optimistic pessimism

before i started WE i have to admit i was skeptical and hesistance to believe that WE could make a difference or that there would be a change. that pessimist in me was reluctant to believe or should i say i ended it with a jaded or skeptical approach because sometimes bringing change seems so daunting and the thought of things changing (real change, tangible change) seems so elusive when certain things are systemic and so entrenched. but as during that last hour of WE when we we reflecting on the week and how we can and would use WE in the future...a light bulb moment...or at least a "there is hope" moment hit me. i realized that i was so focused on the "powerlessness" of educators and the individual making a difference that i forgot about a valuable concept that i had allowed to be lost or was overwhelmed by the shadow of macrolevel "impossibliities" of one individual or group of individuals upsetting or making a change...i was reminded of the importance tapping into the common goals of educators and/or academy and that of the policy makers and those in power. bridge the gap between misinformation and miscommunication through way of better communication and interconnected relationships....it was the first time all week where felt that WE has potential for changing the status quo...there is hope!

canonical literature/texts

In the article, "Mulitilingual academic literacies: pedagogical foundations for code meshing in primary higher education" by S. Michael Luna and A. Suresh Canagarajah, the thing that stood out for me wasn't so much the overall discussion of code meshing but rather the statement "desires a text that does not present a condescending view of stereotypical or glorified minority culture" in regards to the selection of multilingual texts for use in classrooms. Although I think it is great to be able to use multilingual text and introduce students to other cultures and languages, however, I'm always hesistant when using "representations" of a culture and/or language becuase one run the risk of stereotyping and seeing a narrow picture of a language/culture. I feel this way or have reservations regarding the use of "representatives" of a culture/language because based on my own experience, I often found it frustrating that some of the "canon" that are used to represent or often reference as being good sources of "Asian American" text or writing, names such as Amy Tan come up. Although there is nothing wrong with Tan and her writing, she has become a canon of writing for this particular group and her name is often mentioned. I find it problematic because although she is an Asian American, she does not represent all of Asian Americans and their culture. Moreover, often time than not, Asians and Asian Americans are often lumped into one homogenous group or when there is differentiation it is usually just broken down to groups such as Chinese, Korean Japans, etc.. As an Southeast Asian American, although I could relate to Amy Tan and some of the things she talks and writes about, I still felt that she did not represent me. However, whenever, I hear people talk about Asian American literature or writers, there is the tendency to present just certain writers and certain cultures and then those same authors get mentioned over and referenced over and over. Thus limiting the "literature" to these "canons" multilingual/multicultural text. I am not opposed to the practice but I struggle with the prospect that we would still be representing culture and language in a "partial" view that is still adhering to a narrow definition of certain standards and representations of what is considered to a standard representation of a language or culture. I don't know...arrrhhhhh...my words fail me...because i don't think nor feel like i've made my point clear enough.....arrrrhgggg....basically what I'm saying is we need to be careful of the choice of texts and be cautious as to how those texts are used and be willing to look beyond the "canons" simply because there are voices and stories that are not being heard or represented....arrrrhhhhhhhhh....still not happy with this blog post cuz i don't think i have articulated myself well enough regarding this issue.....ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

static/dynamic language

the dominance of the English language in some context may be viewed as a positive and additive language, while in other context it is viewed as a negative and potentially threatening the local language. The controversy over English in Brazil helps to reinforce the notion that "language" cannot and is not separable from identity and culture. Although the fight is over English and Portuguese, due to the dynamic nature of language, if would be naive to think that the existence, usage, learning, teaching, etc. of another language in a particular context serves a neutral function. There is nothing neutral about language. I run the risk of contradicting myself by saying that language, in of itself, is harmless and meaningless. It is the ideologies, emotions, signification, beliefs, etc. that people attach to language that makes "language" loaded with "values." These values can sometimes dictate how we exist with, within, and among language(s). if we have a narrow definition of language and view language as a static element, then it may be easy to "claim" and assume ownership of the language, thus lends room for the struggle for space of existence and prestige. however, if language is viewed as dynamic, any attempts to claim it and own becomes more difficult because in order to claim something that is constantly evolving, changing, growing, etc. implies a certain level of dynamism of the user (both in identity and in number).

Do you speak American?

I really enjoyed watching the video "Do you speak American." I've seen that documentary before but I realized that each time I watch it, I learn new things from it. The point that stuck out or was "new" to me was in this viewing of the video was the point about shift in preference from British English to American English. I find it interesting how World War II marked the shift in language preference in the country. Although there were many allied powers involved in the victory over Germany and Japan during WW II. I wonder how much of the shift to preference to American English was connected to the change in the status of the United States in global scene. Unlike many allied partners and the UK, the United States did not have to "rebuild" as a result of the war in regards to war damage thus setting the staget for the USA to be in a better position financially and the amount of resources and presence that was allocated. Moreover, how much did the geographical location (away from the war--with exception of Pearl Harbor) and size of the USA that help to reinforce and build up a more united American identity which saw more value in their "home" variety than that of British English???

1st day

Yay my first day of WE! Today we covered a lot of material. One of the things that kept coming to my mind during discussion of the different articles and issues related WE, I couldn't help but think but reflect back on the Yukio Tsuda' article "English Hegemony and English Divide." Ever since reading Tsuda's article, I can't help but to view WE from more critical perspective. I think because I read that article prior to taking the WE course and the different articles assigned for the course, I think I might be approaching WE with a certain level of hesistancy. The reason being is due in part to the argument that Tsuda makes against WE. Tsuda argued that Kachru and WE proponents should be applauded for their efforts towards the promotion and acceptance of other varieties of English. However, he argues that WE is still ideologically based and although it promotes other varieties of Englishes, WE continues the promotion of English and its dominance in the world. He claims that WE "simply affirms the global spread of English without examining the impact of the dominance of English." In a way, I do adhere to Tsuda's view regarding WE. Similar to Tsuda, I do agree that WE and WE proponents is a good step in the right direction in regards to promoting equality among the different varieties of Englishes that are found in the world. However, I still find WE as being problematic because I think the linguistic hierachies are still be perpetuated but just recreated into additional layers. Instead of having the hierarchy of "Standard" English that is often associated with the inner circle, under the WE paradigm the WE English level is position as the level below "Standard" English...ahhh need to finish this train of thought...to be continued!!! :D


Reference: Tsuda, Y. (2008). English hegemony and English divide. China Media Research. 4(1), 47-55.