|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gaijinalways
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 2279
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
thelmadatter posted
| Quote: |
| While it may be true for some learners, it has not been my experience as a language learner or teacher abroad. Ive studied 5 different languages and something about the cultures of each one (also spent years in Germany and Mexico). While the experiences have changed me, Ive simply been exposed to new ideas, kept the ones I like and rejected the ones I dont. Learning a language is simply a means to an end... what that end is, is up to the student. |
But this is also an old linguistic arguement, that a language often carries some cultural aspects (customs and values) that people may 'unwittingly' acquire  .
thelmadatter posted
| Quote: |
| And only one felt somehow that she experienced a kind of identity loss (dont worry she got a 95 on that essay, it was well-written. I dont penalize students for having "wrong" opinions |
Hmm, I have to say that your student's opinion is not that far fetched. Some people state that language acquisition does change them, but in my opinion (similiar to what thelma states or seems to state) any change is not a loss but a shift in a person's cultural awareness. But, I am not sure that all of us can decide which cultural aspects we may acquire. It is somewhat the same when you live in an foreign area for a long time, with some people going native, some people rejecting the host culture, and the rest of the visitors falling somewhere in between. Often when people live in another culture, they experience 'mixed' feelings (a kind of 'linguistic dissonance') as they acquire another language and some of the culture that may accompany it.
Others of course acquire the language, but imbibe little or none of the cultural attachments, perhaps more likely if they are acquiring the language for limited purposes while not living abroad in that culture.
wildchild posted
| Quote: |
| For children, it is not a means to an end, it is everything. |
If they have only learned that language, but that usually would have been the choice of the parents  .
wildchild posted
| Quote: |
| Language is their mode of thinking, their way for interpreting and interacting with the world. |
That goes for all of us, but even though language is part of it, your upbringing and environment still impart some values regardless of the language(s) you speak or are raised in.
| Quote: |
The imperialism becomes very real when they can no longer communicate with their grandparents. It becomes very real when they are discriminated against because of their non-white accent, although they speak the language from birth (Indian English, for example).
|
Whether they can communicate with their grandparents again has to do more with the parents and how they raised their kids (unless you are talking about people who were forced to acquire a language like some of the Aborigines in Australia or some of the minorities in China, or the Koreans in WWII in Japanese occupied Korea as examples).
Who discriminates aganist them? English speakers or the other language speakers in their country (I'm betting the poster meant other English speakers)? But this kind of discrimination goes on with most if not all languages. Chinese people that foreigners speak to in Chinese often are treated differently even on the phone unless their 'accents were perfect', in other words, indistinguishable form a native Chinese speaker. Even Taiwanese, Chinese Singaporeans, etc. who travel in China are often treated differently than the 'local' Chinese. Is this linguistic imperilism at work or just a form of discrimination aganist someone who is being perceived as not from around here?
Last edited by gaijinalways on Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:47 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
womblingfree
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tedkarma wrote: |
| Some say globalization is Western imperialism. Some say Islam is Arab imperialism. Hmmm - and linguistics? |
Who on earth are these ignorant 'some people' who say that Islam is Arab imperialism? Arab nations have been on the receiving end of real imperialim for thousands of years.
Islam isn't 'Arab imperialism' it's a religion not a state. The same as the Jewish faith is not an expression of 'Jew imperialism'.
Let's not bandy about meaningless inflammatory comments.
Globalisation per se isn't imperialism. Imperialism is the extension of a nations power by various means through diplomacy or military action. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
womblingfree
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tedkarma wrote: |
| People who point to China - and sometimes suggest the death of the EFL industry - are usually forgetting that India now has a larger population than China and that English is the unifying language there. While India's GNP/GDP growth is not as rapid as China's, India is definitely on the rise. |
India's English varieties are primarily taught by Indian teachers and often have little in common with English varieties from native speaking countries.
In this respect the, arguable imperialistic, EFL industry such as is common in South East Asia is very small. India is on the way to reclaiming English from being a tool of imperialism and is now using it as its own language of diversity.
In this respect World Englishes are the property of the non-native speakers just as much as the Latin, Spanish, French and American Indian words we use now belong to our communicative lexicon.
Last edited by womblingfree on Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guy Courchesne
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 9650
Location: Mexico City
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Or economics. One need not look much further than the WTO and the IMF to see how globalization can be used by the empire. Cuba stands out as an example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
womblingfree
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guy Courchesne wrote: |
| Or economics. One need not look much further than the WTO and the IMF to see how globalization can be used by the empire. Cuba stands out as an example. |
Care to elaborate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aramas
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 874
Location: Slightly left of Centre
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| womblingfree wrote: |
| Imperialism is the extension of a nations power by various means through diplomacy or military action. |
Where does that definition come from? It sounds remarkably like a definition of US foreign policy. Although for that to work, 'diplomacy' would have to be in inverted commas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guy Courchesne
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 9650
Location: Mexico City
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| womblingfree wrote: |
| Guy Courchesne wrote: |
| Or economics. One need not look much further than the WTO and the IMF to see how globalization can be used by the empire. Cuba stands out as an example. |
Care to elaborate? |
Happy to. Cuba is but one example where in order to force a change on them, Cuba is prevented from participating in certain areas of international trade. Cuba cannot easily get loans not because they would come directly from the US, but because international loans and aid packages are usually made in dollars through world bodies where the US is a major contributor. Other countries not applying the embargo are dissuaded from trading with or aiding Cuba in this respect.
Argentina is another good example where economics (and I don't single out the US at all) was used as a tool to force social and political change. IMF set policies accepted by the political elite there at the expense of the population. You might say here that this particular road was paved with good intentions, but then you'd have to ignore the wishes of the people of Argentina.
Russia wields a huge stick in oil availability and pricing to extend (or re-extend) it's influence in neighboring countries. Check the changes in oil prices on deliveries to Ukraine and Georgia (2005 and 2006 respectively).
Economics is the first tool in the modern empire's toolbox. War is too messy and a last resort.
We should put this thread back on topic though... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gaijinalways
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
The arguement could be made that countries whose economic success includes investing in developing and eveloped countries will in some cases lead to those countries learning their language if it helps for making business deals. So these countries have enjoyed a linguistic imperilism;
The Romans with Latin
and these still enjoy a form of 'language imperilism'
The French with their ex-African colonies
The English with their colonies and ex-colonies
The Spanish with their colonies and ex-colonies
The Americans with their territories and spheres of influence (in the mind of Bush, everywhere  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carnac
Joined: 30 Jul 2004
Posts: 310
Location: in my village in Oman ;-)
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gaijin said "The arguement could be made that countries whose economic success includes investing in developing and eveloped countries will in some cases lead to those countries learning their language if it helps for making business deals."
Certainly true, and this is why English has become so widespread today. After all, what is the root cause of a "pidgin" language? The need to do business. (etymology: business)
Where do French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian come from? It can be easily argued that they derived from pidgin Latin as various tribes encountered Romans and traded, and eventually evolved, so that these languages may be described as "creoles" of Latin, having become for some time "cradle" languages.
In the case of English, first the British then the Americans have been economically dominant. In order to do business, various pidgins developed. In some cases, creoles arose from the pidgins. (Jamaican, Singaporean, Indian, others).
The point of this evolution is, I believe, practicality. I find that English mutates more easily into new and useful forms than many other languages (English speakers, for instance, not being hampered by an "Academie Anglaise".
We need to be able to understand each other, which is why the aviation industry uses English as a standard, for safety and understanding. Also why, when I listen to children of Arab and Indian parentage playing together outside my window, I hear them using a new English they have invented, English with flavorings of Arabic and Hindi.
In my own home, we speak a strange amalgamation of English, French and Arabic. Which is dominant? English usually, because of me, but sometimes the English is not really adequate to express a concept and another language is tossed in for the purpose of clarity.
I predict that the world language of the future will be English, but not in the manner to which we are accustomed. Not only is the language changing rapidly as a result of international business, you have the influence of netspeak and sms shorthand. I predict that many usages now common with teens will become accepted as "standard" English over the next 50 years.
And, what is "standard" English, anyway? Is it defined by numbers of speakers of a creole? So, American English is more "standard" than British English? Is it the use of the Present Perfect rather than the Past Simple?
Prescriptivists follow the descriptivists, always, scribbling away, trying to hold back the tide, teaching the present grammar that their children already know is going the way of the archeopteryx.
Pardon the opinions, of which I have barely scratched the surface. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
womblingfree
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aramas wrote: |
| womblingfree wrote: |
| Imperialism is the extension of a nations power by various means through diplomacy or military action. |
Where does that definition come from? It sounds remarkably like a definition of US foreign policy. Although for that to work, 'diplomacy' would have to be in inverted commas |
American foreign policy is imperialistic. Ever noticed those airforce bases that occupy vast swathes of Japan? The permanent presence in Europe, the Middle East, the toppling of democratic governments in South America, the English only policy in America, enforced English speaking in Hawaii and the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, yada, yada, yada...
We could have a debate without end about any of those.
America's not the first of course, just a continuation of what England, France, Spain, Russia, Mongolians, Ottomans, Byzantines and Romans etc, were doing for hundreds and thousands of years beforehand.
You'd think we'd have learned by now 
Last edited by womblingfree on Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:45 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
womblingfree
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| carnac wrote: |
| what is "standard" English, anyway? Is it defined by numbers of speakers of a creole? So, American English is more "standard" than British English? |
There are no spoken 'standards' of either.
The only 'standard English' that exists would be written and arguably not spoken by anyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gaijinalways
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Carnac, that was an adequate expansion on what I typed as a brief and pithy introduction. As we both noted, American English (as part of a wave of Englishes) was hardly first, just the latest in a string of dominant languages brought around the globe through trade, commerce, science/technology, etc.
womblingfree posted
| Quote: |
| American foreign policy is imperialistic. |
This is getting a bit off topic, as we're talking more about linguistic dominance, but yes, economics and military 'posturing' both have a role to play in that, making a language dominant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
womblingfree
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gaijinalways wrote: |
Thanks Carnac, that was an adequate expansion on what I typed as a brief and pithy introduction. As we both noted, American English (as part of a wave of Englishes) was hardly first, just the latest in a string of dominant languages brought around the globe through trade, commerce, science/technology, etc.
womblingfree posted
| Quote: |
| American foreign policy is imperialistic. |
This is getting a bit off topic, as we're talking more about linguistic dominance, but yes, economics and military 'posturing' both have a role to play in that, making a language dominant. |
The spread of English has undeniably been on the back of imperialism and subjugation. The global EFL industry is a by-product of this and it's only when speech communities take charge of their own language learning that things change.
Despite this often speech communitie take the language they need and adapt it to their specific needs, adapting language in a way far removed from colonialist dictates based on imperialistic dominance.
In the long run it will be those that speak only English who will be greatly disadvantaged in a multilingual world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guy Courchesne
Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 9650
Location: Mexico City
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| In the long run it will be those that speak only English who will be greatly disadvantaged in a multilingual world. |
and that's the key. This is why language and English are not tools of imperialism, but rather a simple by-product of dominant trends. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gaijinalways
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Exactly Guy, it seems like perhaps we are teaching our students to be imperialists  !
Language is just one kind of skill, even the Roman influence only went so far.
womblingfree posted
| Quote: |
...and it's only when speech communities take charge of their own language learning that things change.
Despite this often speech communitie take the language they need and adapt it to their specific needs, adapting language in a way far removed from colonialist dictates based on imperialistic dominance. |
Well, that's not always possible, for obvious reasons. If it continued in Japan, a majority of English speakers here would only be able to communicate in English with other Japanese speakers and speakers of English that were used to 'katakana English'.
So where is the linguistic dominance if the community has its own adaptation to use? So I guess your worries are over   .
But seriously, with many different varieties of English, we do still need to worry about communication between various English speaking communities, whose grammatical, structural, and vocabulary differences sometimes cause miscommunication problems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
