Sunday, March 31, 2013

hun, just say it in PLAIN ENGLISH!

Communication is an act between two or more parties.  Successful communication is based on all parties coming to the communication event with a similar understanding of the item at hand.  Unsuccessful communication can result from the parties involved in the event having different background, life experiences, languages, dialects, slang, wit, humor, grasp of irony and idioms, and even just trouble hearing or seeing.

In the case of two people standing together at a cocktail party, communication begins with a thought in one person's brain which he converts to speech and body language in order to convey the desired message to the other interlocuter.  Once the message has left his lips, the ears, eyes, and brain of the second person gather data and interpret the message given by the first person.  We can imagine that these people are perhaps coworkers who know one another decently well and have a standing rapport with one another, so it is unlikely that the message will be understood with different intent by the second person.

However, if we change the details of mystery man 2, the story changes:
Man 1: 25 yr old, message: "I'm really digging the DJ"
Man 2: 65 yr old, receives: ...he is digging something? and responds: "You were gardening today?"

And another change:
Man 1: 40 yr old, message: "I'm really digging the DJ"
Man 2: 21 yr old, receives: ....  thinks: is that guy really wearing a sweater vest?

Communication breakdown can occur before a message even begins transmission if the interlocuters are not receptive to passing messages due to cultural differences.
In order to be heard, we must first be seen as equals on the discussion stage.  This may mean changing things about ourselves so that we become acceptable matches in the eyes of our interlocuters.  We accommodate in this manner everyday with our choice of dress (work clothes to appear professional, team sportswear to indicate support and camaraderie with other sports fans, etc.).

Kubota (2002) discusses accommodation at a national level through 'Kokusaika'.  Wanting to be a player in the global market, Japan began anglicizing in the late 20th century.  In adopting McD's and EFL programs, Japan placed certain aspects of American society over its own heritage.  At the same time, these became tools for Japan to communicate and claim power in the international community.  This tension built around the promotion of English allows for a growth in nationalism in that national description and support is a larger, more cohesive identity as defined through the lens of the government and international relations.  But with a growth in nationalism, there is a decline in support for domestic diversity.

Going back to the earlier conversation examples, for Japan, the analogy can be made that they are meeting with the Westernized others at the McD's, and everyone has decided not to wear sweater vests anymore.  Each individual is entering onto the communication field with firm footing.

But what does it mean that English should be the most prominent language studied (and as Kubota states, it is the only 'foreign language' in most schools)?  What message is communicated through the Anglicized Center?
Why should a person feel pressured to remove his sweater vest and speak American English ('plain English')?

The power struggle presented through 'Kokusaika' and through this article place U.S. and U.K. Englishes on golden thrones.  Those who are native speakers of these Englishes see themselves as entitled while those learners of these Englishes feel inadequate and lesser world citizens:  there exists a perceived superiority of both the language and its speakers.  And where the article mentions a high percentage of Japanese citizens who travel outside the country yearly, the average midwest American does not even own a passport; we can conclude that as far as Englishes being an international asset, the average Japanese person has more international commonsense than the average American English speaker.

The article, and this gal, suggest that in order to find more equal footing on the communication stage, it is not the concern of only one party to make changes.  Accommodations should be made and cultural information learned and exchanged by every person around the world.  Especially in schools where children are highly impressionable and where we are expected to learn the abilities that will help us succeed in life.  We need to present children at all levels with relevant learning materials that support their individual identities while introducing new concepts, world views, and world languages.

Sunday, March 24, 2013

what is it with YOU people?!

What you see is what you get.
I have heard this phrase in relation to many physical items.  I have been told that what my eyes tell my brain is a truth that my brain already understands.
In discussion of an airplane meal that is already packaged, this phrase might refer to the fact that what one sees listed in the in-flight meal brochure is guaranteed to be the meal awaiting the passenger under the heated tinfoil lid.  The passenger reads rice pilaf with chicken, dinner roll, fruit crumble, and steamed broccoli, and the passenger has a vision with expectations as to what s/he will find when the cart rolls around.  The passenger expects that the broccoli will be soggy and unseasoned that the rice with chicken will be drowning in some sort of barely-flavored sauce, and that the dinner roll be a white round roll with a pat of butter on the side.  The passenger assumes that, having flown this airline twice before, the meal will be served with pre-packaged plastic utensils, and that the wine on this international flight will be 'all-you-can-drink'.
And so the passenger may be right.
The meal will arrive in the usual tin-foil-sealed package with the usual bland meal underneath.
However the passenger may be wrong.
The meal may be served in the usual tin-foil-sealed package with perfectly-seasoned chicken and broccoli and with a whole grain triangular roll.

When discussing an in-flight meal, the stakes are generally low.  The hostess will not be offended if a passenger does not differentiate the fruit crumble from those before.  But when we discuss the tin-foil packaging as representing a person, the stakes quickly grow.

What you see is what you get.  This, as discussed Kumaravadivelu (2003), is a slippery slope for TESOL professionals, as well as any teacher or person in any profession.  Stereotyping a student, a customer, a client, a coworker, etc., based on past encounters will lead to mistreatment of each person as an individual.  A person's looks may or may not describe that person's behaviors and thoughts.  While one may pretty safely assume that a student wearing a Lakers jersey and hat is in fact a Lakers fan, one cannot assume that that student will not participate in class discussion just because the last Lakers fan in class never prepared class readings.

The thing that struck me the most, right off the bat (yes, I may be sticking with a sports theme here) in reading Kumaravadivelu this evening, is that I feel completely opposite from the 'Asian' stereotype discussed, which K works to dissolve through each section attacking each of three stereotypes.
I was honored by the presence of three Chinese exchange students in my French class two semesters ago.  Each one had a different style and work ethic (just as my white and black students do).  One of the girls was constantly raising her hand, was always prepared for class, and was the first to catch errors when I would carelessly make them on the blackboard.  She, in contrast to the authority statement in the article, would always ask questions about the material, why do some adjectives come before nouns in French while others follow? why are some nouns feminine and others masculine?  I can't say I always had answers for her questions, but in her quest for perfection with the course material, she was very forward about using all the materials at her fingertips.  I feel she was an asset to every member of the class.
Another of the exchange students was always prepared, sometimes an entire section in advance, but was not as vocal as her peer.  She would always converse with partners and would respond when called-on, but seemed more content to listen to others.
The third Chinese exchange student was always ready to speak and participate when called-on, but was rarely prepared for class.  This lead to some communication breakdown, but never a drop in attitude.  He was cheerful, when he came to class, and always had a story to tell about some weekend adventure to Chicago.

Three students from the same city in China with three different attitudes in the classroom.

Going into the classroom at the beginning of each semester is a blank slate.  Each student bears a tin-foil package which I must see through to understand each individual in order to effectively teach to reach each student and to provide an opportunity to each student to learn.  I have taught brothers (during different semesters) who portrayed vastly different levels of motivation to read and participate, I have taught young students and 'non-traditional' students, white students and black students, theater majors and undecideds.
One stereotype I have learned, is that I can usually count on Theater majors to be more willing than other students to act-out dialogues for the class.

The other thing I have learned, is that what you see is not what you get.  When it comes to people, we can't expect the pre-packaged comfort of an in-flight dinner, expecting to see the same thing each time when we open the lid, and once we see it, already knowing the taste will be the same as the last time.  We have to take each person as a new individual with a completely different background and mingling of cultures which will lead that person to react and to interact in completely different ways with each presented context.

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Mirror Mirror

If we are what we eat, than we must see what we eat as representative of ourselves.
The apple pie and turkey sandwich on white bread with the crusts cut off appeal to all mainstream Americans.
Americans may be represented by these food items, and when Americans see these food items, they are pleased.  They are likely to purchase these items and/or order them at a restaurant.
Super markets and restaurants carry items such as apple pie and turkey sandwiches because they know that Americans like these things and they will sell well.
The consumer looks for a bit of him/herself on the plate and is pleased when the reflection is as expected.

A slice of apple pie may be available to all Americans at a price of under two dollars.  However, a language textbook, another consumer item, can cost upwards of $100.  The price of these luxury items means that they are representative of consumers who have some padding in their pockets.

Taylor-Mendes remarks that language textbooks, being the luxury item that they are, represent the goal population:  the top 20% of society.  Those who purchase the textbooks absorb the pictures sprawled throughout the texts as models of the target language-culture.  These pictures speak louder than words in many cases, as the language learners may not have the level to understand the letters on the pages, but can read into the images.  The thousands of words, the values of the pictures, speak to the book users of inequality, racial separation, imbalance of power, and unearned white privilege.

The idea of race being divided by continent is one of pre-colonial, pre-mass travel movements.  Considering someone of Japanese descent who is born and raised in Ohio as marginal and therefore not worth picturing in a textbook as one of the many faces of America is the same sort of false pretenses that certain teachers in the previous chapter of Hinkel use to tell students that their narratives are not appropriate.  That their identity does not count as American because their accent or skin color is judged as being of another continent.  That for these students, the USA is not home, the other continent is their home.

All of this reeks of inacceptance and ignorance.

I feel Taylor-Mendes' approach is very interesting.  Her delving into this critical issue with her select group of students and teachers, with her method of guiding questions, opens the reader to see between the lines and pixels of the widely-accepted textbooks.