Identity in SLA research

Based on the articles we raed for today, I belive the importance of identity research in WE framework. If you are interested in identity research in language learning, I suggest you to read the following article. It is an important article as it suggests the irrelevancy of a single dicthonomy, nonnative-native, to approach identity. It also empahsize the multiplicity and changing nature od identity just as we see it in World Englishes framework I want to share my reflections on this article.

The article is rich in terms of its discussion of identity and identity resrach in SLA. The example researches provided in the article are illustrative in addressing the postmodern research trend. Before this new paradigm, identity was considered very narrowly as if it only consisted of native and non-native. However, identity is not fixed and individuals undergo identity construction processes. Specifically, language learners experience changes in their social, cultural and symbolic capital, which refers to prestige, fame and reputation. When the langauge learners studying abroad continously negotiate differences and resolve ambivalence and then appears to the extent that this process is consciously shaped by the learners.

It is also important to mention that biological factors such as age, gender and the other factors that seem to be the fixed fcators in identity construction are not actually fixed by rather multilayered and shaped by social interaction and depends on how we define ourselves by interacting with others.

Block, D. (2007). The rise of identity in SLA research, post Wegner (1997). The modern Language Journal, 91, focus issues 863-876.

who owns language?

I want to share some of the ideas I discussed to the question of who owns langauge during the original interview that my classmates conducted to produce the video you watched today:

I think nobody owns nothing. If we think that we own something, it will also bring the feeling that we are in danger of losing it. However, if we do not claim an ownership, it will free us from resposibility of owning something. The idea I am suggesting here is coming from a famous saying, The only thing I know is that the reality that I know nothing. This idea makes us people who are open to new things, new experiences and it is a step that will make us tolerate ambiguity, uncertainty, chaos and difference. So, we can say that ownership is a sense that we create. we want to own thing that will make us feel secure and powerful. We want to won a car, we want to own a house, we want to own our kids. (But, the question is do we really own them?). This kind of power through ownership is actually what makes us slaves and makes us peole who are greedy bbecause we always want more. I feel that I couldn't communicate what I think clearly but the idea that I trying to express is complicated. I am just trying to relate the idea of ownership of English to ownership of things in ourlives and its consequences in deepest level. Ownership creates inequality, desire to own is the major reason for peole dying in wars. Ownerhip creates many people feel inferior and less valuable. If this is the case, I do not want to own anything. It is a difficult philosophy to adopt. This philosophy comes from "Tassavvuf " philosophy and if it is also interesting for you, I suggest you to read Elif Safak, The Forthy Rules of Love. The book is tranlated to English by the author herself.

I also want to say that ownerhip and policing English language will not stop it from going on its way. It is just the process it happens and it will happen. Dynamism is inherent in the notion of language as Crystal says. There is not a single language that is totaly pure, so langauges are affected from each other and change like people. Therefore, we need to learn to live with differences.

Do you think that the sense of ownership will motivate people to develop their English? Why I don't feel any ownership for my mother tongue, then?

Dynamism and tolearnce vs standardization and intolerance to differences

When langauge is changing and becoming more and more diverse, how fair is to talk about the " standards". Peope in their nature tend to understanding the things by categorising them and tring to set norm to evaluate them. It is difficult to liv ewith chaos, which I refer here to varieties of English language as I believe that people see this situation as chaotic and problematic.
John Baugh's research in the video we watched today was really interesting for me as it was a strong evidence for language bias. The language variety you use makes people to put you into categories; economic, cultural, intellectual.. In an extreeme situation even people can think that you are a lazy person just because you are using a certain variey that they catagorized their users as lazy people before.
In the video we watched, it was really sad for me to see those kids who had to carry the marginalization label that is stick to them through their adelocence. How can we judge someone who already have a language, which is variety of English, African American Vernacular in the example, as someone who is incabaple of learing English. These children were considered as nonteachable, but I think they are just victims of education. Education is for a positive change not for a negative one. if our education and approach is causing a negative change, it is when we have to judge its validity not the inability of those kids. We have to value whatever our students is bringing to the class as their capital.

I also like dthe idea that we can introduce the varieties they bring to the class as differences rather than incorrect forms. the teacher in the episode was telling the students to translate their own varieties to English, which can really be motivating instead of diminishing.

non-native as 'difference' or 'deficient'

Jenkins (2003), mentions two opposing views about non-native Englishes as 'deficit', Quirk and Kachru. Before mentioning my point of view on these two opposing views, I will briefly remind the claims that I am interested in.
1) Quirk says that there is a huge difference bwetween native and non-natives in terms of their internalizations of language conventions such as their diffrence in terms of grammatical correctness of sentences. I belive it is not about being native and non-taive but rather about how much you are educated to about the grammatical rules. For instance, I can not be competent Turkish grammarian unless I do have an extensive eduaction of Turkish language. This view alos creates imbalance in terms of advantages and disadvantages of being non-native or native. Being multilingual has more value than being a native speaker of English in terms of one's ability to teach English. similarly, rather than having a clear-cut criteria to judge to efficieny of a language teacher, which is being either native or native, we need to look at how much a person can use the language functionally, that is also when functional literacy come into play.

It is also related to the English teacher's educational background, context and his/her teaching skills. A native teacher who ruins his/her students' self-confidence( which may cause students' developing sense of inefficieny that will continue throughout their education and which may totaly cause to give up learning English) is definitely better than a non-native teacher who will encourage students' creativity and developing positive attitudes.

As I tried to discuss I am more in favor of Kachru's ideas. However, I belive that most of the teachers in the ELT arena are not ready to digest this tolerant approach to language teaching in practice. In theory, it seems reasonable to respect non-native varieties as diffrences rather than deficiencies, but in practise, it depends on the perosnal choices and tendencies of teachers. I know many teachers here in this program, who may seem tolerant to non-native English are not actually applying this idealogy in their teacher practices. For example, while giving feedback, I know teachers rather than focusing on the content I am trying to communicate, they are only correcting my grammatical and punctuation mistakes, which is really discouraging for me as an English teacher.


Reference
Jenkins, J. (2003). world Englishes: A resource book for students. London, New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

course blog:

http://worldenglishes2010.blogspot.com/

Halliday, M. (2003)

Halliday, M. (2003). Symposium on World Englishes: Written language, standard language. World Englishes, 22(4), 405-418.

" So, as linguists we have always insisted that a standard language was just another dialect, but one that happened to be wearing a fancy uniform" (p. 406).

My Teaching Context in Turkey

For 9 years, I had thought advanced and beginner level English courses for 1^st year students of Faculty of Science, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, School of Industrial Arts, Vocational School at a public university in Turkey.

The teaching experience at Vocational School was different than the other departments I taught. Firstly, students were different from the students at other departments in terms of their cultural backgrounds and economic situations. These students were coming from families who could be considered as low level economic status. Due to their economic hardship, their families were living in small villages and suburbs whose cultural and religious values were significantly different from those living in cities. Their use of Turkish language and the rules of interaction in their communities were also different. For example, it was very normal for these students use curse words in the class while talking to their teachers. As they were educated in vocational high schools, their teachers were all male who came from a similar cultural background. Therefore, their teachers were also used to the use of curse words in class.

However, I was also very different from these students and their teachers in terms of my social, cultural and economic background. The teachers were disciplining the students in a way that I was completely unfamiliar. For instance, teacher should be authority in the class and when the students did not obey the rules it was very normal to beat and humiliate them. It was the only classroom management strategy that worked for them. On the other hand, I was trying to apply more democratic ways to foster classroom interaction but students were interpreting it as my lack of controlling abilities. Therefore, it was really difficult to find a common ‘language’ in the class.

In terms of their English language education, for students, it was ridiculous to learn English as they were going to be carpenters and turners. They had difficulty in understanding why they were learning English. Since their educational background can be considered as ‘poor’ due to the high schools they were educated, they also had difficulty in understanding even the instructions in Turkish. When I talked to their other teachers such as math, they were also complaining about these students’ lack of understanding the very basic mathematics subjects.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to talk about variations of English in my teaching context as there were limited opportunities for students to speak or write in English. The students had to pass the tests that did include grammar, listening and reading comprehension questions. Therefore, my students required me to teach them how to be successful in those tests. To help my students to pass the tests, I was trying to raise their understanding of the structure of these tests and how they could study for these tests. As I was aware that studying for the tests cannot prepare them for their future needs, I was also trying to guide them what else they could do to meet the future requirements.

I believe that if the students in my teaching context in Turkey have to pass some common exams like TOEFL or the other exams administered by the Turkish Government, then we have to feel responsible to help them to pass these exams. We like it or not, it is definite that the majority of the students who graduate from university will apply for jobs that will require them to have high TOEFL scores. It might contradict what we understand from learning and teaching English but this is reality. If we fail to prepare them these exams, how can we address their needs appropriately? I need to emphasize here that I am not talking about native standards that the TOEFL examination forces but I try to say that we need to address students’ urgent needs as result of globalization.

In the current phase of globalization, we as educators need to better understand the specific conditions of our teaching context in our countries and address the problems to help our students to prepare better for the requirements of globalization. It should be schools that increase learners’ global cultural consciousnesses. Global cultural consciousness emphasizes an educational program that is sensitive the global changes and aims at raising awareness of contemporary cultural changes. As Kumaravadivelu warns us that it is definitely not limited to or relies extensively on the target culture as “ It leads them to believe, rather falsely, that their choice of L2 and their knowledge of C2 are enough to prepare them to face the challenges posed by economic and cultural globalization” (p. 173). Following Kumaravadivelu’s argument, I believe that I need to deepen my understanding of global changes with respect to World Englishes. With this aim, I think World Englishes course will help me to better understand my specific context and help me to generate ideas how I can address the specific problems of my context. For this, I believe the importance of research and approach the problems and needs of my context scientifically; therefore, I hope this course can guide and encourage me to conduct and publish a research that other educators in Turkish context can also benefit from.

Reference

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008). Cultural Globalization and Language Education. CT: Yale University Press.