are not only members of the English-speaking community, they are citizens of the world, and are thus entitled to their
say in determining its direction. Through letters to the editors of English-language newspapers, speeches, letters to the
president of the United States, other heads of state (e.g. those of countries selected by Amnesty International for human rights
campaigns) or officials of the United Nations, or other such means, students can use English to exercise their right as world citizens to make their opinions known.
"Words are things, and a small drop of ink
Falling like dew upon a thought, produces
That which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think."
- Lord Byron2
Instilling in students a sense of "membership in the club" of English speakers worldwide is a process with many stages. It involves re-examining some of the assumptions students and teachers alike may have about the ownership of English, the question of authenticity, and the difference between native and non-native speakers (which may not be as great as some of us have been led to believe). It involves raising awareness of the multi-faceted and rapidly changing face of English throughout the world. It involves sending a message to learners of English that they are not limited to being students of the language; they can be creators of it. They can express their thoughts to the world, making "thousands, perhaps millions, think", and possibly also become a force for social change. Finally, treating students as full-fledged "members of the club" involves providing them with opportunities to use the language for authentic communication, with native and non-native users alike. If English teaching undertakes all of these, and makes it a primary goal to raise students' awareness of their role as members of a vast international community with a valuable contribution to make to it, then it becomes a source of inspiration and empowerment for students - and will undoubtedly give them powerful motivation to do their best to become more proficient users of the language, as well.
[ p. 84 ]
(1) Translation by Mitchell (1988).
