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.
Larry, I can see in your reflection how you are working through (it's great that you're doing this!) some of the ideas in the Canagarajah reading and how you are connecting what you are reading to your own opinions and practices as an English teacher. I am looking forward to hearing more details and stories and examples about what you do in your classroom, how you - in your lessons - "steer clear from an authoritarian manner of instructing and factoring in the dialect that they grew up with".
ReplyDeleteI am just curious: How do you conceive of 'culture'? What is culture - to you? Or if this is a bit too abstract, then how do you conceive of Filipino 'culture'? Is it different from or apart from English?
I'm asking this because you said: "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". I am also asking this because one of the readings was Makoni and Pennycook who argue that many of the concepts we work with in applied linguistics (language, culture, etc.) are inventions, constructs. For example, we think of 'languages' as being distinct, just as we think of 'cultures' as being distinct. Apropos question #4 in our second reading group discussion, how would your view of language education, or your views on English and Filipino (and using these in the classroom) look like if we no longer posited the existence of separate cultures?
In my first blog, I discussed how I, a Filipino teacher instructing in English, strive to make a connection between the language I teach and the students’ native tongue. It would be easy to take the standard route and just repeat what is in the book and grade the papers but until I see the students for who they really are based on their personal history, we will just go in circles. For example, when a student utters a word in his dialect while trying to express himself, a typical teacher would correct him and try to supplant him with its equivalent in English. Personally, I think there are words in the vernacular that cannot be matched with English ones in terms of definition so as a teacher, it is my role to try really hard to understand what the student wants to say and together, we can come up with suggestions on how to articulate that thought or emotion in English.
ReplyDeleteCulture for me is the identity of a country. Perhaps that is a bit too shallow but it encapsulates the pride and distinction that comes with each country’s culture. To a certain extent, it is a social construct because how we want to be identified is dependent on the characteristics that we see as valuable. The Filipino culture for me is a culture that has developed over a long period of time and as with other cultures (or identities), is not immune to contributions from other cultures.