Language Teaching and LPP: Homework

Language Teaching and LPP

Larry Javier Ambion

For this paper, I interviewed a 26 year-old high school English teacher from Quezon City. Pam Santos teaches English to third and fourth year students. She grew up speaking both English and Filipino at home and is not fluent in the various dialects of the Philippines. She has been teaching at Immaculate Conception Parish School for three years now and is already well-acquainted with how the school implements its language policies.

Pursuant to the Constitution, the school employs bilingualism in instructing its students. Though the administrators use English when addressing the students during public assembly, in setting out rules, and in writing letters to parents, it is not strict in following monolingualism.  It does not employ English-Only policy and does not castigate students who prefer to speak in the vernacular, except perhaps, during subjects when English is the prescribed medium of instruction. According to Miss Santos, the teachers themselves speak in Filipino when they find themselves grasping for words or feel that a Filipino word would be better. This is prevalent in those teaching Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and the like. As an English teacher, Miss Santos feels that she has to be stricter and strives to use English only while inside the classroom. However, she admits there are times that she uses Filipino when English words are not enough to convey a thought. She admits to doing code-switching, but never within a sentence. She also allows her students to speak in Filipino when she sees them struggling to express themselves. As a teacher, she does not see any danger in this practice. She feels that she has to be more practical and place more focus on the students’ aim to convey their thoughts. From this angle, it is obvious that she does not subscribe to one of invisible ideologies given by Tollefson (2006) that a single dominant language is a common-sense solution to communication problems.

For purist English teachers, the techniques employed by Miss Santos may be considered reprehensible since by virtue of school policies, that she should strictly use the English language when talking to her students inside the class room. The same goes for her colleagues who are teaching subjects other than Filipino. Some see code-switching as bastardizing the language; for Miss Santos and her colleagues, however, it is a way to better teach the students and to make sure that each party understands what the other is saying. Similar to what Tupas (2010) writes in his paper, “Which Norms In Everyday Practice and Why?,” teaching Standard English through code-switching is a cultural strategy along with teaching local content. Miss Santos mentioned that she and her colleagues sometimes relate what they are teaching to local experiences so that the concept does not seem too abstract for the students.

Tupas also wrote how one teacher describes her duty as “telling the students what is wrong in terms of grammar” yet when talking to a student from a country where English is not the mother tongue, they “do not use grammatical structures all the time”. In the same token, Miss Santos does not want to be too particular with grammar when she sees that her student is already struggling to express herself or to comprehend what she is saying. Miss Santos also made it clear that when talking amongst themselves, she and her co-workers use Filipino and when students are within earshot, they speak in English. Miss Santos does not see anything wrong in allowing her students speak in the vernacular from time to time. She believes that she has to be lenient and more forgiving since English is not the first language of the students. This appears to be a long-standing practice in the school where she teaches. According to her, she has used this method in the three years that she has been teaching and finds it an acceptable practice to meet her students halfway. Just like Wee Siang in Tupas’ (2010) article, Miss Santos see that she is “bound to teach” yet she remains “more tolerant towards localized content”. This shows that she views language not only in the academic sense but also with how it functions socially.

Reference

Tollefson, J.W. (2006). Critical theory in language policy. In An introduction to language policy:

theory and method (pp. 42 – 59). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Tupas, T. R. F. (2010). Which norms in everyday practice - and why? In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.). The

Routledge Handbook of World Englishes (pp. 567 – 579). New York and London: Routledge.

Language Teaching and LPP

A Reflection

Larry Javier Ambion

The “planning” part is considered the most boring activity in a teacher’s life. It is only rivalled by grading papers as one of the most detested tasks of an educator. One can only imagine how it is even more difficult to do in a grander scale.

Language planning, often associated with government planning, is an action undertaken to influence the function or acquisition of a language within a speech community. Since it targets a large number of people, it follows a certain pattern and is subject to many political discussions. One passage that struck me while reading Ricento and Hornberger (1996) is “the abstract underlying institutional discourses are never neutral. They are always structured by ideologies.” As an educator, I would like to believe that what I am doing is pure and free from any influence. That is being naïve, I guess. This has also gotten me thinking whether adapting a federal government will be beneficial to the Filipinos education-wise. On the one hand, it is a relief to know that one can go different provinces and more or less adapt the same lessons, on the other hand, it could be a better teaching and learning experience if one instructs from “the values and norms” of certain groups. It is undeniable that currently, the models for educational systems are private schools in Metro Manila. Whether it is feasible to apply their practice to other schools in the country is another matter.

Shades of this “modelling” is apparent in Tupas’ (2010) article where he speaks of classrooms assuming a normative practice. This means that no matter how difficult, classroom discussions need to follow standardized English. The word itself connotes elitism and exclusivity.  For somebody who believes that he/she “standard English”, it is easy to be arrogant. However, with the variety of English spoken in the country, it is difficult to assume that one’s grammar is standardized. Philippine English is considered a “language of inner circles” yet it cannot really be endorsed as a universal standard because it is, ironically, a resistance against Standard English. To Filipinize English would be to use the language to narrate and explain Filipino traits and identity.

A study on the usage of English in a Singaporean setting shows the struggle as to whether to teach the Standard English form, or to teach it as form (using it as a frame of reference for “localized” English”). As the study reveals, educators are willing (and need to be) more forgiving towards non-native speakers that they may commit. As an English teacher, one is obligated to correct students for using non-standardized version of the language but not to the point that the student becomes filled with apprehension and shame that he refuses to speak in English anymore. Taking into account the “norms”, I have to give the student credit for at least attempting to express his thought. The syntax may not be correct but as long as it can be understood, then it is acceptable. For example, some of my students are fond of tweeting “I am craving for (insert food here)”. Though grammar rules dictate that they drop “for” since craving is a transitive verb, I cannot penalize them for using the word that way. It could be an effect of how sentences are constructed in Filipino with “for” replacing “ng”.  Yes, I need to remind them that “for” is unnecessary in the sentence but common sense already tells me what they mean: they have a hankering for a certain food. To paraphrase Tupas (2010), Filipinos have every right to use Filipino English in their own way.

References

Ricento, T., & Hornberger, N. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: language planning and policy and

the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401-427.

Tupas, T. R. F. (2010). Which norms in everyday practice - and why? In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.).

The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes (pp. 567 – 579). New York and London:

Routledge.

Reclaiming the local in LPP: Images

Reclaiming the local in LPP: Homework

Reclaiming the local in LPP

Larry Javier Ambion

          “Better Amadeo for Victory!” These words comprise the slogan of Amadeo, Cavite. Written in bold letters on the newly-erected town plaza gym, this slogan is also written in all of the town’s documents such as office papers, application forms, veteran members’ papers, among others. Located 1.5 kilometers away from Tagaytay and known for its farming industry, Amadeo has been nicknamed the “Coffee Capital of the Philippines”. Coffee is the town’s main source of income aside from pineapples and bananas. The new town mayor has decided to capitalize on the coffee capital identity by putting items that are representative of coffee in various strategic locations. Approaching the town, one will see a large concrete structure of a kettle, coffee beans, and a cup of coffee. The same structure can also be found in the town center. In line with its coffee theme, the town mayor also thought of launching a yearly event called “Pahimis Festival” in order to attract tourists and investors alike. Incidentally, this mayor is also the proponent of the problematic signage. Considering syntax and semantics, Amadeo’s motto is as baffling as it is incorrect.

         Better is a word known for its adjectival and adverbial properties. When something is considered “better”, it is perceived to be greater in excellence or quality. Rarely is “better” used as a verb unless it is preceded by “to”, which in that case, would mean “improve”. Did the writer of this motto mean the locals should improve Amadeo so they may gain victory or did it simply assume that a town which is greater in excellence would be more capable of achieving victory?  Victory is also a problematic tern since victory is a noun that denotes winning a battle. If these words were written during the days of Katipunan, then the usage of victory will be very understandable but it is hardly applicable to modern times. Perhaps success or prosperity would have been better choices.

          At this point, I do not think that the town’s current slogan incites levels of pride among the locals thereby negating the reason why slogans are conceptualized in the first place, to reflect a location or organization’s motto and to inspire the people. It is said that the new town mayor was pressured to think of a slogan to pick up the town from reported anomalies. Aside from the slogan, he was also the one who thought of placing coffee-related structures in many parts of the town. He is very much keen on placing Amadeo on the map and to give it a more industrialized image. As an Amadeo local who has seen the town’s progress from a small farming patch to a potentially busy municipality, it is common for towns to take on mottos which are geared towards development and popularity. In Gavin Shatkin’s article (2005), he cites how capital cities are symbolic of a nation’s aspirations. A city’s physical development is inspired by its political functions. This theory may also be applied to small towns and their desire to be recognized as a main player in the nation’s economy. Amadeo is such a town. The town’s slogan and its symbolic coffee structures are indicative of Amadeo’s local government’s wish to be recognized for something more than its farming industry. As a town itself, it is “good enough” considering its burgeoning agricultural popularity with coffee and non-coffee drinkers alike. For this reason alone, it is also starting to attract investors who want a share of the agriculture’s ROI. For Amadeo’s local government, however, “good enough” is not good enough and good ought to be better. Perhaps “better” is linked with “more popular” or “more investors”, hence the word “better” in the slogan can be taken as modifier and as a verb (albeit as a verb, it remains used in a non-standard way). Perhaps the reason behind the slogan being included in every document that has something to do with the town is to include its inhabitants in fulfilling the local government’s aspiration. A “better” Amadeo can only be achieved through the collective efforts of the locals and “victory” is dependent on how creatively they will take on the challenge to “better”. Going back to the discussion on the standard meaning of victory, it is somewhat safe to assume that victory is used in the slogan because the locals (or more accurately, the mayor) feel that the town is still struggling to get to where the leaders believe it is supposed to be headed. There might be no opponents but the town has to contend with the usual challenges to become more developed and well-renowned.  It is still worthy to take note of the fact that the slogan is still confusing and needs to be tweaked in order to appeal to Amadeo’s residents and be practised by them.

Reference

Shatkin, G. (2005/2006). Colonial capital, modernist capital, global capital: The changing political

symbolism of urban space in Metro Manila, the Philippines. Pacific Affairs, 78, 4, 577-600.

Reclaiming the local in LPP: A reflection

Reclaiming the local in LPP

A Reflection

Larry Javier Ambion

A discussion on language is bound not to touch only semantics and syntax, but culture and people (its speakers) as well. With globalization a recurring theme nowadays, the focus and challenge is to find a way to bridge different cultures and break down barriers preventing people of different backgrounds from communicating with each other.  Though globalization seems to be a practice picked up in the past decade, some proponents argue that it has long existed under different names. The writer of “Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice” is such a writer. He links colonization with countries’ attempts at globalization. As an inhabitant of a country that has been colonized by three different countries, this concept is acceptable for me. Concentrating on the Western colonizers, it is apparent that Spain and USA’s attempts to lay claim to the Philippines are part of their vision to become bigger countries. Though they have been ousted from the country, their legacies still linger. Until now, we are a predominantly Catholic nation (Spain’s contribution), and we use English heavily in business and even day-to-day correspondence (what we got from the Americans). The heavy use of English is considered both an advantage and disadvantage. It is deemed an advantage because we use it as an easier way to communicate with people from different nations. Many view it as a means to keep up with globalization, thus bridging the gap between many cultures. Ironically, this advantage is also a disadvantage in itself. Some allege that the focus on English language lessens the importance of Filipino and other dialects and in effect, dilutes the Filipino culture as well. Canagarajah (2005) contends that cultures are always in a state of becoming and that is very apparent with our country. We are considered a melting pot of different cultures and this can be positive, as long as there is no danger of the Filipino culture or language being extinct. As an English professor, I will be bold enough to assert that the continuous teaching of English to students does not endanger our own language, if done the proper way. The proper way I am pertaining to is steering clear from an authoritarian manner of instructing and factoring in the dialect that they grew up with. This is in line with the article’s claim that globalization is paradoxically paying attention to smaller locations and individuals. One cannot build a speech community without actual individuals. There is no reason to be disrespectful of their cultural heritage or native tongue since it can actually be a springboard for discussions on the English language. The native language should not be considered an adversary that needs to be eradicated; rather it should be treated as an instrument that will complement the English language.

English may be valued as a language for global relationships yet to facilitate global communication, one must understand the other. This means promoting a symbiotic relationship between English and native dialects. To do this, one must first strip his or her mind from the notion speaking in English as a way of turning back on one’s mother tongue. I apply this to patriotic students who insist that Filipino should be the only language used inside the classroom. I remind them that learning another language is not treachery to one’s own land; it is a method to enhance one’s knowledge which will make them more productive citizens. Besides, the Filipino language is far from being pure; many languages have contributed words to it. In the same respect, Canagarajah (2005) notes that local knowledge “has already been tampered” with. Duality should be encouraged in order to facilitate smooth communication between different cultures.

Reference

Canagarajah, S. (2005). Reconstructing local knowledge, reconfiguring language studies. In S.

Canagarajah (Ed.), Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice (pp. 3-24). Mahwah,

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Critical approaches to LPP: newspaper articles

Critical approaches to LPP: Homework

Larry Javier Ambion                                                                          Dr. Beatriz Lorente

ELL 312                                                                                                 April 22, 2012

Second Homework

Back in 2011, a writer for the Manila Bulletin was under fire for writing an article underscoring the importance of the English language. In his article, James Soriano mentioned that English is “the language of the learned” and Filipino is used to communicate with the help and the street vendors. The article elicited various emotions from the readers. Many sent irate letters to Manila Bulletin, asking how they could publish such a thing during “Buwan ng Wika”. There were some who defended Soriano, saying the article was done in sarcasm and only showed how Filipinos take pride in using a foreign language. The article was taken down from the website, but it stirred the embers of many a Filipino and debates ensued with the bone of contention being “Do we really equate fluency in English with being educated and rich?” Two opinion writers shed light on the issue, each with respectable arguments.

          Jose Carillo (2005) of the Manila Times examined the different signage in Metro Manila and commented on the errors of said signs. Though ignored by many, Carillo asserts that these are considered mistakes because they are non-standard and violate semantics.  For example, a sign that reads “Special memories only deserve special care” is problematic since it is unclear whether the word “only” modifies “special memories” or “deserve special care”. The solution in this case is to rephrase it with “Special memories deserve only the most special care.” Carillo (2005) went on to enumerate other examples, each with critique on what makes the sign incorrect and a suggestion on how to rectify it. His overall theme was that the signs in English are worded enough which shows that as an English-speaking country, we remain strong in our grasp of the language but we must still remain vigilant with our usage because we are prone to committing errors in syntax and semantics. Similar to Hymes’ study (1996), Carillo (2005) points out that though one can take the pragmatic route when speaking or writing in any language that is different from the native tongue, it is still better to consider various speech communities since understanding a statement will depend on how a person has been accustomed to using a word or expression, whether his usage is correct or not.

While Carillo (2005) underscored the importance of continuous learning of the English language, Conrado de Quiros (2009) does the opposite. He attributes “the fetish with the English language” to colonialism and claims that the Philippines cannot do away with the bilingual policy because it will take too much work. He is a believer though, that if the country had chosen to use Filipino as the sole medium of instruction, our levels in competency with Math and Science would be at a much higher level, similar to that of our neighbouring countries.

          The two writers reflect the constant struggle that is present in society – the conundrum regarding how fluency in English should be treated, a value in itself or a cultural white elephant that hurts more than it helps. On the one hand, English has opened many employment opportunities for Filipinos as the country remains one of the top places to go to for outsourcing business processes. This phenomenon alone prods some politicians and educators to suggest that English should be the medium of instruction in schools. Under this school of thought are two segments: one that presupposes we are already doing a splendid job using English and should continue the practice, and another one that maintains we could do a better job and should increase the measures we are taking to master English. Both assumptions are easy targets for people who believe that this thinking is the product of Western, specifically American, hegemony. It is specifically because of this hegemony that the debate on the English language cannot be confined to academics because it is interspersed with history and culture as well. This is also why the “other camp” (probably the one where de Quiros belongs to) considers overthrowing the English language as a very radical move that is almost impossible to do given the nation’s appreciation of and adherence to the language. As with Toffelson’s article (1991, 2006), the Filipinos see English as a way out of poverty and to “minimize” its importance by promoting the Filipino language over it will require an overhaul of the country’s educational system and the Filipinos’ collective consciousness.

References

Carillo, J. A. (2005). The state of our English: signages. Manila Times. Vol.106, no.111, p. A5.

Carillo, J. A. (2005). The state of our English: signages- 3. Manila Times. Vol.106, no.124, p. A4.

De Quiros, C. (2009). Knave’s English. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Vol. 24, no. 37, p. A10.

Hymes, D.H. (1996). Speech and language: on the origins and foundations of inequality among

speakers. The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences.

Soriano, J. (2011). Bashing Filipino language. Manila Bulletin.

Tollefson, James W. (1991).  Revolutionary language policy. Planning language, planning

inequality. Harlow: Longman. Chapter 6, pp. 136-166.