| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Smee
Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Location: Jeollanam-do
|
 Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 9:02 pm Post subject: Korea Times: "Who's in charge of Eng Edu?" |
 |
|
Since we're sorrt of on the topic of native speakers---well, we're usually on it . . . it's a good chance for self-promotion, but in the name of "enrichment." I had a column printed in a Korean paper . . .
From 5/22 Korea Times online, Thoughts of the Times: "Who's in Charge of English Education?"
| Quote: |
What is typically, in this country��s situation, relegated to editorials, to message boards, and to the realm of mutually deconstructive gossip, is actually grounded in sociolinguistic discussions about the power—active and passive—and prestige—ditto—of the English language in its role as global cultural currency. Well-known scholars in the TESOL field like Alastair Pennycook and M.B.H. Rampton have written what we all have observed: English dictates that it be learned and how it is taught.
We see this in the drive toward students�� ��communicative competence�� — a term still vaguely defined in South Korea—and in the desirability for native speaker teachers—and a pretty limited idea of ��native speaker�� at that. While the ��cultural appropriateness�� of the native speaker fascination has been a hot topic in TESOL communities these past two-odd decades, most debates on cultural appropriateness here are, unfortunately, fixated on interracial relationships, on old maps, or on soju-imbued hagwon instructors.
I am not writing to question the qualifications of native speakers in general, nor to throw another stone at ��the politics of English�� from this glass house. What is important, though, and what deserves more consideration from both Western and Korean perspectives, are the seriously negative consequences of this fetishization of English and the horribly narrow ideas of what English means.
On one level, the resentment shown toward native speakers is understandable (though the vitriol that pops up is inexcusable and hypocritical). That is, in spite of the importance of English to international relations, it remains a foreign body, and one that exists in school at the expense of other subjects. It is heavily weighted and highly prized, and parents and their children often spare no expense to acquire it. Native speakers are the representatives of this force—whether they like it or not—and both in the classroom and out of it are in positions of authority. Alastair Pennycook has written that English ��functions as the gatekeeper to positions of prestige in a society,�� and native speakers actively and symbolically points of entry.
|
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opinion/200505/kt2005052216343554060.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Saxiif
Joined: 15 May 2003
Location: Seongnam
|
| Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Enough buzzwords  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agraham
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Location: Daegu, Korea
|
| Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ouch. I just sprained my brain trying to read that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JacktheCat
Joined: 08 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
soju-imbued hagwon instructors
|
From the loquacious lexis used in that article, I'll bet a can of Cass and some dried squid that you were an English major in college.
Not a lot of jobs back in the home country for English majors were there? 
Last edited by JacktheCat on Mon May 23, 2005 6:31 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hari seldon
Joined: 05 Dec 2004
Location: Incheon
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Let's see. You resent the importance of English and your inability to cash in on the Korean obsession to learn it because Koreans prefer to learn from the native white speakers of a half dozen countries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smee
Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Location: Jeollanam-do
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Let's see. You resent the importance of English and your inability to cash in on the Korean obsession to learn it because Koreans prefer to learn from the native white speakers of a half dozen countries. |
Haha, missed the point entirely, but I didn't expect much. I sprained my brain trying to read that . . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steroidmaximus
Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Location: GangWon-Do
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
your opening sentence is a morass of convoluted thoughts not worth the effort to decipher
and you use waaaaaaaaay too many commas. Holy run-on sentence Batman! 
they printed that?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steroidmaximus wrote: |
your opening sentence is a morass of convoluted thoughts not worth the effort to decipher
and you use waaaaaaaaay too many commas. Holy run-on sentence Batman!
they printed that? |
Good point. If you ever had a look at the 'J'accuse' letter by Emile Zola, you'd notice that the thing is practically one run-on sentence. I once tried to make the arguement in French class that if he did write in that style, then why shoudldn't I. "You aren't Emile Zola", was the response. Neither is the writer of that letter.
By the way, Pennicook is wrong (or his idea was taken out of context). The user dictates the nature of a language, hence the learner (which is essentially a user) dictates how English is learnt. If you knew anything about language acquisition, you'd understand that while the teacher has control over the input in a classroom, the learner has control over the intake.
Last edited by Hollywoodaction on Wed May 25, 2005 1:44 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steroidmaximus wrote: |
your opening sentence is a morass of convoluted thoughts not worth the effort to decipher
and you use waaaaaaaaay too many commas. Holy run-on sentence Batman!
they printed that? |
I can guess why the Korean editoral staff printed that. They thought, "it's so hard to read it must be good!!!".
Really. The last three paragraphs were fine but that first one is a nightmare. Simplification is not a bad thing to do when writing with the intention of communication. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hari seldon
Joined: 05 Dec 2004
Location: Incheon
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Smee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Let's see. You resent the importance of English and your inability to cash in on the Korean obsession to learn it because Koreans prefer to learn from the native white speakers of a half dozen countries. |
Haha, missed the point entirely, but I didn't expect much. I sprained my brain trying to read that . . . |
What is your audience? The first lesson of writing is to consider your audience. New York Times editorials, for example, can be understood by readers with a twelveth grade reading level. Is the readership of the Korea Times more sophisticated than the readership of the New York Times? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smee
Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Location: Jeollanam-do
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, you're right about the audience-thing, and about the convuluted syntax. I waffled between an academic audience and a general one. The thing I submitted was cut in half for space. I wanted to be taken quote-unquote seriously, which is why I overused "buzzwords." But I also wanted the casual reader to say "oh, okay, I get it," so I tried to dumb it down. But I think there were too many themes, too many intersections, which is why a lot of people here were "wtf?" So . . . yeah, I apologize for the confusion and for the wrinkled brows. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
