c3109550 EDUC6252 Research Essay - Identity, Representations of Identity and impact on language learning

c3109550 EDUC6252 S1, 2014 Research Essay

Luk & Lin (2007, p. 50) discuss the construction of self as resulting in identities that are highly fluid, sometimes incoherent, fragmented, multiple, and conflicting". Choose an EFL textbook or course resource and examine the contents (or a section of the contents) for representation of identities and culture. What are the dominant patterns of representation and how might these impact learners in a range of contexts?

A major component of the socio-cultural context for ESL/EFL teaching around the world

is the construction of identity and culture through language use and how these concepts

are represented in ESL/EFL materials has strong and varied impacts on learners of

English. Identity, culture and language use are closely interrelated, and the design of

English language courses either as a foreign or second language all inevitably present

an agenda for how they perceive the purpose of learning English, and how this relates to

the learners linguistic and cultural identities. They also take into account the culture in

which the course is being taught, and the cultures of whom the course is being taught

to. This aspect of context can both determine course represents of identity and culture,

and determine how these representations impact on the language learners participating

in the course. For the purposes of this paper, one EFL course taught in Korea will be

reviewed for its construction and representations of English, and how its approach

represents identity and culture stresses a strong nationalistic emphasis that potentially

has the impact of influencing learners to construct their individual and cultural responses

to the English language under national parameters. Translated as Sojourn into World

Englishes (Baik & Shim, 2002), this course will be reviewed based on the description

provided in the 2002 article Teaching World Englishes via the Internet, (Baik & Shim,

2002) in the absence of original course materials. The course and its design was based

on a subscription to the Kachruvian paradigm, (Pennycook, 2004, p. 29) a systematic

classification of international uses of English into three concentric circles known as the

inner circle, outer circle and the expanding circle. (Kachru, 1982) As a result, the courses

overall structure follows the configuration of Kachrus model, beginning with the inner

circle of primarily English-speaking cultures (Kachru, 1982) and progressing outwards

through the outer circle of countries where English is official or institutionalised, and the

expanding circle, which includes countries where English is a foreign language. (Kachru,

1


1982) At the time of this courses pilot in 2002, this approach was considered rather

innovative as it was the first trial at building teaching materials for world Englishes.

(Baik & Shim, 2002, p. 430) Rather than teaching a single construction of English, the

overall objective of the course was to bring an awareness and understanding of the

existence of varieties of English (Baik & Shim, 2002, p. 427) Orienting students to this

interpretation of the English language and how it exists in todays context will have

particular effects on the learners identification with the English language; in particular

their perception and use of the language in their context and how this impacts on them

as learners of the language.

Since its introduction in the 1982, Kachrus three circle paradigm of the English

language has been consistently reviewed, critiqued and revised by academia, leaving the

current validity of the model as at best, debatable. (Canagarajah, 1999; Jenkins, 2006;

Pennycook, 2004; Xiaoqiong & Xianxing, 2011; Xie, 2014) It remains certain, however,

that the model has held significant influence over contemporary research into the

modern existence of the English language. (Mollin, 2006) Figure 1 offers a basic visual

representation of the model, with examples of countries that fall into each of the circles.

Figure 1: A visual representation of Kachrus three concentric circles (Kachru, 1996)

2


Kachru describes his model as representative of the types of spread, the pattern of

acquisition, and the functional allocation of English in diverse cultural contexts (1992, p.

356) The classification that this model provides for English use around the world has

served as a springboard for research approaches to English and its socio-cultural context.

From this classification of English, we have come to realize that the spread of English has led to the pluralization or diversification of the language; it results in the birth of many new varieties of English or world Englishes.

(Jindapitak & Teo, 2013)

This significant insight into English by Kachrus model gave rise to the concepts of world

Englishes and English as an International Language. However, Pennycook, (2004) and

others (Butler, 1990; Holborow, 1999) argue that by its very nature as a systematic

approach to a very unsystematic language, Kachrus model is highly flawed and lacks the

capacity to acknowledge how English exists today. (Pennycook, 2004) Especially

contented is the models reliance on norms, and how Kachru maintains that each

version of English can be identified as either norm-providing, norm-developing or norm-

dependent. This assumption that there is an English norm is argued as flawed, and this

has led to revisions of the model. (Graddol, 1997) Rather than review the model itself,

this paper aims to review how it was implemented in the particular course Sojourn into

World Englishes and how this determined the way that the course represented identity

and culture. In 2002 the course was introduced to the Open Cyber University of Korea

with the intention of using the Kachruvian model as a basis for systematically

acquainting the English major students at this university with the highly dynamic

existence of the English language today. The course therefore represented English as a

language with several national versions, as per the model. Each of these national versions

fit into either the inner, outer or expanding circle, depending on the level to which the

given country had institutionalised and sustained the use of English since its introduction

to that culture. The course subscribed to the definitions of what constituted an inner,

outer or expanding circle country and these Englishes would have been presented within

their relevant classification in the courses representation of the various world Englishes;

evident in how the course structure was oriented around the three circles, with weeks 2-

4 devoted to inner circle Englishes, weeks 6-9 outer circle Englishes and weeks 11-14

3


expanding circle Englishes. (Baik & Shim, 2002) At the end of each section of the course,

weeks 5, 10 and 15, students were tested on their discreet knowledge of the Englishes

that belong to the circles they have just studied. The most obvious effect of representing

English in this way is that, although the course did not explicitly attribute ownership the

English language to a particular circle group, it reinforced the implicit hierarchy in the

model that has been the object of most academic criticism of the model to date.

(Graddol, 1997; Park & Wee, 2009; Pennycook, 2004)

As a result, despite the fact that the course was taught by a Korean university to Korean

students, Korean English (Baik & Shim, 2002) was not examined until the final week of

the course, as the final wrap up for the Expanding Circle (Baik & Shim, 2002, p. 430)

This course therefore represents English as a language with a hierarchy where the local

variation is clearly of a lower status. This relates to the courses clear goal for its students

learning of English. This was described as that as speakers of English as a foreign

language (their goal was) communicating with other speakers of English all around the

world rather than with native speakers of English (Baik & Shim, 2002)

The effects of this courses orientation to English on its representation of Identity

is that it only indirectly recognises identity as a socio-cultural construct, through its

choice to emphasise national models of English. Although this approach does

acknowledge the social construction of language, it does largely negate the role of

identity in an individuals use of language, and how this is related to culture. This is

arguably because the courses primary focus was the English language; however,

language and identity are inseparable. A potential problematic impact on learners of this

course, therefore is in this courses concentration on English language and how it is used

in a variety of national cultures, represented hierarchically. By placing Korean English at

the bottom of this hierarchy, this course risks positioning learners to view themselves as

inferior, or at least tertiary users of English. As Pennycook argues, given the global

status of the English myth, acts of English identification are used to perform, invent and

(re)fashion identities across innumerable domains. (2004, p. 30) If the goal of this course

is to empower the students to be able to communicate with all other speakers of English

4


around the world, their identification with the English language will be central to their

attainment of this goal. Identities related to the English language in this course, however,

are not represented as fluid or as a personally determined act. Korean English, like all the

distinct national versions of English in the course, is represented as having a static place

and position in relation to other Englishes. As a result, this course provides a highly

compartmentalised and nationalised representation of identity. By subscribing to

Kachrus original concentric circles model, the course represents distinct versions of

English, each as belonging to a nation as a whole. This is evident in the courses labelling

of the world Englishes; American English, Indian English, Dutch English. This treatment of

the language does not recognise localised dialects or individual, sub-cultural variations

of English; in the process of constructing these new national varieties of English, there

are a host of exclusions. (Pennycook, 2004, p. 29) It is, in fact problematic for all three

concentric circles, where there exist abundant variations to standard national models of

the English language. For example, in Australia there is the Standard Australian English

that is taught in schools and used in most professional contexts; but there are also

Aboriginal English, Australian slang, and innumerable other variations to Australian

English by location, culture and social groups. Neither does it explicitly recognise trends

broader than the national context, such as Asian Englishes, which even Kachru

recognised. (2005) These concepts would be particularly relevant to the Korean students

of this course, and their attempts to relate the course to themselves and their identities

as users of the English language. This relates to the definition of identities as fluid,

multiple and conflicting, (Luk & Lin, 2007) for while an individuals national identity may

be significant to their construction of self, it is but one aspect of their linguistic or

cultural identities, which in turn form only part of their self-construction. Their unique

version of the English language that they use will inevitably reflect their use of

performatives to establish a reconstruction of the English language as it relates to their

other identities. (Le Page & Tabouret-Keller, 1985) As a result, the course and its

compartmental representation of world Englishes through Kachrus model will inevitably

cause the learners to focus on the national aspect of their identity in their use of the

English language in the contexts that they encounter.

5


Similarly to the courses representation of identity, its representation of culture is

limited by its nation-based classifications of the English language; this representation is

likely to impact on the learner by again, over-emphasising national classification and its

significance to culture and an individuals cultural identity. By virtue of the close

relationship between language and culture in an individuals identities, it can be claimed

that how a learner perceives the relationship between culture and language will be

significant to how they use English, both in their home context, but also in international

academic and professional contexts, the assumed goal of the learners of this course. The

problem with this courses representation of culture as chiefly national is of the same

nature as the problem with the cultures treatment of identity. By choosing to focus on

the national level or aspect of culture, they undermine the significance of the other

aspects like sub-culture, popular culture, and alternative cultures and how they

interrelate with the national aspect. While it cannot be confirmed that these aspects are

not addressed in the course without original course materials, the description provided

in Baik and Shims article (2002) would suggest that the course does not address this

aspect of culture and its relationship with language in general or in particular with

international uses of the English language. There is abundant discussion in academia

about the influence of culture on national and localised adaptations, or versions of the

English language. Despite this, the only reference to how culture is represented in the

course is when the authors mention the selectiveness in the selection of speech samples

from the various world Englishes. They admit that the majority of speech samples are

those of news broadcasters that have probably been exposed to a certain level of

education from Inner Circle institutions of higher education. (Baik & Shim, 2002, p. 430)

So, in addition to their problematic focus on representing national culture, this

confession adds that their representation is limited in scope, and does not recognise a

number of social classes. (Baik & Shim, 2002) AS a result, the course ignores the possible

social variations within its national versions of English by presenting only one or two

speech samples from each country studied. The samples are all from public figures such

as politicians and entertainers. This is a very isolated and inadequate representation of

culture that has the potential to impress a superficial understanding of other English-

6


speaking cultures on the learners of the course. The course also excludes a number of

countries that do speak English in some capacity. The selection of the countries that they

did choose to include is not justified by any kind of educational rationale. This is another

feature that the Baik and Shim recognise as a problematic feature of the course. Both of

these features contribute to the courses flawed representation of culture, a

representation with potentially negative impacts on learners who participate in this

course.

It must be acknowledged that this course was experimental in design, and was an

attempt to move beyond a single or monolingual view of English, which many other ESL

and EFL courses are based on. This course did attempt to scaffold its students

introduction to the highly dynamic and complicated modern existence of English by

using the Kachruvian approach. This was achieved by basing the structure of the course

on a highly influential model for understanding the world Englishes paradigm.

Unfortunately, as subsequent research has revealed, there are significant problems with

Kachrus model and the inferences it contains for the global hierarchy of the English

language and its ownership. These problematic features of the model have not been

deconstructed in the course Sojourn to World Englishes, but rather expounded as correct.

This has had marked effects on the courses representation of identity and culture by

over-emphasising the importance of national (and by implication, political) classifications

of language, culture and identity. So while learners of this course apparently reacted

positively to its content, the problems lie not so much in what was included in the

course, but what was not included.

7


References Baik, M. J., & Shim, R. J. (2002). Teaching world Englishes via the Internet. World

Englishes, 21(3), 427-430. doi: 10.1111/1467-971X.00260 Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble : feminism and the subversion of identity. New York:

Routledge. Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). On EFL Teachers, awareness, and agency. ELT Journal, 53(3),

207-214. doi: 10.1093/elt/53.3.207 Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English?: A guide to forecasting the popularity of the

English language in the 21st century. London: British Council. Holborow, M. (1999). The politics of English : a Marxist view of language. London:

Sage. Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a

lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157-181. Jindapitak, N., & Teo, A. (2013). The emergence of world Englishes: Implications for

English language teaching. EMERGENCE, 2(2). Kachru, B. B. (1982). The Other tongue : English across cultures. Urbana: University of

Illinois Press. Kachru, B. B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed.): University of

Illinois Press. Kachru, B. B. (1996, May 5, 1997). Norms, Models, and Identities. The Language

Teacher. Retrieved 12 June, 2014, from http://jalt-publications.org/old_tlt/files/96/oct/englishes.html

Kachru, B. B. (2005). Asian Englishes: beyond the canon (Vol. 1). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Le Page, R. B., & Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to ethnicity and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Luk, J. C. M., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2007). Classroom interactions as cross-cultural encounters : native speakers in EFL lessons. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mollin, S. (2006). English as a lingua franca: A new variety in the new Expanding Circle? Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 41-57.

Park, J. S.-Y., & Wee, L. (2009). The three circles redux: a markettheoretic perspective on World Englishes. Applied linguistics, 30(3), 389-406.

Pennycook, A. (2004). The Myth of English as an International Language. English in Australia, 139(Feb), 26-32.

Xiaoqiong, B. H., & Xianxing, J. (2011). Kachrus Three Concentric Circles and English Teaching Fallacies in EFL and ESL Contexts. Changing English, 18(2), 219-228. doi: 10.1080/1358684X.2011.575254

Xie, J. (2014). Challenges and opportunities for the pluricentric approach in ESL/EFL teaching. English Today, 30(2), 43-50. doi: 10.1017/S0266078414000121

8

References

Documents

c3109550 EDUC6252 Research Essay - Identity, Representations of Identity and impact on language learning