English in the World.pdf

7/27/2019 English in the World.pdf

1/18

Standard Englishes,Pedagogical Paradigms andtheir Conditions of(lm)possibilityT. Ruanni F. TupasNational University of Singapore

IntroductionThis paper deals with the politics of Standard Englishes: StandardEnglish (SE), World Englishes (WE), and English as an InternationalLanguage (ElL). It argues that the social bases (or epistemologies) ofthese Standard Englishes are strikingly similar: yes, the shift of powerfrom 'native' to 'non-native' speakers of English, from speakers in theInner Circle to speakers from the Outer and Expanding Circles (Kachru1986) may have legitimized different cultures and local uses of Englisharound the world, but the issue of who among the speakers and/orlearners of English in their respective localities have access to any ofthese Standard Englishes in the first place is still not adequatelyaddressed. ' . . . English is ours', proclaims Filippino writer GeminoAbad (Abad et al. 1997, 170). 'We have colonized it too'. But who arethe 'we' who have colonized English? Certainly not the majority ofFilippinos whose English according to the government, educationofficials, and creative writers like Abad, is 'deteriorating'.

The problem of standards (of SE, WE and ElL) is a problem ofclass: class-based issues that accrue to English in many societies in theworld remain marginalized or ignored.While Kachru refers to the Inner Circle of English as largelybelonging to its 'native' speakers, and the Outer Circle as the provinceof 'non-native' speakers whose Englishes are as legitimate as the'native' ones, I argue that such a sociolinguistic configurationessentially ignores an important social reality: that the power to(re)create English ascribed to the Outer Circle is mainly reserved onlyfor those who have heen invested with such power in the first place(the educated/the rich/the creative writers, etc.) such that the Inner/

169


2/18

T. Ruanni F. Tupas

Outer dichotomy is demolished by the fact that no matter whatstandards of English are used, the power to deploy such standards isshared by both 'native' and 'non-native' speakers who enjoy particularsocial privileges such as wealth, symbolic power, education, and soon, in their respective communities or societies.In other words, 'legitimate' Englishes are 'standard' Englishesinaccessible to the majority of the Outer Circle. There are inner circleseverywhere, in 'native' and 'non-native' English-speaking countries,whose speakers enjoy the privilege of having much access to StandardEnglishes. Similarly, there are outer circles everywhere, whose speakers, because of positions of relative powerlessness, are largely unableto gain access to such standards - and they are the much larger socialgroups, usually the majority in their respective communities, withmuch less access to quality education, and with whom the socioeconomic, cultural and political impacts of globalization have beensevere. Will there then be a 'democratization' (Jenkins 2000) of Englishlanguage use through English as an International Language? What kindof 'liberation' (Kachru 1991) is possible or not possible through WorldEnglishes?

This paper explores these questions in the light of the conditionsof (im)possibility within which Standard Englishes are located. Simplyput, these conditions are socio-economic, political and ideologicalconditions that influence the classroom practices of teachers. We willlook at how these conditions generate teaching practice by examiningthe position taken by seven Philippino teachers after they haverecently been introduced to some of the current major issues in secondlanguage teaching. Unlike most teachers of English, perhaps, theseteachers have been introduced formally to a broad array of perspectiveson second language teaching - from pragmaticlliberal to criticalpositions, for example - but whose 'informed' decisions have nevertheless complicated the choices available and have therefore forced usto take a second look at these perspectives from the conditionedpractices of these teachers. The main finding of this paper, thus, is asfollows:

While the teachers seem critically aware of the competingparadigms of teaching English, their choices are also constrainedby socio-economic, political and ideological conditions which arelargely not of their own making. These conditions help prevent theteachers from practising what in theory are sociolinguistically andpolitically legitimate ways to deal with English.

However, because of their critical awareness of the competing


3/18

Standard Englishes, Pedagogical Paradigms and their Conditions of (lm)possibility

teaching of 'Standard English'. The (im)possibility of conditions issuch that while these conditions help prevent teachers fromimplementing their choices of paradigm(s), the teachers neverthelessare able to create spaces of agency or action within such limitingconditions. Data from the teachers' essays and other works reveal thepainful process by which they deal with 'Standard English', and theway forward for them is to use culturally appropriate content and - to alesser extent - codeswitching, to teach SE. In other words, theyidealize their work: mainly teaching SE through a 'Philippinized'content because it is through this that English will ultimately belocalized. Whether or not this is possible is beside the point, and maybe subject to future research, but what the teachers wish to do is tojustify their work on SE by arguing that the very act of teaching itthrough the use of localized content and/or codeswitching alreadychanges its form.Preliminary discussionsDuring the first semester of Academic Year 2002-3 at the University ofthe Philippines Open University, the textbook Second LanguageTeaching (Tupas 2002) was pilot-tested among seven students of theDiploma/Master in Language Studies Education degree course. Thetextbook was designed to enable the students to grapple withtheoretical and practical issues in the field of Second LanguageTeaching (SLT) as it is implicated in broad social and politicalquestions concerning globalization, nationalism and identity, (neo)colonialism and postcolonialism, development, and the problems ofclass, race, and gender. The three major units and nine modules of thetextbook are the following:

UNIT I Clearing the Ground: Basic IssuesModule 1 Perspectives on Second LanguageTeachingModule 2 Popular Issues in Second LanguageTeachingUNIT II Focus on the Classroom: Usual ConsiderationsModule 3 Theories of LanguageModule 4 Language Theories in ActionModule 5 Methods and Approaches in the ClassroomUNIT III Contexts of Teaching: Critical DimensionsModule 6 The Problem of CultureModule 7 The Politics of Second Language Teaching


4/18

T. Ruanni F. Tupas

Module 8 Linguistic Imperialism and Practices ofResistance

Thus, major issues in SLT (e.g. standards, ownership of English,politics of knowledge) are discussed as they appear through populardiscourses in the media and state politics. Language theories thatunderpin language teaching approaches are evaluated, while thehistorical discussion of methods from the late nineteenth century tothe late twentieth century (Richards and Rogers 2000) is viewedthrough the conceptual and political haziness of 'methods'. Secondlanguage teaching in the Philippines is discussed within Phillipson's(1992) framework of linguistic imperialism, although the possibility ofagency is equally emphasized through World Englishes (Kachru 1986),counter-discourses (Pennycook 1998), and codeswitching practices(Canagarajah 1999).

The dataThroughout the semester, the teacher-students (henceforth, TSs) wererequired to attend monthly meetings at a designated regional centrewith an assigned tutor and to submit five tutor-marked assignments(TMAs) derived mainly from activities in the textbook. Here is asummary of the five TMAs:

TMA 1 Consciousness-raising: an essay on the teachers'own classroom practiceTMA2 Language assumptions about language teachingmaterial: a critique

TMA3 Cultural issues in the teaching of grammar: rewriting a grammar exercise

TMA4 Classroom observation: a critical evaluationTMA5 (Re)visions of SLT in the Philippines: political

dimensionsThe topic of this paper has emerged from the five TMAs of the seventeachers in the course. I do not claim that the statements and opinionstaken from the TMAs represent those of all other English teachers inthe country, and furthermore do not wish to say that these data aresufficient to make definitive statements about second languageteaching around the world, but the emerging issues surely needimmediate and serious attention as they not only come from voices 'onthe ground', but they also interrogate the fine borders of contendingpositions emanating from recent sociolinguistic and pedagogicalstudies of English around the world.


5/18


The issuesThe teachers' responses to the issues raised in the textbook expose theporousness of the academic line between WE and ElL and bring uscloser to the politics of standardization where SE, WE and ElLconstitute themselves into Standard Englishes, sociolinguisticallydifferent from each other and with varying levels of political andideological legitimacy, but all enmeshed in conditions of (im)possibility within which the choice of one over the others does not reallybring about any sort of liberation (Kachru 1991) or democratization(Jenkins 2000) on the part of many learners of English around theworld. English, after all, whether we like it or not, continues to helpstratify many societies in the world (Mazrui 2002, Tupas 2001b, Bunyi2001, Lin 2001, Azman 2002, Neville 2000).

The TSs have consistently written about the difficulty of teachingSE because their pupils bring with them their own way of using thelanguage, which is legitimate on political and cultural grounds. On theother hand, they set out to continue to teach SE because it is what isneeded. It is not necessarily the correct form of the language, but it isnevertheless what their students need. Such 'contradictions' incompatibilities (Seidlhofer 1999) or ambiguities (Canagarajah 1993)- are perfectly explicable i f viewed from the specific locations of theteachers' teaching experiences, locations generated by structuringconditions which are largely beyond their control. It is thesestructuring conditions which have been marginalized in the academicdiscussions concerning the sociolinguistic and pedagogical dimensions of WE and ElL. Viewed from locations of constriction, suchdiscussions appear to be what Butler calls 'naIve forms of politicaloptimism' (Butler 1997, 17). While it is true that 'the logic of the spreadof English has invested . . . "non-native speakers" with "authority" - orwhat is more adequately called "agency in language change'" (BruttGriffler 1998,381, emphasis in original), such authority is conditionedagency. Teachers work and live in conditions of (im)possibility,historically positioned to generate both the status quo and change ineducation and, more generally, in society.

How do we explain the logic of such conditioned practice?

The logic of conditioned practiceTo answer this question I will undertake to do the following:

(1) I will show how the TSs demonstrate a critical awareness ofthe competing paradigms in the teaching of English through


6/18

174

T. Ruanni F. Tupas

their relatively progressive views on Philippine English andcodeswitching in the classroom.

(2) I will show with the same data how the TSs refuse to take upany of the positions available from the competing paradigms,arguing that cultural strategies like codeswitching and the useof culturally appropriate content (through which PhilippineEnglish may emerge) can actually be used to teach SE.

(3) I will show how certain socio-economic, political andideological conditions help generate such a position on theteaching of SE.

(4) I will argue that the way to go is to intensify teacher trainingprograms by broadening the teachers' range of options forparadigms of teaching, without necessarily limiting them toany of such options.

In a sense, the TSs provide us with a different view of pedagogicalstandards that are somehow different from the frameworks provided bythe proponents of SE (e.g. Quirk 1990, Honey 1997), WE (e.g. Kachru1994, 1986, Brown 2002, Brown & Peterson 1997), and ElL (e.g. McKay2002, Jenkins 2000, Hino 2001). The TSs propose to teach SE (even iftheir own English does not always conform with it) through culturalstrategies like codeswitching, as well as the use of content that speaksof the 'ills of society, the bad affect of colonization' (TS2, TMA4) and'enlighten[s] our people that we have our own culture' (TS7, TMA5)because, in the process, this will help create 'Philippine English' inboth its form and content. The TSs do not wish to go back to anuncritical teaching of SE, but would like to engage with it on a differentplatform where the teaching of content vis-a.-vis SE is of paramountimportance, and through which SE ceases to become one, but theirsand their students'. The symbolic power (Bourdieu 1996, 1992, 1990,1973) of SE continues to govern the TSs' daily teaching practice, butthe very act of teaching it through culturally appropriate practicesdestandardizes it.For example, the TSs have identified practices of resistance in theirown classrooms and that of their peers. In their individual observationsof classroom teaching as required by TMA 4, the TSs have argued for thepositive appraisal of 'Philippine standards' (TS7), 'the Philippineversion of English' (T4), 'the practice of World Englishes' (T5), 'counterculture' (TS2), 'Taglish' (mixture of Tagalog and English, TS3) or 'codeswitching' (TS4). They accompany such appraisal with specificdescriptions of particular teaching or learning practices in the observedclassrooms. For example, in TS3's chosen class of 'around 50' Grade Sixpupils, 'it is obvious that pupils speak in a Philippine English way':


7/18


That is, they have tendencies to follow their Filipino accent andtheir sentences are patterned after the structures of the sentences inFilipino. Their English is a translation of their language. Somepupils invent their own English words which are derived fromsome Filipino terms like 'kalkalize' as in 'The children failed tokalkalize their things due to lack of time'. This is happening whenthe pupils can no longer think of the English equivalent of a certainFilipino word (TS3, TMA4).

In TS4's case, the use of the mother tongue to facilitate information andaccelerate pupils' understanding of the subject matter is the focus ofpositive assessment. The observation occurs in a Grade Two classlocated in a public school in a poor province in the NorthernPhilippines. There are 28 pupils, the majority of whom are poor andwhose parents are farmers and fishermen. TS4 accompanies heranalysis with a long transcription of an interaction between the teacherand the pupils. The content of the transcribed lesson is concerned withthe teacher's review of capitalization. The following is an excerpt fromthe transcription (with my English translation in brackets):

T All right. Now let us have a practice. (She writes asentence on the board: mrs. amansec is our princi-pal.)Tama ba ang pagkasulat? (Is it correctly written?)S (chorus) Hindi po! (No! note that po is a culturalmarker for respect which is untranslatable)T Why? Bakit mali? (Why wrong?) Pwede mo bangsabihin kung ano ang mali sa isinulat, Renan? (Canyou tell what's wrong with what has been written,Renan?)S - Kasi po yung pangalan ng tao hindi naka-big letterang simula. (Because 'po' the start of the name of theperson is not in a big letter.)T Very good! Go to the board, Aileen, at isulat mo nangtama ang mga pangalan (and write the namecorrectly). (Aileen goes to the board, then applies theneeded changes.)Is Aileen correct, Mary Joy?S Yes, ma'am.T Correct! So, kailan natin ginagamit ang capitalletter? (When do we use the capital letter?) Yes,Jerome?S - Kapag isinulat po ang pangalan ng tao. (When wewrite names of people). (TS4, TMA4)


8/18

T. Ruonni F. Tupas

Commenting on this excerpt and the rest of the transcription, TS4 saysthat 'codeswitching' and 'the use of the vernacular' are necessary in thetransmission and negotiation of meaning in the classroom. This is afairly radical position (something shared by all other TSs), consideringthe fact that the monolingual fallacy in English language teachingcontinues to inform the positions of many, if not most, teachers ofEnglish around the world (Phillipson 1992). TS4's justifications areclear. In the case of codeswitching, where 'the teacher poses questionsin English then translates them in Filipino or in Ilocano (thevernacular in the place)', it 'makes it easier for the students tounderstand and answer the question. Using the language of the homehelps students facilitate the information they acquire'. She concludes:

In totality, the teacher's method of managing her classroom is not afailure case. Though still confined with the traditional approach,her attempts to inject new techniques is apparent . . . By using thecommon culture she shares with the students, (through thevernacular)' she is able to bridge the content of the English subjectwith the ability and background of the learners. (TS4, TMA4)

Cultural strategies in the teaching of SEYet, amidst such non-mainstream positions, the TSs consistentlyagonize over the felt real need to teach SE. Early on in the semester,TS7 describes the goals of her teaching which she keeps until the endof the semester because 'Proficiency in English offers opportunities ofeconomic and professional advancement, English is a global language'(TS7, TMA5). Some of these goals are:

A focus on the correct expression/pronunciation of words in thetarget language. It enables the children (to) communicate effec-tively in the language. It can be done through the phoneticapproach, (learning the correct expression of the short/long vowelsounds by teacher modeling) listening from cassette and videotapes stories, songs, poems, verses in English and follow theexpressions and intonation patterns listened to.A focus on speaking following sentence patterns. Learning thelanguage through listening and speaking skills. Teacher providessentence pattern, through drills and exercises children suppliesother parallel to the pattern, like I can swim. (run, jump)A focus on social rules and functions to develop the properbehavior and learn the social amenities in appropriate socialsituations. This will enable them to develop the cultural behaviorand gestures that go with language learning. Ex. The waving of thehand as we say Goodbye, the proper intonation in greetings like


9/18

Standard Englishes, Pedagogical Paradigms and their Conditions of (Im)possibility

Good Morning/Good afternoon, Hello/Hi etc, This can be learnedthrough role playing. (TS7, TM1, italics supplied)The teachers' way out of this seemingly neoconservative position is toemploy fairly defined roles for cultural strategies in the classroom. Theuse of the vernacular and/or codeswitching, therefore, is mainly acognitive and practical way to bring learners closer to English or, morespecifically, to make them learn 'correct English'. On the one hand,through the use of the vernacular it is hoped that 'sooner or later, theminds of . . . students will be more attuned to learning English aided byhaving a positive outlook about the language' (TS4, TMA1). On theother hand, such use can help learners clarify concepts and to 'askconfirmation on the correctness of . . . sentences' (TS5, TMA4). In theend, both English and the vernacular are positively appraised and usedin the classroom.In the case of Philippine English which the TSs all agree is acultural manifestation of English language use in the country, theargument could be more nuanced. The TSs recognize PhilippineEnglish as legitimate but they do not wish to teach it, at least explicitlyor intentionally. In this case, the way out of this other potentiallyneoconservative position is to create a crucial line (no matter howtenuous) between the symbolically powerful forms of English,idealized 'rules' in teaching the language, which therefore must betaught, and the equally abstract strategy of demolishing such rulesthrough the teaching of culture, with the hope that cultural (andpolitical) content will produce 'Philippine English': 'The languageused may be foreign but its content is localized and cultural' (TS3,TMA3); 'we could play with English terminologies easily and we couldeven express our thoughts in that language. While making uslinguistically competent, we also come [to] value our own heritage inthe process' (TMA5, TS4).

The TSs tend to believe that residues of local culture areinextricably part of everyday classroom experience, manifested inthe meanings, forms and ideologies of English language use, but whoselegitimacy does not mean they should be taught explicitly orintentionally, but simply left to emerge as they will - and do through the teaching of content. Some strands of the structure of thisargument can be gleaned through the following 'visions' of the TSs:

(1) We should Filipinize our books to portray Phil. cultures.Writings in English should conform to Filipino standards toinstill our identity. Through writing we should infuse greatsense of Filipinism that features our desirable traits like

177


10/18

T. Ruanni F. Tupas

hospitality, bayanihan, etc. (TMA5, TS7)(2) Integrate through writing about the life, aspirations of the

Filipino people. Use the language (English) within thecontext of the Philippines - Filipino setting - the values and the dreams to be really be independent, not idolizing theprinciples - the culture of the elite. Use sentences which arewithin the experiences of the Filipinos. (TMA5, TS3)

The TSs' quite intricate position simultaneously for and againstPhilippine English demonstrates how some local practitioners ofEnglish language teaching, fairly aware of the sociolinguistics andpolitics of their classroom work, may grapple sensitively with variouspositions and compromises that come their way. They do not simplyespouse the teaching of (cultural) content to resist English in the formof counter-discourses (Pennycook 1998) but, more importantly, theydo it to escape being pigeon-holed into currently available positions inthe teaching of English, including the postcolonial paradigm ofdiscursive resistance. They acknowledge the power of SE and wishto continue teaching it, but theirs is not a neoconservative position inthe sense that they are uncomfortable with such a position and areworking around it to address the problem.

On the other hand, they acknowledge the cultural appropriateness of local forms of English, but they stop short of recommendingteaching them in the classroom. Politically, they wish to hang on to thepower of SE but, ideologically, they wish to move away from it byjustifying their position on grounds that they can teach contentthrough which, they claim, local forms of English can emerge. Whilesharing with many scholars the same sentiment that there should stillbe a 'standard of standards' in school (Bautista 2000, 17) despite theproliferation of local forms of English worldwide (also Pakir 2002,Crystal 2001), the TSs deal with their dilemma by envisioning acontent-centred, culturally sensitive English language pedagogy out ofwhich English (specifically, SE) will continue to be localized. The TSsdo not show how, indeed, content can change form; which isunderstandable since, as Gupta (2001) asserts, the amount of changeculture can exert upon English is 'not much - (because) StandardEnglish is so powerful that it sticks' (378, emphasis as original). Butsuch positioning demonstrates the teachers' way of acknowledgingand, at the same time, repudiating the pedagogical frameworksprovided by the teaching of SE, WE and ElL. Such 'logic' respondsto all these frameworks without necessarily being completely appropriated by any of them.


11/18


Conditions of (im)possibilityThe next big question, therefore, is: What produced this logic? Or: Whydoes this logic take the shape that it does now? The answer may lie inconditions of (im)possibility or those socia-economic, political andideological conditions within which the TSs work.

The global market of Sf ideologyFor example, the TSs cannot ignore SE because the Philippines, as the'best producers of human resources' needs it to 'compete globally'(TS3, TMA5). This is, of course, not an isolated position since 'Englishlinguistic culture' around the globalizing world, while supportingpolycentrism, has always been firm on the central role of SE and itsmain features (Gupta 2001). In the case of formerly colonized countrieslike the Philippines, the tradition of teaching SE has its colonialbeginnings: only American and/or British English was correct, andlocal uses were marginalized and stigmatized (Ashcroft et al. 1989,Mazzon 2000).So the combined forces of SE ideology and the push of the globalmarket towards English proficiency due to labour demand, (re)produced explicitly and/or implicitly in materials production and exportof expertise from 'expert' countries like the United States and GreatBritain (Phillipson 1992), largely condition teachers towards support-ing the teaching of SE. SE is invested with power and ideology whichcannot be ignored. National examinations, university admissions, jobrequirements and social prestige are mostly structured towardsmastery of SE. Varying degrees of proficiency in English, in fact,correlate positively with the positions of speakers in the socioeconomic hierarchy (Mazrui 2002, Lorente & Tupas 2002, Sibayanand Gonzalez 1996). Although the teaching of SE cannot for moststudents assure freedom from poverty - since access to qualityeducation where SE is mostly being taught is unequal to start with the support for SE has always been overwhelming, as this issupposedly what will help extricate many students from poverty.Never mind if there is actually a lack of clarity as to what SE is. Thishas not diminished its own authority (Davies 1999, 171): 'Those whoare in actual charge of the education system, the politicians and theofficials, seem, as far as I can tell, to be totally in favour of StandardEnglish as the medium of instruction' (177). Ideologically, politicallyand socia-economically, therefore, local practices of English languageteachers are largely conditioned by the expressed and real power of SE.


12/18

T. Ruanni F. Tupas

Back to class: the social epistemologies ofWE and ElLBut what about WE and ElL? At the outset, both paradigms could offeralternative ways to deal with the issue of pedagogical standards. But,while they may be different in some respects - WE and ElL areprimarily concerned with 'intranational domains' and 'internationalsettings', respectively (Hino 2001, 35) - they nevertheless share similarepistemologies. Vis-a.-vis SE, they do not have enough symbolic powerto enable teachers to legitimize their own work should they opt foreither of them. They may be sociolinguistically legitimate but theylargely remain politically unacceptable to most people. Vis-a.-vis the'(p)romotion of linguistic equality' (Hino 2001, 41) which is afundamental tenet of both positions, access to either WE or ElL isstill unequal. Both paradigms are social constructs premised on theunassailability of 'educated' English (Parakrama 1995, Tupas 2001a).Villareal (2002), for example, asserts that:

... although much scholarly discussion and literary experimentation have been done on the concepts of hybridity, the appropriation of English, and the development of our varieties of English, itis too facile to speak of equality in language and culture. Note, forinstance, the concern to capture the notion of a Filipino variety ofEnglish, and the 'standardization of the grammatical features ofFilipino English' or Singlish, or other varieties of English.Languages are documented mainly by the educated and standardsset by them. Thus, English, even when appropriated, eventuallybecomes exclusionary and divisive (33-4).

So what really happens (or may happen) in the 'liberation' or'democratization' of English through WE or ElL is the diffusion ofthe symbolic power of English beyond Kachru's (1986) Inner Circleand across the socially-marked inner circles of so-called 'non-native'English-speaking countries. We may grant that both WE and ElL arepolitical attempts to wrest power from 'native' speakers of English todefine what is or is not 'good' or 'standard' English, but both paradigmsnevertheless offer only alternative standards access to which will stillbe largely determined by one's proximity to education and, for thatmatter, all other related symbolic goods in the social market (Bourdieu1996, 1973). Kachru's concentric circles may not be helpful in thisalternative configuration of relations brought about by the need tointroduce the similarity of the two alternative paradigms in ourdiscussion. There are inner circles everywhere which have muchaccess to the symbolic power of English, whether this be SE, WE, orElL. These are socially-defined inner circles both in 'native' or 'nonnative' contexts. Similarly, there are outer circles everywhere, and


13/18


these are much larger social groups whose English or Englishes havebeen largely marginalized in our search for 'the Standard' (Davies1999, 181). McKay (2002), one of the major proponents of ElL, affirmsthe same position: among the criticisms hurled against the spread ofEnglish in the world which she has adequately addressed withcounter-arguments in her pioneering book Teaching English as anInternational Language, there is only one position she shares withother critics: 'the growing relationship between English proficiencyand economic resources' (24):

In many countries around the world English is being learned onlyby those who can afford instruction in it. Not being able to affordsuch instruction can close many doors, particularly with regard toaccessing higher education. (ibid.)

The symbolic power of SE may be undeniable, but both WE and ElL asalternative standards can also be potentially disempowering. In otherwords, precisely because the idea of a standard is closely linked with'lengthy education, (which) puts it out ofreach of the majority' (Davies1999, 176), not all these Standard Englishes can offer broad spaces ofdemocratization.Pedagogical paradigms as a range of choices in teacher educationThe TSs, therefore, have very little space (although such space is thereand is available) to manoeuvre with their newly-found knowledge ofvarious paradigms of English language teaching, and their way out, itseems, is to teach SE through culturally appropriate teaching strategieswith the hope that this will further create 'Philippine English'. Theirideological position is justified by what should, and not on what is.Their pedagogical practice is defined by what can happen, and not bywhat is happening. They are uncomfortable with all paradigms, butthey also seem sympathetic to all of them. Their ideological comfortzone rests not exclusively on any of the paradigms available, but onadherence to an ideal that is nevertheless generated by the conditionssurrounding it. What we need at this point, therefore, is not a paradigmof teaching English (see Petzold 2002, Brown 2002, Hino 2001), but aparadigm of ways to introduce all teachers into existing theories anddebates (see Seidlhofer 1999), and to equip them with the necessaryskills and questions for them to be able to grapple with the complexityof their teaching practices. It is in this sense that Seidlhofer (1999),arguing for a critically-informed English language education in EFLcontexts, is also very relevant to our discussion:


14/18

T. Ruanni F. Tupas

To what extent different and competing claims are reconcilablewill depend on specific circumstances, and only the teacherconcerned will be in a position to take local decisions. The criticalcriterion for how informed these local decisions can be will be thequality of teacher education. EFL teachers who have a good idea asto what options are in principle available to them, and have learntto evaluate these critically, skeptically and confidently, areunlikely to be taken in by the absolute claims and exaggeratedpromises often made by anyone educational philosophy, linguistictheory, teaching, or textbook. (240)

ConclusionThe pedagogical frameworks that may emerge from practice, therefore,are those generated by a broad array of choices with which teacherswrestle within sociopolitical, economic and ideological conditionslargely not of their own making. On the one hand, these are not simply(pragmatic) choices (e.g. Savage 1997, Li 2002) under the cloak of'laissez-faire liberalism' whose pedagogical implication is 'business asusual: give people what they want' (Pennycook 2002, 222). This broadrange of options also deals with critical perspectives on, say, 'the largercontext of what we are doing, the cultural, political, social andeconomic implications oflanguage programs' (237). On the other hand,these are not simply 'critical' frameworks since they are enmeshed inchoices of (imJpossibility and, therefore, may transform themselvesthrough inescapable compromises along the way. Therefore thecontours of critical English language pedagogies, I believe, have notyet emerged, although well-documented critical descriptions of ELTclassroom practices in many parts of the world have already started toproliferate (e.g. Canagarajah 1999, 1993, Holliday 1994, Lin 1999).They will come from teaching practices informed by all currentcompeting paradigms, and generated by all sorts of conditionssaturating such practices.ReferencesAbad, G., S. Butler, M. Evasco and C. P. Hidalgo, 1997. 'Standards in PhilippineEnglish: The writers' forum'. In M. L. S. Bautista (ed.), English is an Asian

language: The Philippine context. Manila: The Macquarie Library. 163-76.Ashcroft, B., G. Griffiths and H. Tiffin, 1989. The Empire Writes Back - Theoryand Practice in Post-colonial Literatures. London and New York: Routledge.

Azman, H. 2002. 'Multilingual practices in rural Malaysia and their impact onEnglish language learning in rural education'. In A. Kirkpatrick (ed.),Englishes in Asia: Communication, Identity, Power and Education.Australia: Language Australia. 303-13.


15/18

Standard Eng/ishes, Pedagogical Paradigms and their Conditions of (Im)possibi/ity

Bautista, M. L. S. 2000. Defining Standard Philippine English - Its Status andGrammatical Features. Philippines: De La Salle University Press, Inc.Bourdieu, P. 1973. 'Cultural reproduction and social reproduction'. In R.

Brown (ed.), Knowledge. Education and Cultural Change: Papers on theSociology ofEducation London: Tavistock. 71-112.Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice (trans. R. Nice). Cambridge: Polity

Press.Bourdieu, P. 1992. Language and Symbolic Power 0. B. Thompson, ed.; trans.

G. Raymond and M. Adamson). Cambridge: Polity Press.Bourdieu, P. 1996. The State Nobility - Elite Schools in the Field of Power(trans. Lauretta C. Clough). UK: Polity Press.Brown, K. 2002. 'Ideology and context: world Englishes and EFL teacher

training'. World Englishes 21/3, 445-8.Brown, K. and J. Peterson. 1997. 'Exploring conceptual frameworks: framing a

world Englishes paradigm'. In L. E. Smith and M. L. Forman (eds), WorldEnglishes 2000. Hawai'i: University of Hawai'i. 32-47.

Brutt-Griffler, J. 1998. 'Conceptual questions in English as a world language:Taking up an issue'. World Englishes 17/3, 381-92.

Bunyi, G. 2001. 'Language and educational inequality in primary classrooms inKenya'. In M. Heller and M. Martin-Jones (eds), Voices of Authority:Education and Linguistic Difference. Westport, Connecticut and London:Ablex Publishing. 77-100.Butler, J. 1997. The Psychic Life of Power. California: Stanford UniversityPress.

Canagarajah, A. S. 1993. 'Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom:ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL'. TESOLQuarterly, 27/4, 601-26.Canagarajah, A. S. 1999. Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Crystal, D. 2001. 'The future of Englishes' (first published in English Today 15/2, 1999). In A. Burns and C. Coffin (eds), Analysing English in a GlobalContext. London and New York: Routledge. 53-64.

Davies,A. 1999. 'Standard English: discordant voices'. World Englishes 18/2,171-86.

Gupta, A. F. 2001. 'Realism and imagination in the teaching of English'. WorldEnglishes, 20/3, 365-81.Hina, N. 2001. 'Organizing EIL studies: Toward a paradigm'. Asian Englishes,4/1, 34-65.Holliday, A. 1994. Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge

and New York: Cambridge University Press.Honey, J. 1997. Language is Power: The Story of Standard English and itsEnemies. London: Faber and Faber.Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language: NewModels, New Norms, New Goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Kachru, B. B. 1986. The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions andModels of Non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon Press.


16/18

T. Ruanni F. Tupas

Kachru, B. B. 1991. 'Liberation linguistics and the Quirk concern'. Englishtoday Z5, 3-13.

Kachru, B. B. 1994. 'The speaking tree: A medium of plural canons'. In J. E.Alatis (ed.), Educational Linguistics, Cross-cultural Communication andGlobal Interdependence. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.1-17.

Li, D. ZOOZ. 'Hong Kong parents' preference for English medium education:passive victims of imperialism or active agents of pragmatism?' In A.Kirkpatrick (ed.), Englishes in Asia: Communication, Identity, Power andEducation. Australia: Language Australia Ltd. Z9-6Z.

Lin, A. M. Y. 1999. 'Doing-English-Iessons in the reproduction or transformation of social worlds?', TESOL Quarterly, 33/3, 393-41Z.Lin, A. M. Y. ZOOl. 'Symbolic domination and bilingual classroom practices inHong Kong'. In M. Heller and M. Martin-Jones (eds), Voices of Authority:Education and Linguistic Difference. Westport, Connecticut and London:Ablex Publishing. 139-68.

Lorente, B. P. and T. R. F. Tupas. ZOOZ. 'Demythologizing English as aneconomic asset: the case of Filipina domestic workers in Singapore'. TheACELT Journal 6/z, ZO-3Z.

Mazrui, A. M. ZOOZ. 'The English language in African education: dependencyand decolonization'. In J. Tollefson (ed.), Language Policies in Education Critical Issues. New Jersey and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Z67-81.

Mazzon, G. ZOOo. 'The ideology of the standard and the development ofExtraterritorial Englishes'. In L. Wright (ed.), The Development of StandardEnglish 1300-1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 73-9Z.McKay, S. L. ZOOZ. Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Neville, A. ZOOO. English Unassailable But Unattainable. The Dilemma ofLanguage Policy in Education in South Africa. (PRAESA Occasional Papers,No.3). Cape Town: PraesalUniversity of Cape Town.

Pakir, A. ZOOZ. 'The matter of English, the matter with English: maintaininglanguage standards in teaching of English in the Zlst century'. In Low andTeng (eds), The Teaching and Use of Standard English. Singapore:Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics. 59-80.

Parakrama, A. 1995. De-hegemonizing Language Standards - Learning from(Post)colonial Englishes about 'English'. London: Macmillan Press.Pennycook, A. 1998. English and the Discourses of Colonialism. London and

New York: Routledge.Pennycook, A. ZOOZ. 'Ruptures, departures and appropriations: postcolonial

challenges to language development'. In: C. D. Villareal, L. R. R. Tope and P.M. B. Jurilla (eds), Ruptures and Departures: Language and Culture inSoutheast Asia. Philippines: Department of English and ComparativeLiterature, University of the Philippines in Diliman. ZlZ-4l.

Petzold, R. ZOOZ. 'Toward a pedagogical model for ELT'. World Englishes Z1/3,4ZZ-6.


17/18

Standard Englishes, Pedagogical Paradigms and their Conditions of (Im)possibility

Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Quirk, R. 1990. 'What is Standard English?' In R. Quirk and G. Stein (eds),English in Use. London: Longman. 12-25.Richards, J. C. and T. S. Rodgers. 2000. Approaches and Methods in LanguageTeaching, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Savage, W. 1997. 'Language and development'. In B. Kenny and W. Savage(eds), Language and development: teachers in a changing world. London

and New York: Longman. 283-325.Seidlhofer, B. 1999. 'Double standard: teacher education in the ExpandingCircle'. World Englishes, 18/2, 233-45.Sibayan, B. P. and A. B. Gonzalez. 1996. 'Post-imperial English in thePhilippines'. In J. A. Fishman, A. W. Conrad and A. Rubal-Lopez (eds),Post-imperial English - Status Change in Former British and AmericanColonies, 1940-1990. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 139-72.

Tupas, T. R. F. 2001a. 'Global politics and the Englishes of the world'. In J.Cotterill and A. He (eds), Language Across Boundaries. London and NewYork: BAAL/Continuum. 81-98.Tupas, T. R. F. 2001b. 'Linguistic imperialism in the Philippines: reflections of

an English language teacher of Filipino overseas workers'. The Asia-PacificEducation Researcher, 10/1, 1-40.Tupas, T. R. F. 2002. Second Language Teaching. Philippines: University of

the Philippines Open University.Villareal, C. D. 2002. 'Re-searching language teaching'. The ACELT Journal,6/2, 33-7.

185


18/18

English in the WorldGlobal Rules, Global Roles

Edited by Rani Rubdy andMario Saraceni :> pO C

Documents

English in the World.pdf