Teacher Discussion Forums

hi
i'd like anyone's thoughts on the idea that TESOL is just another form of imperialist power.....esp with what's going on in the world these days.
anyone else out there with a guilty conscience??

It's business! They want English, I give them English. On my free time, however, I insist on speaking Chinese whenever I can, and when I can't, Esperanto. A few other local foreigners (university students, though, not teachers) do the same. I've managed to make many Esperanto-speaking friends in the process. And the fact that the local Esperanto speaking community has more opportunity than the English-speaking one to practice its second language with foreigners has encouraged others to learn it also.

Chem

i'd like anyone's thoughts on the idea that TESOL is just another form of imperialist power.....esp with what's going on in the world these days.
anyone else out there with a guilty conscience??

Such a notion is absurd. Imperialism has to do with Politics, not with learning a language. Why not tell me how TESOL is imperialistc?

I have no guilt.

AJ

hi chem
i agree with AJ. English is just an international language, a tool with which people from different countries can communicate with each other successfully. as for the test, it is also an testing form recognized by all , it has nothing to do with imperalism. what'smore, nowadays many researchers begin studies on various varieties of English, one aim of which, i think, is try to impart the local culture and values to outsiders by using some english with strong local featrues.

But when you learn English you do learn a particular style of thinking and writing. It is a linear style, putting things in a line. You start with a subject and then add the verb. Other words have to go into a particular pattern. Surely that does influence how you think, especially if this is not the pattern of your first language. It is even more of an inflence when you write academically because English often demands that we say what we are going to say, say it and then say what we said. It is very straightforward and repetitive in this way. How does that define what you have to say? How does it seem to others who write with different patterns? English has a strong Problem-Solution format as well. Other cultures write with different patterns. How does that influence our thinking? In English classes we often ask students to write something from their "imagination". We are looking for something unique and not copied. We don't allow what we call plaguerism or copying words from somone else. These practices are very different in different places. In several countries I taught in the parents were upset because they thought I was trying to get their children to lie when I got them to write stories from their imagination. This was a major issue for the parents. I valued creative thinking but the students just wanted to pass the tests. I valued critical thinking but the students just wanted to pass the test. Neither of the previous skills would probably help them pass the test . We have certain expectations of how to set up a class and run it. How are those different from the student's expectations and experiences? There are so many social practices that we take for granted that have come to us through using English. You can't get away from them and you will teach them whether you are aware of it or not. What is the impact on the world if English does become the main language of communication? With so many non-native speaking teachers teaching English you can't say that it is imperialistic but is there another word to describe it? How do people change when they become English teachers? Lots of good questions at least.

Good morning all.

Imperialism? Well, in a way, yes. But in the ESL classroom, well I don't know.

To get a modern point of view go read Bernard Shaw. Especially "Pygmalian". If you can't swallow that, go see "My Fair Lady". There are many insightful comments made on the use of English to mark class distinctions. Even B Brecht made the comment about Americans: "Speak like an Englishman, they think you're Jesus Christ."

I give a lecture called "the verbs of life". I teach the conjugations, meanings, functions and expressions involved with the following verbs: be, want, go, do, get, have. At the end of the lecture I point out how these verbs represent a capitalistic, imperialistic framework for thinking: I am revel. I want something. I go to work. I do my work. Through my work I get that something. Having gotten that something, I now have it.

I have an English colleague who is imperialistic in class, in that he scorns American English. He doesn't like a book that I also don't like. I don't like the book because it is muddy in its presentation and students don't care for the "social studies" themes it uses to try to teach English. He doesn't like the book because it uses the word "sidewalk" instead of "pavement". Naturally, and perhaps he's got a point, the Queen's English is superior to the President's.

peace,
revel.

Your English colleague is a fool Revel, but not so much an imperialist. It's really your country that has an empire now!

Not only is English teaching a tool of Anglo-Saxon power, albeit an unwitting one, most teachers are happiest when then can ram Anglo-Saxon values down throats.

Those values being political correctness and work-hard-make-money and make-society-safe-through-regulation, it simply isn't in most of us teachers to question them. We feel deep in our bones that they are correct. We ooze them.

Then again, some might argue that the internationalisation of English is divorcing it from the cultures that spawned it. Not only is there an international variety of English which seems stripped of all the nuances and shades of meaning, but there are varieties like "Singlish" and Jamaican Patois which are very specific to the cultures they are spoken in.

Who knows, in a few more generations English may have the status of Latin in medieval Europe - a lingua franca for the educated classes with "vulgar" varieties which are more specific to certain countries and regions. It's not as simple as the "English is taking over" argument would seem to suggest.

No doubt we would have had our own version of German had Hitler won the war!

Just like we would have our own version of Celtic had the Angles and Saxons not invaded, and English would be very different had it not been for those imperialistic Normans. In fact, most of Western Europe would be speaking Celtic if the Romans and Goths had stayed put. Some hold the view that had Indo-European speakers not come along, we'd all be speaking something totally unrelated but similar to Finnish or Hungarian.

Hey all!

And what about this one?

The Spanish, while they were robbing, raping and killing looking for either el Dorado or the fountain of youth, didn't really care if those indigenous people learned their tongue or not. Those who were finally able to learn Spanish became part of whatever culture developed after the conquest of their tribes or cultures or civilizations and now are honoured members of international Iber-American conferences (though this year's was a bit pathetic on the attendance side....)

The French, well as GB Shaw pointed out, they don't care what you say as long as you pronounce it properly. (Recently saw a report on a French museum that highlights the sounds and smells of the human body, where kids can slide down the small intestine, push a button and hear a burp and what's more, can enjoy the smell of a f*rt or a burp. Leave it to the French....hehe).

The English have always used the ability to speak whatever is "correct" in the historical context, to classify people. So, there are those decendants of penal colonies in Australia who might be incredibly educated, hard working, even weathly and creative contributors to their society, and yet are not quite of the correct class because they speak that other English. So, perhaps historically, from the colonial times, English has been used to separate, control, imperialize. The pen is mightier than the sword, the British Empire lasted longer than either the Spanish or the French, important writers in those two language notwithstanding.

Just some thoughts on this resusitated thread of thought.

peace,
revel.

It sems to me that we should be careful not to adopt too Anglo-centric a view of the English Language.

The fact that there is still prejudice among many people as regards accent/dialect is probably not relevant to most students. How many Koreans learn English to gain access to the higher echelons of British sociey? In fact, it's quite probable that they may not use English with native speakers at all, but rather as a lingua franca which they can use with more nationalities than pretty much any other language.

This is why the language is becoming divorced from the country that spawned it. English is now an international language in a way that none of the other major languages can match. I know that's a historical legacy of British, and later US, hegemony in the world, and noone would condone it, but is anyone seriously suggesting we are supposed to make amends for centuries of injustice by not teaching English to people who want to learn it?

However you feel about colonialism, isn't the world in the 21st century better of with a lingua france than none at all.

Who said we shouldn't teach it? Let's be alive to the consequences, however. If Chinese becomes the world language then Confucianism, Buddhism, Communo-Capitalism and all the rest are sure to make their mark on the world in a very powerful way. It is easy to be complacent about that kind of thing as an English speaker, just as we seldom reflect on the way we have grabbed unspeakably immense tracts of land for our own personal use within a few generations, and how we would feel about another nation which had done so.

Good morning all!

I agree with you, lolwhites, in everything you say. My thoughts there are basically a standardized reply I give when asked about the Queen's English as a historical phenomena, or why and how American English differs from what I jokingly call Island English. At the end of such musings in class, I do point out that none of the students will probably have lunch with Elizabeth II, nor with George W, but rather with some German who doesn't speak Spanish. The motivation for speaking English will not be to impress the other with their linguistic capacities but rather to make a deal. That English has gotten to where it is remains a historical anecdote and, though some may complain, well, it's there to be taken advantage of.

peace,
revel.

If China became the world language, we would certainly be more aware of Chinese culture, though we might well resent it in the same way as there are those who feel that American/Anglo-Saxon culture is taking over.

However, what would also happen is that new varieties of Chinese would emerge that reflected aspects of the indigenous languages, cultures and histories, as has happened to English in Singapore and the Caribbean. Thise varieties might be as difficult for a Chinese person to follow as Singlish and Patois are for me.

There would, of course, still be an "international" Chinese, but it would probably be very dry, dull language, stripped of shades of meaning and totally inappropriate for expressive language like poetry or love letters.

This, of course, is exactly what's happening to English - go read an official European Union document if you (a) don't believe me and (b) can stay awake long enough to read it.