ICIS Newsletter

ICIS News, Volume 4:2 (November 2006)

by User Not Found | 10/26/2011
In This Issue...
  • Leadership Updates
    • Notes From the Editors
    • Greetings From the Cochair
  • Articles
    • How Can Intercultural Competence Be Developed?: Part 2
    • ESL Teachers and White Racial Identity: Implications in Practice
    • Multiple Identities of Nonnative English-Speaking Teaching Professionals: Ruminations of an African NNEST Professional
    • Does the Native Speaker Win the Arguments?: Perceived Language-Related Power Divisions in Intercultural Couples
    • Whose Culture and Whose Rules in the EFL Classroom?
    • Envisioning New Norms and Pedagogy for English as an International Language
  • Announcements
    • Call for Manuscripts
  • About This Member Community
    • ICIS Steering Committee Members

Leadership Updates Notes From the Editors

Mary Huebsch, Huebsch_Mary@sac.edu, and Rebekah Muir, rebekah.r.muir@nhmccd.edu

The articles in this issue of the ICIS newsletter consider the theme of privilege and remind us, among other things, of the biases native speakers (NSs) of English may be bringing into classrooms and the pressure students may feel to assimilate to the teacher's culture in order to meet the instructor's expectations.
      
Tonda Liggett highlights the potential influence of the dominant White culture on ESL teachers and their students. She encourages ESL teacher educators to make their student teachers aware of this influence by exposing them to teaching materials that are multicultural and antiracist and by having them incorporate their new awareness into their evaluation of student work. 
      
Stephen Soresi points out that English no longer exists exclusively for NSs but has become a multicultural language with various forms all over the world. Soresi argues that an effective model for today's English is one that extends beyond sentence-level exchanges evaluated according to NS models, to multiple sentence combinations and collaborative communication.
     
Mabel Asante finds her source of ethnic identity partially linked to one of these world Englishes, the Ghanaian Variety of English. Her ties to her own variety of English is one of many factors that she and other African nonnative English-speaking teachers find leads to a rejection of the African-American identity that others might want to impose on them in the United States.

Liesbeth Wiering contributes further to this discussion of how individuals cope with conflicting linguistic and cultural realities with a report on a pilot study of intercultural couples. Through a careful statistical analysis of the results, she throws some new light on how perceived nonnative and native command of English relates to the perception of power balance in these couples.
      
Piper McNulty and Ali Shehadeh both strive to create learning environments that affirm their students' own cultures as they safely explore cultural differences. McNulty's students acquire IC competence as they reflect on and practice behaviors from their own and others' cultures. She encourages students to draw from their new knowledge base and to select behaviors outside the classroom that seem appropriate. Shehadeh points out that the most effective way to teach students the target language culture (TLC) in an EFL classroom may be to introduce a "negotiated culture." This "interculture" can provide students with a comfortable environment in which they can actively explore the TLC while maintaining their own cultural identity.
      
We look forward to reading your responses to these thought-provoking articles.

We would also like to take a moment to recommend two valuable articles for those seeking to integrate IC in their classrooms. First, Alan Rosen's article in the August 2006 TESOL Connections, "Variety-Bound English in the EFL Classroom," comes highly recommended by our past cochair, Piper McNulty. A second article we would like to bring to your attention was written by our past past-cochair, Natalie Hess. This article, entitled "Combating Culture Shock Through Multicultural Reaction Journals," appeared in 2006 in TESOL Essential Teacher 3(2) on pages 32-34. This article offers practical suggestions for using journals and film clips in an ESL/EFL classroom to generate thoughtful responses and insightful discussions about cultural issues. We hope that you will find these contribute to your understanding and use of IC in the classroom.

Finally, please refer to the Call for Manuscripts below for a series of thought-provoking questions on world Englishes, the focus of our winter newsletter. The submission deadline for the next newsletter is January 15, 2007. The article in the current issue by Stephen Soresi may also provide further stimuli for your ideas on this topic of some controversy. We hope that you will find time over the ensuing months to share with us your thoughts and research on world Englishes in the form of a manuscript.

Mary Huebsch is an associate professor of speech communication at Santa Ana College in Santa Ana, California, USA.
Rebekah Muir is an associate professor of ESL at Cy-Fair College in Cypress, Texas, USA.


Greetings From the Cochair

Sara Keyes, piratequeen@usa.net

Dear ICIS Colleagues,

For the many who are in academia, by now the beginning-of-semester chaos has abated and routines are settling down. I hope all of you are having a passionate, productive fall, chasing dreams and accomplishing amazing things.

Meanwhile, your steering committee members have been very busy getting all our ducks lined up for TESOL 2007 in Seattle.

First, thanks so much to all the proposal readers!! You made the very intimidating job of culling through 90 excellent proposals feel fairly straightforward. To your credit, we saw almost no proposals for which the highest and lowest scores varied by more than 5 points.

Obviously, many of us wish we could have twice as many hours of IC-related events. What a wonderful problem to have each year when there simply aren't enough hours in one's day to attend every useful, interesting, provocative presentation!

Here's a "spoiler" for the curious or impatient:

The Academic Session, "Is Culture 'Really' Dead in TESOL?" is sure to be standing-room-only as usual. It is a follow-up to last year's phenomenally successful colloquium, "Is Culture Dead in TESOL?" (See ICIS July 2006 newsletter for the papers. http://www.tesol.org//s_tesol/seccss.asp?CID=308&DID=1813 )

We have two InterSections this year: one with the ITAIS entitled "Redirecting the Flow of University Intercultural Responsibility" and one with the EFLIS entitled "Geographically Challenged EFL and ESL."

There will be eight papers, four demonstrations, and three colloquia by 35 presenters from eight nations, and 12 Discussion Groups with 20 facilitators from five nations. I can't wait!

As if that isn't enough, pre- and postconvention institutes are also planned: one on privilege and one as an "IC 101" mini-course for anyone whose interest was piqued at the conference and wants to know more about IC in general.

Wow! All we need to do now is get members collaborating more freely the rest of the year.

To repeat Rebekah's plea in the July 2006 newsletter, if you haven't already, please join the ICIS e-list. Don't be shy about asking other members for their input on anything from classroom techniques to especially sticky intercultural situations. If we treat this virtual community like a true community, everyone-we, our colleagues and students, and eventually the greater world-benefits.

Your enthusiastic, optimistic cochair,

Sara

Sara J. Keyes is an instructor at the Center of English Language in Dallas, Texas, USA.

 



Articles How Can Intercultural Competence Be Developed?: Part 2

Piper McNulty, mcnultypiper@fhda.edu

Goals 
In the first part of this article (July 2006 newsletter; see  http://www.tesol.org//s_tesol/seccss.asp?CID=308&DID=1813 ) I argued that intercultural (IC) competence is demonstrated not only by quantifiably increased knowledge of one's own culture, other cultures, IC concepts and issues, and verbalized attitudinal change, but also by observable intercultural communication behaviors. I listed three IC goals for my classes: establishing an egalitarian learning community, affirming students' first cultures, and leveraging students' bicultural skills. Activities that help achieve these goals are described below.

Goal #1: Establishing an Egalitarian Learning Community
Reflective Style
My students spend significant time practicing group discussion behaviors that give everyone equal "air time," using the activity described in the first part. The desired classroom communication norm, the reflective style, is not the American communication classroom norm, and practicing this style does not prepare students for the more decisive, assertive style they may need to use in many cultures, including the United States. However, experience has shown me that the reflective style encourages more respectful attention to alternative points of view, and that decisions get made more thoughtfully, and with consideration of input that otherwise might not have been heard. In addition, as this style, as I teach it, is to some extent artificial and culture-neutral, I have less concern that by encouraging reflective discussion I am inadvertently implying a preference for one culture over another. I do have to acknowledge that not all cultures assume societies should be egalitarian, and some students may not buy into activities that give an equal classroom voice to all. However, for this activity, and throughout my course, I do request that students use behaviors demonstrating one of my own culture's ideal (not always realized) values: equality of opportunity. 
 
Interrupting Prejudice
An activity that addresses both affective and behavioral intercultural competence is "Interrupting Prejudice" (to borrow a term from National Council for Community and Justice [NCCJ] training). Ackerberg and Gillette (2001), in a workshop at the 2001 Salt Lake City TESOL Convention, introduced six ways of responding to prejudicial comments, including asking delicate questions, deflecting, confronting, and mediating. What I like about their materials is that the range of response types they offer acknowledges that though an emotionally expressive, direct response may be appropriate and effective in some contexts, a calmly stated, indirect comment may be equally effective in another culture. Ackerberg and Gillette developed their handout with student input, and they follow general discussion and phrase practice with role plays using specific incidents observed in ESL classrooms. Student recommendations and demonstrations of appropriate paralinguistics and nonverbals in different cultures could also be added.

Goal #2: Affirming First Cultures 
Accommodation Coaching
In this activity, students coach each other to behave effectively in their own first cultures. For example, 2 years ago in my Intercultural Communication course, a Hong Kong Chinese taught a Bulgarian student how to behave if the Bulgarian saw the Chinese across a busy Hong Kong intersection. In the "Take One" skit the Bulgarian behaved in what she said was typical Bulgarian fashion: She shouted the Chinese student's name to get his attention and waved her hands energetically, literally jumping up and down while she impatiently waited for the light to change. In the postcoaching skit, however, the Bulgarian quickly and discreetly crossed against the light (!) and approached till she was within easy earshot and could speak to the Chinese student without shouting. After the two skits the class described the observed behavior differences, and discussed what they might or might not do in their own countries. Underlying values, including universal versus situational rule application (is it ever okay to cross against the light?) and emotionally expressive versus restrained behavior, were also elicited. These accommodation coaching skits invariably lead to lively discussions of other contexts in which similar values could apply: There is sometimes disagreement between students from the same country, highlighting the heterogeneous and dynamic nature of ethnic cultures. A quick alternative is to have students jot down a nonverbal behavior that is common in their culture but that they've noticed is misunderstood or ignored in other cultures, and teach this behavior, and its meaning, to a culturally different partner. 
 
Developing Cultural Resource Skills
When discussing culture-specific behavioral norms and explaining their own cultures' preferred behaviors, students should be sure to state the likely consequences of specific communication behaviors. These consequences should be observable behaviors, not just emotional reactions. In other words, the students should describe what someone of their background would do, not just feel, in response to a given behavior. This distinction is important because confining advice to descriptions of affect may not provide someone of another cultural background with sufficient information. For example, in the United States you might predict that older employees will be "unhappy" if a young whippersnapper is promoted to manage a group of older colleagues, but if asked, you would probably also predict that older American employees will eventually come around because society expects them to. But when I worked in Japan in the 70s, promoting a younger person to manage older people was just not done because it would not work. Suppose I were sent to Japan to set up a new sales team and I was trying to decide whom to hire, and I asked a Japanese colleague for advice. If he simply told me, "The older employees will be upset if you promote a younger person," he would not be giving me sufficient information to make an informed decision. On the basis of societal norms, can I predict that the older men will eventually "come around" because achievement and ability is valued over seniority, as is generally the case in my culture? Or are the older employees likely to shut out the young fellow no matter what his technical skills or managerial potential because such a move does not respect hierarchy and experience, and is just not tolerated? Again, when acting as a resource across cultures, we need to describe consequences in terms of observable behaviors. By describing consequences rather than just describing how people will feel or explaining what we consider to be morally correct, we can help our students make informed choices. 
 
Comparison of Context-Specific, Culture-Specific Skills
As noted above, in addition to discussion styles, persuasion is a function that can be used to develop IC skills. One prompt I sometimes use is, "Try to return a sweater that shrank the first time you washed it, even though you followed the directions on the tag." Students generate a list of possible strategies and act them out, either in monocultural pairs, translating into English what they would say in their native languages, or in bicultural pairs, coaching each other across cultures. We also discuss the underlying values guiding the recommended strategies. Because most jobs call for persuasion in one form or another, students will benefit from a greater understanding of the persuasive approaches that different cultures find effective.

The following are persuasion strategies generated by a recent class:

  • Begin with small talk. Then say, "Can you do me a favor?"
  • "Can you please help me out? I'm so sad. It's a really nice sweater."
  • "I followed the directions exactly, but it shrank. The material is defective." 
  • "I'd like to speak to the manager!"
  • "If you had bought this, and it shrank, wouldn't you want your money back?"
  • "You know, I come here a lot. I bring you a lot of business."
  • Flirt with the clerk. Then use one of the above.

It is useful to emphasize to the students the value of learning persuasive techniques in various cultures. For example, employees of a multinational corporation may need to switch strategies and styles to persuade headquarter-based managers why an ad campaign or product needs modification for the overseas local market. By couching an argument in a rhetorical style credible to the listener, the listener will be more likely to seriously consider a culturally unfamiliar idea.

Goal #3: Leveraging Biculturalism
One activity that combines both culture-general and culture-specific skills leverages migrant students' emerging biculturalism. As Paulston stated, quoted in Damen (1987): "What a bicultural program [or any L2 program] should hope to do is to allow the student the right to pick and choose his own individual make-up as a bicultural person" (p. 223), and one way to demonstrate the advantages of biculturalism is to encourage students to show off their bicultural skills. For example, a student may demonstrate how she would ask her Indian teacher (in India) to let her take a test early and how she would approach an American teacher with the same question. The student's skit partner would be coached to play first the Indian teacher, and then the American teacher, and the bicultural student would demonstrate the culture-specific communication strategies she employs in this context. One Indian student in a recent class selected this context and used very respectful language and emotional appeals with her Indian teacher, and more informal, egalitarian, and data-driven persuasion with her American teacher. This exercise gives students a chance to celebrate their skills not just in reference to the target culture but also in any two cultures they can accommodate. For example, an Assyrian from Iran might contrast his interaction style with two store clerks: another Assyrian and a Persian Iranian.

So When Is Our Job Done?
To quote Saville-Troike (1998),

Norms of the second or foreign language speech community may be learned about, but adoption of new rules for interaction for productive use in some domains could violate deep-rooted beliefs and values and threaten students' identity. Students who are interacting with native speakers should be helped to understand those speakers' communicative intentions [and, I would add, the potential for miscommunication, including specific negative attributions, if they do not adopt target culture behaviors], but students [should] not necessarily [be] expected, or required, to behave likewise. (p. 10)

Derald Wing Sue (1998), the noted Chinese American cross-cultural psychologist, predicts that if long term residents allow new immigrants to celebrate their own culture, the newcomers will tend to be much more willing to venture out from their enclaves and join the PTA, welcome playmates of other cultures for their children, post signs in English and their native language on their enclave stores and restaurants, and, in general, begin to make connections in the larger community. Taking this concept to the language classroom, students must be given an opportunity to investigate both their own and other cultures, and teachers need to acknowledge that their culture is just one of many in the language classroom.

A few years ago I had just spent 4 hours training a group of electronics assembly-line workers in performance review norms, as requested by their American line managers. One point I had emphasized was that the employees should respond to the question, "What have you accomplished in the past 6 months?" by listing how they had helped the company, or their team, move the business ahead. At the end of the training a Chinese employee came up to me and said,

I would like to talk with you about this idea of "waving your own flag." I understand how to tell my boss what I have done, and what I can do, and we practiced using the appropriate phrases, and I know when to say these things, and I understand that I might not get a promotion if I don't wave my own flag, but you know, I just can't do that. It is very important for me to be modest. I'd rather not get promoted and not make any more money. I'm just not comfortable promoting myself.

I was both concerned and relieved by this student's comments: concerned, because at first I wondered if I could have done more to help him promote himself while maintaining his self-respect, but then relieved, as I realized I had already done my job. I had observed him demonstrating the necessary skills and he could verbalize the likely consequences of using, or not using, these skills; he just chose not to use them. In other words, I'd helped him make an informed choice, but the choice was his.

Our students need our encouragement and respect as they reaffirm their own cultural norms and values and examine their own discomfort with some of the expectations placed on them.

References
Ackerberg, L., & Gillette, S. (2001). Teaching students to respond to intolerance. Workshop handout. TESOL Convention, Salt Lake City, 2001. (Ackerberg and Gillette teach at The University of Minnesota English Center, Minneapolis, Minn. acker005@umn.edugille001@umn.edu)
  
Damen, L. (1987). Culture learning: The fifth dimension in the language classroom. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. (Comprehensive study, focused on ESL Ts. A must for teacher educators. Includes much information on textbook types and purposes and brief descriptions of 17 categories of class activities. Out of print, but recently found used via Amazon.)
  
Saville-Troike, M. (1998). Extending "Communicative" concepts in the second language curriculum: A sociolinguistics perspective. In D. Lange, C. Klee, R. M. Paige, & Y. Yershova (Eds.), Culture as the core: Interdisciplinary perspectives on culture teaching and learning in the second language curriculum. CARLA Working Paper #11. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
  
Sue, D. W (1998). Workshop for educators and community leaders, Cupertino, California.

Piper McNulty is an intercultural communication instructor at De Anza College, in Cupertino, California, USA.


ESL Teachers and White Racial Identity: Implications in Practice

Tonda Liggett, liggett@vancouver.wsu.edu

In K-12 public school classrooms across the United States, English language learners are expected to participate in and negotiate the sociopolitical school landscape alongside their native English-speaking peers. They have the task of learning to read and write with expectations of understanding and abiding by implicit rules of what it means to "be a reader." Such expectations press students to interpret and negotiate classroom discourse, meanings of language and race, and the multiple and fluctuating constructions that children, schools, and society assign to include, exclude, categorize, and assess (Kailin, 2002; Sleeter, 1996). This expectation is often unrecognized not only by English language learners, but also by ESL teachers who are charged with assisting them in navigating the racial and cultural landscape within school. As an ESL teacher educator, I am interested in how teachers understand their racial identity in relation to their classroom practices. In particular, I question how White racial identity and dominant culture membership influence the activities that teachers use to promote learning and to evaluate their students' work.

That I went through my master's degree program in ESL without ever having examined aspects of race or Whiteness impels me to include such material in the teacher education programs that I now teach as a way to counteract the racial inequality I see played out in society and institutions of schooling. As a White, middle-class woman, I hope to raise awareness in my students so that they may enter their classrooms with broadened perspectives on how racial identity influences the ways they approach their teaching and understand their diverse student population.

Several patterns of belief are associated with White racial identity and White privilege that specifically address advantages at the systemic, cultural, and individual levels that benefit the dominant European-American culture (Kailin, 2002; Rothenberg, 2002). On a cultural level, the privileged group defines societal norms that often benefit the members of this group. As Louis Wirth (1936) stated, "the most elemental and important facts about a society are those that are seldom debated and generally regarded as settled . . ." (pp. xxi-xxii). The taken-for-granted "norms" and assumptions in society enable those with the highest status to maintain their position because it is unquestioned and seemingly natural, not only to Whites, but to all groups (Rothenberg, 2002; Wildman & Davis, 2002).

All groups socialized under a similar context internalize the value systems, beliefs, customs, and traditions that have been determined and redefined throughout the shared history of the groups and considered to be "normal" within the parameters of any given social group involved. This doesn't mean that each White person in America believes in the existing racial hierarchy, but it does mean that issues of race are going to play out in drastically different ways for White people in relation to people of color. Such normalization undermines the probability that the group with the racial advantage will notice and speak out against any sort of preferential treatment. Most White people won't notice that they aren't being monitored in a store for stealing or that they weren't asked to produce three pieces of ID to cash a check or get their credit card accepted. Many Whites may not even think that the disproportionate numbers of Black and Latino students in special education classes have anything to do with race; in all likelihood, race will not be considered. Herein lies the problem.

Because American culture is centered on White norms, White people are often not pressed to examine their racial affiliation. Ask a White person his or her race, and you may get the response "Italian," "Jewish," "Irish," "English," and so on (Katz & Ivey, 1977). Not seeing White as a race results from being in a position in which other races and cultures are held up to the standard of Whiteness (McIntosh, 2002; Rothenberg, 2002). Many, perhaps most, White people in the United States think that racism doesn't affect them because they are not people of color; they do not see Whiteness as a racial identity and thus are not taught to recognize systematic advantages based on racial membership (McIntosh, 2002).

By not recognizing "White" as a race, it is easier to dismiss or minimize the importance of racial identity (Jensen, 2002). Such minimization leads teachers to perceive racial membership as insignificant. For ESL teachers, whose entire classroom population consists of students who are not members of the dominant majority, it is important to understand the difference in perspective based on one's racial position. Though racial identity may not cross the minds of White educators, it may be at the forefront of their students' minds. For the educator, this blind spot makes a focus on race in interpretations of reading texts, for example, seem tangential or unimportant. To equate the supposed insignificance of race in student identity construction with the incorrectness of any "other" form of knowledge system that runs counter to normalized standards implies that one's knowledge system is "right" while the "other" is wrong. If ESL teachers assume that dominant standards are "right," they impose conformity or assimilation on their students. A better alternative is an exploration of ways to acculturate or negotiate conflicting ideologies.

Dominant groups tend to claim truth as their private domain. For the most part, hegemonic groups do not consider their beliefs, attitudes, and actions to be determined by cultural conditioning or the influences of group membership. As Whites, we usually don't even think of ourselves as having culture; we're simply "right." (Howard, 1999, p. 50)

The assumption of rightness has been a powerful force in establishing domination by Whites (Howard, 1999), which resists such concepts as White privilege because of the direct challenge it poses to core American ideologies such as meritocracy. People want to believe that their success is due solely to their individual hard work. Jensen (2002) stated,

I know I did not get where I am by merit alone. I benefited from, among other things, white privilege. That doesn't mean that I don't deserve my job, or that if I weren't white I would never have gotten the job. It means simply that all through my life, I have soaked up benefits for being white. (pp. 104-105)

To think that one has benefited throughout life from unearned advantage compromises belief in one's own ability. This thought challenges the assumption that American society actually operates according to principles of fairness and merit, that the "deserving" are rewarded for their efforts and the "undeserving" are left out (Wellman, 1993). It allows White people to see themselves as the rightful recipients of rewards based on individual achievement and to defend a process that puts them at an advantage as a group without ever having to justify their privileged location in the organization of racial advantage (Wellman, 1993).

It seems likely that the underlying aspects of White privilege influence how ESL teachers, socialized in an American context, think about teaching and how they evaluate their students who are learning the English language. Without an awareness of how societal norms maintain racial inequality, ESL teachers can inaccurately believe, for example, that the often advocated ideals of individualism and meritocracy are lived out in similar ways for all groups of people. The ramifications of such thinking can also cause these teachers to negatively evaluate students who adhere to alternative knowledge systems with values that differ from those of the dominant culture.

For White ESL teachers with students from various racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds, it is essential to be exposed to material in teacher education programs that sheds light on relations of domination and the influence that White racial membership has on teaching and pedagogy. This exposure entails including curricular materials in teacher education that reflect a critical multicultural and antiracist perspective as well as an activist component that connects curriculum to lived experience. Without fostering critical awareness, ESL teachers run the risk of negatively evaluating student work because they are unaware of alternative knowledge systems that influence the ways their students respond to their academic work (Liggett, 2006). Not addressing issues of racial privilege in ESL teacher education keeps notions of equality on a superficial level because of the inability to conceptualize Whiteness and its advantages while failing to see how these advantages come at the expense of the marginalized (McIntyre, 1997).

References
Howard, G. (1999). We can't teach what we don't know: White teachers, multiracial schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Jensen, R. (2002). White privilege shapes the U.S. In P. S. Rothenberg (Ed.), White privilege: Essential readings on the other side of racism (pp. 103-106). New York: Worth Publishers.

Kailin, J. (2002). Antiracist education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Katz, J., & Ivey, A. (1977). White awareness: The frontier of racism awareness training. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 55, 485-489.

Liggett, T. (2006). The alchemy of identity: The role of White racial identity in the teaching and pedagogy of new ESOL teachers. In M. Mantero (Ed.),Identity and second language learning: Culture, inquiry, and dialogic activity in educational contexts. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

McIntosh, P. (2002). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. In P. S. Rothenberg (Ed.), White privilege: Essential readings on the other side of racism (pp. 97-102). New York: Worth Publishers.

McIntyre, A. (1997). Making meaning of whiteness. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Rothenberg, P. S. (Ed.). (2002). White privilege: Essential readings on the other side of racism. New York: Worth Publishers.

Sleeter, C. (1996). Multicultural education as social activism. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Wellman, D. (1993). Portraits of white racism (2nd ed). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wildman, S. M., and A. D. Davis. (2002). Making systems of privilege visible. In P. S. Rothenberg (Ed.), White privilege: Essential readings on the other side of racism (pp. 89-96). New York: Worth Publishers.

Wirth, L. (1936). Introduction. In Ideology and utopia by Karl Mannheim (pp. xxi-xxiii). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

 

Tonda Liggett is an assistant professor of literacy/ESL at Washington State University, Vancouver, Washington, USA.

 

 


Multiple Identities of Nonnative English-Speaking Teaching Professionals: Ruminations of an African NNEST Professional

Mabel Y. Asante, MAsante@bmcc.cuny.edu

While in Ghana in the mid-1990s, after completing a doctoral study in linguistics at the University of Tuebingen in Germany, I had no doubt about my identity and status in the Ghanaian social structure. I had a staunch unwavering belief in my Black African identity. I belonged to the educated elite and was accorded respect at both the private and public levels of society. Then a few years prior to the end of the 20th century, my family and I relocated to the United States. Like most newly-arrived immigrants, I experienced culture shock. Moreover, I felt my elevated sense of Black African identity crumbling, for it appeared no longer valid in my new sociocultural environment with its seemingly fixed racial identities. 
 
However, in the United States racial identity is crucial in order to navigate the social and professional aspects of life. So how does an African nonnative English-speaking teaching (NNEST) professional negotiate identity in a native English-speaking (NES) country, such as the United States? In this paper I muse on the multiple identities of African NNEST professionals in the United States and how these facilitate or hinder negotiation of identity in an NES country. It is based primarily on the writer's observation of NNEST professionals in New York City, including myself, my spouse, and other professionals in educational institutions. The discussion is restricted to issues relating to linguistic identity.
 
Language and identity interact, but it is difficult to analyze this interaction. Language use can symbolize a number of identities, including personal or individual identity and national identity. At the personal level, a person's choice of language from a repertoire of languages may indicate what he or she wants to be associated with or dissociated from. Pronunciation, for example, is the most visible indicator of a person's identity. 
 
New immigrants to the United States soon realize that they are ascribed one of the few phenotypes in the society, namely African American or Black, White (Caucasian), Hispanic, Asian, or Native American Indian. Because of my physical characteristics, I am ascribed an African American or Black identity. However, this ascription of racial identity is flawed because it bases a person's primary identity on his or her race. This racial categorization is overly simplistic, for it does not account for the real-life experiences of African NNEST professionals. A primary identity must reflect a person's lived real-life experiences. Racial categorization or ascription of racial identity tends to oversimplify the Black experience, and the multiple identities of non-White NNEST professionals are thus overlooked or ignored. These multiple linguistic identities are steeped in the far-reaching, complex national and sociopolitical legacies of their countries of origin.
 
Multiple Identities in Anglophone West African Countries: The Ghanaian Scenario
To begin discussing the identity of African NNEST professionals in the United States, it is necessary to examine their identities in their countries of origin. Most educated Anglophone Africans maintain two to three relatively stable identities relating to the ethnic, national, and international aspects of their lives. 
 
Ethnic identity reflects ethnic affiliation. African countries are known to be multiethnic, with several ethnic groups coexisting within the borders of a single nation. For instance in Ghana, there are over 50 ethnolinguistic groups, including Akan, Ga, Ewe, Dagomba, and Nzema. Similarly, in Nigeria, there are over 100 ethnic groups, each with its language, customs, and political structure. To illustrate, in Ghana, the Akans have a matrilineal system of inheritance, whereas the Gas have a patrilineal system. Also, the naming system and marriage and death rituals are based on ethnic affiliations. For instance, a Ghanaian of the Akan group receives a traditional first name based on the day on which he or she is born, and a middle name representing a person he or she is named after. So my traditional names, Yaa Yeboah, reflect this naming system. Yaa is used for a female child born on Thursday. Yeboah is the person she was named after. (Note that the naming system is symbolic of the multiple identities.) A Ghanaian may have several names referring to his or her ethnic and national heritages. There may be a Christian or English name, such as Mabel, traditional names as explained above, and a surname or family name. Hence, a person's ethnic association bestows his or her ethnic identity, and the ethnic language expresses ethnic identity.
 
National identity reflects the national aspect of a person's life. The Ghanaian national life is observable in issues pertaining to government business and regulations. There is an elected government, run by elected public officials. Government business is rooted in Western political and cultural values inherited and adapted to the Ghanaian environment. Educated Ghanaians who work in government establishments are part of this national life. The language for conducting national life is the Ghanaian Variety of English (GHAVE). 
 
National identity derives from the sociopolitical histories of Anglophone West African countries. The Ghanaian national identity is expressed by the use of GHAVE with its distinctive features observable in pronunciation, lexis, and grammar. These features may vary depending on the educational background of the speaker. At the pronunciation level are syllable-timed rhythm and vowel-length reduction. At the vocabulary level are loan words from the local languages, meaning shifts, and collocations. For instance, the word okyeame (meaning "traditional linguist") is adopted and used freely in standard Ghanaian English. The word family as used in GHAVE refers exclusively to the extended family. Hence, GHAVE'S usage differs from that of NES countries where family is used to refer to the nuclear family. The collocation rice-water refers to sweetened rice porridge served as a breakfast meal.

National identity is maintained by the institutional uses of the national language as well as interethnic interactions. The major organs of government, including education, law and order, and the media, use Ghanaian English as a medium of communication. Any Ghanaian aspiring to upward social and economic mobility uses this type of English. This variety is a default linguistic code for interactions among educated Ghanaians of different ethnic backgrounds.

International or global identity is evident in the form of English used in interactions of an international nature. Such interactions occur as a result of professional or personal exigencies. This type of identity shows that the speaker belongs to the global community of English-using nations. There are shared linguistic and cultural norms. International identity is signaled by the use of global English, which, to the Ghanaian, involves a reduction of GHAVE features and the use of more common standard English forms.

Summary of the Sources of Multiple Identities
 
The source of ethnic identity is the local sociolinguistic environment. Ghana, as noted above, is a multilingual and multiethnic nation, with over 50 indigenous linguistic groups. The indigenous languages are learned as first languages and used in the home. The traditional sphere of life includes naming, birth, initiation, marriage, and death rituals. Cultural values and practices regarding these stages of life are expressed in and conducted by the ethnolinguistic group to which a person belongs.
 
The source of national identity is the political history and language policies of Anglophone African governments. Most Anglophone West African countries have had a long history of colonization. The Anglophone African national identity has evolved over the years, beginning from the period of colonization through postcolonial governments to the present day. The language policies of colonial and postcolonial governments established English as the sole official language used in school as a medium of instruction after the first two years of primary education, and at work as a means of conducting government business. Therefore, the educational system fuels the national identity.
 
The source of the international identity is the NNEST's association, previously, with the Commonwealth group of nations and, recently, with the global English community.
 
Negotiation of Identity in the United States
 
So what becomes of all these multiple identities when an African NNEST professional resides in an NES country such as the United States? How does an African NNEST professional negotiate identity in an NES country? Does he or she lose or maintain multiple identities?
 
Generally, identities change or their importance may shift, whenever conditions change. So, African NNEST professionals in the United States may experience shifts in their multiple identities. The ethnic and national identities may be maintained by affiliation with the vibrant Ghanaian ethnic groups found in urban localities in the United States. In the case of the present writer, who lives in New York City, there are several avenues for expressing ethnic identity. Numerous multiethnic Ghanaian associations, religious groups, and ethnic events including traditional naming ceremonies, marriages, and funerals help keep ethnic identity alive.

Global identity may shift to incorporate more features of the NES environment. One would expect African NNEST professionals to adopt the African American identity because they have a common ancestry. However, what happens is that African NNEST professionals typically reject the African American identity. This rejection may stem from linguistic and nonlinguistic factors. After they have passed the critical age of language acquisition, it just may not be possible for African NNEST professionals to acquire the speech habits of African Americans. Furthermore, adopting those linguistic features may involve losing the primary identities that seem to define them. The experiences associated with the multiple identities cannot be erased. 
 
The African NNEST professional in the United States may experience a shift in global identity. The shift involves adopting some specific features of mainstream English. But this shift is made for pragmatic reasons. Some linguistic features are modified so as to make the African NNEST professional's English intelligible in the NES environment. Speech sounds such as vowels may be modified. Meanings of familiar words may be expanded to incorporate additional meanings peculiar to the new (NES) environment. For example, the word fix, which in the Ghanaian environment is used only for mechanical objects, is extended to ideas as well. One can fix dinner or fix a problem. Pants, which is used to refer to underwear in the Ghanaian situation, now incorporates the idea of trousers. The Ghanaian supper is replaced by dinner, and motorway gives way to highway. Pipe or tap is replaced by faucet, andmincemeat is replaced by ground beef. There are also modifications in spelling. The African NNEST professional must remember to omit the u in words such as favour or colour. Also, the spelling centre is replaced by center. These are just a few examples of the modifications that a non-White Anglophone African NNEST must make in order to be intelligible in a U.S. environment.
 
African NNEST professionals have multiple identities that stem from the sociopolitical and cultural legacies of their countries of origin. Though these identities may be overlooked as a result of being ascribed one of the phenotypes in the NES environment, in reality African NNEST professionals face unique and complex choices in whether to let go or preserve their separate identities.

Mabel Asante is an assistant professor at Borough of Manhattan Community College, The City University of New York, New York, USA.


Does the Native Speaker Win the Arguments?: Perceived Language-Related Power Divisions in Intercultural Couples

Liesbeth Wiering, wiering@san.rr.com

Intercultural couples face cultural differences. Potential areas of conflict for all couples, but more so for intercultural couples, include sex-role expectations, work and recreation, the celebration of holidays, parenting style, and problem-solving strategies (Biever, Bobele, & North, 1998).

Many intercultural couples also face language differences, particularly when both partners speak a different native language. Often, one of the native languages is chosen as the language of communication within the relationship. Not only do these bilingual intercultural couples have to figure out whose and which cultural values they will live by (e.g., in areas such as food, friends, family, and raising children), but they may also have to make a bigger linguistic effort, pay extra attention to their communication, and face more complications and misunderstanding when negotiating these issues (Blackledge & Pavlenko, 2001).

It has been assumed that the person who has continued to use his or her native language in the relationship is more capable and efficient, and thus more powerful than the other (Romano, 2001; Telser-Gadow, 1992). This assumption seems even more plausible if one considers the large amount of scholarly attention the link between language and power has received over the years (e.g., Ng & Bradac, 1993; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; W. Richmond, 1996). In her book on intercultural marriage, Romano (2001) stated that "the spouse with the superior linguistic facility, speed, and vocabulary can not only direct the conversation and set its style but also manipulate it to serve personal ends. And whenever this happens, the relationship suffers" (p. 134).

An opposite effect has also been suggested. Telser-Gadow (1992) acknowledged this possible source for power imbalance, but claimed that it could equally be the case that the bilingual partner has the advantage over the monolingual partner, considering that "a person fluent in more than one language already has stretched his or her cognitive and affective powers when learning another language" (p. 232). However, no specific research effort on the topic of language-related power in intercultural couples has been undertaken thus far, and data to enforce the above-mentioned claims are absent.

This pilot study explored the idea that bilingual intercultural couples suffer from a (perceived) language-related power imbalance. It looked at the different concepts involved, such as communication within couples, power within couples, power in language, and power in general. In this paper, some data collected from this small provisionary study on intercultural couples are presented and analyzed.

Language-Related Power Within Couples
As far as general power divisions in couples are concerned, countless studies have been conducted among both intracultural and intercultural couples (e.g., Aida, 1993; Beach & Tesser, 1993; Murstein & Adler, 1995; Steil, 1997; Warner, Lee, & Lee, 1986). Again, very few of these studies have given language facility much attention. Generally speaking, studies aimed at examining power differences look mostly at power-influencing factors such as gender, career, income, decision making, and task-sharing (V. P. Richmond, McCroskey, & Roach, 1997; Steil, 1997). Obviously, these factors play an important role in the power balance in any couple, whether intracultural or intercultural, regardless of the language spoken within the couple, and can therefore also not be ignored when looking at how power is divided within couples.

The importance of communication in establishing a power balance within a relationship has nevertheless been stressed extensively. For instance, V. P. Richmond et al. (1997) stated that couples striving for an egalitarian relationship work hard on their communication with each other. According to Bagarozzi (1990), egalitarian couples will aim at sharing and achieving behavioral reciprocity in their relationship. In light of the fact that communication seems to be the key to power (V. P. Richmond et al., 1997), language facility and proficiency would seem to function as an obvious and crucial asset.

Power in General
Most people intuitively understand what power is, until they are asked to define it (Ng & Bradac, 1993). "The processes of power are pervasive, complex, and often disguised" (French & Raven, 1959, p. 150). Though few would ignore the importance of the concept of power in relationships, a lot of confusion exists about how to define this concept and how to measure it (Witteman & Fitzpatrick, 1986).

Many types and layers are found within the concept of power. Ng and Bradac (1993) distinguished between two basic types: power over and power to.Power over is aimed at domination and submission, whereas power to reflects ability. Obviously, both concepts are closely related, and one type can enhance the other. Thus, a partner more fluent in a language than the other can use this facility to increase his or her power to to get more power over.

According to Esdahl (2003), power in conversation is about control. She argued that linguistic resources can be used as tools, and that language is the most important way to gain power in a conversation. As such, in bilingual intercultural encounters, language choice seems to be an especially powerful tool.

One of the five bases of social power distinguished by French and Raven (1959) is expert power, power based on special abilities. According to V. P. Richmond et al. (1997), expert power in marriage is grounded in the perception of superior competence and knowledge of one spouse by the other. Thus, in multilingual couples, the spouse that has given up the native language can be expected to perceive the other to be more powerful.

V. P. Richmond et al. (1997) considered that though many factors influence the power balance in couples' lives, including education, employment, income, and gender, the key to power lies in communication. It is therefore important to determine what power division a particular couple has, and how communication competence is established. In order to find the power that is based on language expertise, other possible power sources need to be kept in consideration.

Research Questions
This pilot study examined the following research questions:
RQ1: Are there differences in native speakers' and nonnative speakers' perceptions of the nonnative speaker's linguistic proficiency?
RQ2: Do respondents perceive an imbalance in the division of power in their relationship?
RQ3: Can a link be made between perceived proficiency and perceived power imbalance?

Materials and Methods
Sample and Procedure
The convenience sample used for this study consisted of nine (n = 9) intercultural, heterosexual couples residing in the United States, of whom both partners had a different native language, one of which was English. Their chosen language of communication within the relationship was English. A 45-item questionnaire was either mailed or given to each partner in the couple. Each respondent was instructed to complete the questionnaire independently. As this study was conducted within the context of a graduate seminar assignment, its data collection was exempt from Institutional Review Board review.

Demographics
The average time partners had known each other was 10.4 years, and the average time that the couples had been living together was 8.0 years. The longest a couple had known each other was 19 years, the shortest 10 months. The longest a couple had been living together was 17 years, the shortest 3 months. The native speakers were originally from the United States (n = 4); England (n = 1); Canada (n = 2); Australia (n = 1); and Ireland (n = 1). The nonnative speakers originated from Lebanon (n = 1); Germany (n = 2); France (n = 1); Italy (n = 2); Japan (n = 1); Mexico (n = 1); and The Netherlands (n= 1). Three of the English native speakers were female (n = 3) and six of the English native speakers were male (n = 6). The women ranged in age from 33 to 47 and the men ranged in age from 30 to 47. Eight of the native speakers identified themselves as Caucasian (n = 8), and one as Asian (n = 1). Of the nonnative speakers, seven identified themselves as Caucasian (n = 7), one as Hispanic (n = 1), and one as Asian (n = 1). All but one of the couples were married.

Instruments
The Likert-type questionnaire was scored on a 5-point scale on which respondents could indicate their level of agreement. It was loosely based on similar instruments used by Beach and Tesser (1993) and Murstein and Adler (1995), and designs as used in Touliatos, Perlmutter, and Straus (2001). The respondents were not told about the specific focus of the study (power division) to avoid bias to the idea that their relationship may or may not be equal. The following language-related power concepts were woven into the questions: lexical diversity, speech rate, level of communicative comfort, level of independence, communication accommodation, compliance gaining, decision making, conversation dominance, and (perceived) proficiency (see Beach & Tesser, 1993; DeTurck & Miller, 1986; Esdahl, 2003; Huls, 2000; Madsen, 2003; Ng & Bradac, 1993; Romano, 2001; Witteman & Fitzpatrick, 1986). Two scales thus developed were used to measure perceived proficiency of the nonnative speaker and perceived power imbalance, respectively. Both scales were applied separately to native speakers' and nonnative speakers' reported perceptions. Crohnbach's alpha for the scale measuring perceived proficiency of the nonnative speaker by the native speaker was .82. This scale's reliability level for the nonnative speakers' perception of their own proficiency in the language of communication was .80. The 9-item measure for perceived power imbalance received a Crohnbach's alpha of .71 for the native speakers, and a .70 for the nonnative speakers.

Results

Most Agreement
The opinion that generated the most agreement stated "My partner usually understands me well." Seventeen of the eighteen respondents agreed with this statement, and only one respondent disagreed. This result could indicate that the bilingual intercultural partners in this particular sample encountered few misunderstandings despite the difference in native language. Sixteen respondents reportedly agreed with the statement "My partner usually takes time to listen to what I have to say." Sixteen respondents also agreed with "My partner makes obvious efforts to understand me." These findings could reflect that the sampled intercultural partners have worked hard to avoid misunderstandings. However, as such, this phenomenon may merely indicate a tendency to strive for equality in the relationship, and not be associated with language proficiency.

Perceived Proficiency
Levels of perceived proficiency in English of the nonnative speaker were generated separately for the native speaker and the nonnative speaker by separately selecting statements from the questionnaire, such as "It is easy for me to understand my partner," "I sometimes feel frustrated because of our language differences," and "I would feel better if my partner spoke our language of communication better." Among the participants in this study, the native speakers tended to rate the English proficiency of the nonnative speakers higher than did the nonnative speakers (for an analysis per couple, see Figure 1). Perceived proficiency of the nonnative speaker scored an average of 3.81 among the native speakers, and an average of 3.64 among the nonnative speakers. In other words, the partners of the nonnative speakers generally had a higher opinion of the English proficiency of the nonnative speakers than the native speakers had of themselves. As the ultimate focus of the study was power-related, difference in perceived proficiency was also examined per gender (see Figure 2). However, native speakers still rated the English proficiency of the nonnative speaker higher than the nonnative speakers rated their own English proficiency, regardless of gender. The difference was slightly more important when the native speaker was male and the nonnative speaker female. An interesting discrepancy that can be noted in these findings is the tendency among women to report both the highest ratings for their nonnative speaker partners and lowest ratings for the nonnative speaker selves. In other words, men tend to come out slightly better overall in the ratings for this sample.

Perceived Power Imbalance
Nine questions measured perceptions of power imbalance in the relationship, such as "In our household, my partner makes most of the major decisions," "When we argue, the one who speaks the language better usually 'wins'," "When we talk, my partner sometimes talks too fast for me to understand," and "My partner makes obvious efforts to understand me." Among the participants in this study, the nonnative speakers reportedly noticed a power imbalance slightly more often than did the native speakers (see Figure 3). On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree, the average score on the power imbalance index was 2.50 for the native speakers and 2.59 for the nonnative speakers. Although some scores on individual statements surpassed the critical 3.00 (don't agree or disagree) level (e.g., see Figure 4), the initial indication seems to be that, for this sample, native and nonnative speakers are in general close agreement on the level of equality in the relationship.

When the influence of gender is taken into consideration, the difference in perception of power imbalance becomes more important (see Figure 5). Overall, the women in the sample more often reported a less explicit power balance than did the men. The average score on the perceived power imbalance index was 2.64 for women and 2.45 for men. In other words, in this sample, men perceived a more obvious power balance than did women. However, in the scores per gender per couple (see Figure 6), internal variation between couples becomes more visible. Two out of nine female partners reported average scores over 3.00.

Language-Related Power Imbalance
To answer the question "Can a link be made between perceived proficiency and perceived power imbalance?" a correlation was calculated between scores on the perceived proficiency index and the index for perceived power imbalance. Indeed, a moderately strong, negative relationship was found (r = -.44, p= .07), significant at the 10% level, implying that when proficiency increases, perceived power imbalance decreases. It is obvious that gender, and how perceived proficiency is reported per gender, is a big influential factor in this correlation. However, no statistically significant correlations between gender and perceived power imbalance or gender and perceived proficiency could be detected, which may largely be due to the limited sample size.

In the analysis of variance, a clearer picture of the effect size and what accounts for perceived power imbalance in intercultural couples was found. Whether an intercultural partner had continued to speak his or her native language explained only approximately 2% of the variance in perceived power imbalance, whereas gender accounted for 6% of the variance.

Discussion
The purpose of this pilot study was threefold: to try to find differences in partners' perceptions of the nonnative speakers' linguistic proficiency, to try to find differences in perception of imbalance in the division of power in the intercultural relationship, and to try to find a link between perceived proficiency and power imbalance. Interestingly, in this sample, native speakers perceived their nonnative speaker partners to be more proficient in English than the nonnative speakers perceived themselves to be. Also, nonnative speakers perceived a somewhat less explicit power balance more often than did the native speakers. A moderately strong relationship was found between perceived proficiency and perceived power imbalance, indicating that nonnative speakers who feel less proficient in the language of communication also feel less powerful than their native English-speaking partner. However, in light of the fact that the nonnative speakers were women twice as often as men, gender may have been more important an influence for some of the perceived power differences.

To further explore the importance of the nonnative speaker's (perceived) language proficiency to the division of power in the relationship, and for the sake of facilitating generalizations, a future study should be conducted with a larger sample in which the influence of gender can be more easily controlled. Also, a shift in measured variables may yield better results. For instance, perceived power imbalance turned out to be a hard concept to measure on an agree-disagree scale. Perceiving a power imbalance doesn't always mean a power imbalance to the perceiver's disadvantage. A future study may do better to more explicitly measure whom each partner perceives to be the more powerful one in the relationship.

Another shortcoming of this pilot study was that the questionnaire was available in English only. Thus, partners not proficient enough in this language had no voice, and control for misunderstanding was equally absent. A future study should consider providing questionnaires in the native language of the nonnative speaker. Many statistical analyses were not performed but would be worth examining with a larger sample in order to find significant results. A future study should consider, if levels of proficiency in English are low, how language acquisition may influence feelings of increased power for the nonnative speaker. Future research should aim to further explore the link between language proficiency and power with controls for other "powerful" concepts such as gender, education, employment, and overall (intercultural) communication competence.

(Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Professor Brian Spitzberg of the School of Communication at San Diego State University for help with the statistical analysis.)

References
Aida, Y. (1993). Communication apprehension and power strategies in marital relationships. Communication Reports, 6, 116-122.

Bagarozzi, D. A. (1990). Marital power discrepancies and symptom development in spouses: Am empirical investigation. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 18, 51-64.

Beach, S. R. H., & Tesser, A. (1993). Decision-making power and marital satisfaction: A self-evaluation maintenance perspective. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 12, 471-494.

Biever, J. L., Bobele, M., & North, M. W. (1998). Therapy with intercultural couples: A postmodern approach. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 11, 181-189.

Blackledge, A., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 5, 243-257.

DeTurck, M. A., & Miller, G. R. (1986). The effects of husbands' and wives' social cognition on their marital adjustment, conjugal power, and self-esteem.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 715-724.

Esdahl, T. (2003). Language choice as a power resource in bilingual adolescents' conversations in the Danish folkeskole. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24, 76-89.

French, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases for social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Huls, E. (2000). Power in Turkish migrant families. Discourse & Society, 11, 345-372.

Madsen, L. M. (2003). Power relationships, interactional dominance and manipulation strategies in group conversations of Turkish-Danish children. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24, 90-101.

Murstein, B. I., & Adler, E. R. (1995). Gender differences in power and self-disclosure in dating and married couples. Personal Relationships, 2, 199-209.

Ng, S. H., & Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in language. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Roach, K. D. (1997). Communication and decision-making styles, power base usage, and satisfaction in marital dyads.Communication Quarterly, 45, 410-426.

Richmond, W. (1996). The power of language. Communication Arts, 38, 157.

Romano, D. (2001). Intercultural marriage. London, England: Nicholas Brealey Intercultural.

Steil, J. M. (1997). Marital equality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Telser-Gadow, B. C. (1992). Intercultural communication competence in intercultural marriages. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53 (07), 2165. (ATT 9234024)

Touliatos, J., Perlmutter, B. F., & Straus M. A. (2001). Handbook of family measurement techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Warner, R. L., Lee, G. R., & Lee, J. (1986). Social organization, spousal resources, and marital power: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 121-128.

Witteman, H., & Fitzpatrick, A. (1986). Compliance-gaining in marital interaction: Power bases, processes, and outcomes. Communication Monographs, 53, 130-143.


Figure 1. Perceived proficiency of nonnative speaker per couple. NS = native speaker; NNS = nonnative speaker.


Figure 2. Perceived proficiency of nonnative speaker. The perceived proficiency of the nonnative speaker is subsequently measured per gender-related subsample. NS = native speaker; NNS = nonnative speaker.


Figure 3. Perceived power imbalance per couple. NS = native speaker; NNS = nonnative speaker.


Figure 4. Internal variation on the level of agreement with the statement "When we argue, the one who speaks the language better usually wins." NS = native speaker; NNS = nonnative speaker.


Figure 5. Perceived power imbalance. NS = native speaker. NNS = nonnative speaker.


Figure 6. Perceived power imbalance per gender.

Liesbeth Wiering is an MA candidate at the School of Communication of San Diego State University, San Diego, California, USA.

 


Whose Culture and Whose Rules in the EFL Classroom?

Ali Shehadeh, ali.shehadeh@uaeu.ac.ae

Language and Culture
It is well established that teaching language to a large extent means teaching culture because language is an expression of culture. Language is a means for conveying and transmitting culture. It may not be divorced from its culture because it is not created in isolation. It is also well established that each culture has its own social norms, ethics, taboos, and concepts of what is socially acceptable or unacceptable. For instance, having a boy/girlfriend, being a single parent, living as an unmarried couple, participating in mixed-sex education, and talking about female relatives or family trees are generally accepted in the British-North American culture, which is made of more open, permissive, and tolerant societies. These societies' social norms regarding such issues are not often accepted or even debated by many Arab people. By contrast, in the Arabic culture, a more conservative culture, there are strict family, social, and religious hierarchies. Also, many taboos forbid explicitly talking about certain body parts or organs, talking about female family members, and shaking hands with women. For instance, in some Arab counties, it is not appropriate to reveal the name of your wife, mother, sister, or any other close female relative in public. Below are two examples that illustrate the point.

Example 1
In one of the intensive courses I was teaching at a large public Gulf university, the course textbook, Tactics of Listening (Richards, 2003), included a complete unit on the family (Unit 9). Two tasks of the unit specifically required that students talk about family members. One required that students work in pairs or small groups and ask each other two sets of questions:
SET 1: Do you have any brothers? What are their names? How old are they?
SET 2: Do you have a sister? What is her name? How old is she?

In doing this task, most students (male-only classes) were very hesitant to do the activity that related to the female part. These students asked only if their speech partners had any brothers and their names or ages, but not whether they had any sisters and their names or ages. The other task required that students draw their own family tree on a piece of paper and explain it to their classmates or to the class. Many students were also reluctant to do this task. Others who agreed to do the task asked me, "Should I also include the names of females?"

Example 2
The other example comes from one of the episodes of a serial comedy entitled Tash ma Tash (meaning roughly "enough is enough!") broadcast on national TV. The episode was about a schoolteacher who accompanied his ill mother to the hospital. In the waiting room he met a colleague of his who was also waiting to see a doctor. When the mother's turn to see the doctor came, the nurse called out her name: "Patient Monira, please proceed to clinic No. 2." The man took his mother to clinic 2. The other teacher then knew that his colleague's mother's name was Monira, so he exclaimed, "I see, so your mother's name is Monira? Aha!" Soon the news spread! The following day all the other teachers in the school called this teacher "Son of Monira" ("This is the son of Monira. How are you, son of Monira. Did you see the son of Monira?"). A few days later the schoolchildren followed the man on the street, clapping their hands and shouting, "Son of Monira! Son of Monira, Son of Monira." Soon, everyone in town called him "Son of Monira"!

The man got fed up and decided to flee the country completely. Returning after more than 20 years, he was now quite old and thinking that everyone must have forgotten all about him and his mother. He was close to the neighborhood where he used to live when he asked an old man about an old building (the house he owned before fleeing the country). The old man shot back, "Do you mean Son of Monira's house?"

Can You Teach Language Without Culture? A Survey
Given that culture is inextricably intertwined with language, the main question to answer is: Can you actually teach the language without its culture? In an attempt to answer this question, I conducted a small-scale experiment in which I tried to gauge my students' views on the issue. I asked them two sets of questions: one set related to their motivation, attitudes, and their goals of learning English, and one set directly related to introducing the target language culture (TLC) into the classroom. In the first set, I asked my students why they were learning English and required them to rank their answers on a scale from 1 to 5 as shown below:

Why are you learning the English language?
On a scale from 1 to 5, mark the following answers to this question (with 5 being the highest score and 1 the lowest):
I am learning English because
(1) it is a vehicle for self-development.
(2) it is a method of training cognitive processes.
(3) I have a positive attitude toward the speakers of the English language (intrinsic motivation).
(4) it is an entrée to the culture of other groups.
(5) I want to communicate successfully in the L2 with those who speak that language. 
(6) it is a way of promoting intercultural understanding.
(7) I want to become a proficient/effective L2 speaker.
(8) I want to speak it like the native speakers of English.
(9) it enables me to get a good job (instrumental motivation).
(10) it is part of the curriculum (compulsory). I have no other choice.
(11) overall, I am personally interested in learning this language.

In the other set of questions, I asked students the following questions:

Would you like to learn the English language and know about its people and the English culture, or would you rather learn the language and its grammar only?

Would you mind being introduced to any concepts or issues that are part of the TLC norms, or would you rather drop these or replace certain concepts and issues that are part of the TLC norms with comparable ones in Arabic, your mother language culture (MLC)?

Findings
With regard to the first set of questions, I found that highly motivated and stronger students (based on the students' course marks and my personal observation during class work and participation) ranked the responses between 3 and 5 points (average: 4). Less motivated or weaker students, on the other hand, ranked the responses between 1 and 3 points (average: 2). With regard to the second set of questions, highly motivated students commented that they did not mind including concepts or issues of the TLC. Less motivated students, by contrast, commented that they were more inclined to drop such concepts/issues or replace these with comparable ones from the mother language culture (MLC). For instance, these students stated that they would be happy to talk about issues such as strong family ties and strong social relations, replace target language (TL) proper names with Arabic names (e.g., Ali for John, Ahmed for Peter, Fatima for Mary), and replace the TLC contexts and dialogues with Arabic contexts or dialogues.

So, the dilemma that you as a language teacher face in such EFL contexts is that if you do not bring the TLC into the classroom, (a) you will distort the TL and its culture, as you will be teaching a language devoid of its culture, and (b) you are more likely to trivialize the learning/teaching process in the eyes of highly motivated and stronger students. On the other hand, if you bring in the TLC, you are more likely to alienate weaker and less motivated students.

What then can be done?

Some Ways Forward
One way to move forward is to assure students, particularly the weaker and less motivated ones, that learning the L2 and learning about its culture and people are signs of cultural enrichment, not a cause of loss of their own culture or identity. Learning another language and culture widens and deepens their personal knowledge, enriches their personality, and makes them more understanding, tolerant, and sensitive to other peoples and cultures.

Another way to move forward is to create an interculture (like interlanguage), a negotiated culture that lies between the TLC and the native culture, with an aim of approximating each student's understanding in the direction of the TLC. By this it is meant that the teacher brings in examples of multicultural communication into the classroom, where interactions occur between people from different cultural backgrounds (the students' L1, the TL, and other language backgrounds). Thus the students feel that they relate to the activity in some way and are therefore more encouraged to participate. Gradually, however, the class content shifts the emphasis to the TLC norms, given that students are learning this particular language and its culture. For instance, in my EFL classes, I introduced tasks and activities that required the participation of both English and Arabic native speakers; we thus incorporated both English and Arabic names, personalities, backgrounds, and contexts in the classroom work. Some examples of this tactic are self-introductions by students from different cultural and L1 backgrounds or acting out a business negotiation with representatives from different L1 and cultural backgrounds. Students felt that they related to the task in some way and that made them more actively engaged in the task and the learning process as a whole.

A third way would be for the teacher to be a role model for his or her students. For instance, in my attempt to get students to do the family tasks described above, I first told my students how many brothers and sisters I had, their names, and their ages. I also drew my own family tree on the board for everyone to see. Students found that fun and were then actually more motivated to follow suit and actively complete the task.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the solution to the dilemma of "Whose culture in the classroom?" is to introduce a negotiated culture in the classroom situation that draws from both the target language culture and the mother tongue culture. The solution to the dilemma of "Whose rules in the classroom?" is also to introduce negotiated rules that satisfy both the weaker students and the stronger ones, the more motivated students and the less motivated ones. In other words, hard but positive negotiations that strike a balance between the differing expectations and demands of course objectives and both strongly or less motivated students are the key requirements to the implementation of successful rules in the language classroom in an EFL context.

Reference
Richards, J. C. (2003). Tactics for listening: Basic (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Ali Shehadeh is a professor of EFL at the Programme of Applied Linguistics/TESOL in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, in Al Ain, UAE.


Envisioning New Norms and Pedagogy for English as an International Language

Stephen Soresi,soresi@edup.net

Few can deny that English has evolved into a multicultural language. English now functions worldwide more as a contact language among multilingual speakers in multicultural contexts than as a contact language in monolingual, native speaker contexts (Beneke, 1991; Graddol, 1997; Kachru, 1996). Furthermore, English has been indigenized in various parts of Asia, for example, as part of "local, plura-linguistic heritage(s)" over the past 200 years. English's presence in Asia mirrors the presence and process of the transplanting of English in North America, Australia and New Zealand (Kachru, 2005). Thus the former "multicultural" lineup of speaker varieties of English, which ranged merely from American to Irish, or British to Canadian, or Australian to Scottish, for example, now includes established English varieties that span a much wider range culturally, socially, and religiously.

The development of English follows the straightforward phenomenon of diffusion and adaptation. In other words, the massive spread of English is enabled by local adaptation or "indigenization" of English. English, like any other system, innovation, or technique, has diffused by being adopted in various ways. A rather oversimplified example is the hamburger. It originated in Germany and has been adopted globally according to various forces (e.g., cultural, social, religious, historical, political). For example, religious prohibition on meat leads to chicken or mutton burgers, which enables diffusion. The Japanese-style hamburger (wafu hanbagu) incorporates their staple, rice, on the side and serves only a hamburger patty like a steak which is usually topped with shredded radish.

Who has the right to say "That's not proper!"? Can Germans call these adaptations of hamburger into question? Similarly, can Americans find fault with the local adaptations of the 7-11 convenience store worldwide?  Can Japanese insist that karaoke around the world be pronounced car-uh-oh-kay, or, in accordance with karaoke norms and name (literally "empty orchestra"), prohibit media from referring to events such as American Idol as "karaoke" because a live band is not supposed to accompany karaoke singers?

Through these examples I seek not only to show how diffusion and local adaptation go hand in hand, but also to reveal the problematic role of the "original" norms asserting themselves over new ownerships of the diffused and adopted system (i.e., English). This was the starting point for a Discussion Group at TESOL 2006 entitled "Teaching English as an International Language (TEIL) and Nonnative English Speaking Teacher (NNEST) Implications," around which this article is built.

Understanding the Spread of English: "How much" vs. "How"
The massive spread of English has been refracted in many interesting ways. Sheer numbers: Kubota (2001) said English speakers range from 700 or 800 million to 2 billion. Crystal (1997) estimated that between 1.2 and 1.5 billion people are already fluent or competent in English. Sheer outnumbering: the worldwide ratio of nonnative speakers (NNSs) and native speakers (NSs) is somewhere between two and four to one (Kachru, 1996). Share of communication: The majority of verbal exchanges in which English is used as a second language involve NNS to NNS exchanges (from about 80% [Graddol, 1997] to 65% [Beneke, 1991]). In other words, most English interactions globally do not involve NSs. English is distinct for that very reason (Smith & Forman, 1997).

Admittedly, exact quantifying of the spread of English worldwide includes some controversy about measurement.  The spread of English has also been critically analyzed to show how it can be linked to global imperialism and is damaging in various ways (Phillipson, 1992). However, this article involves a different concern: What impact should the global spread and multicultural state of English have on the way we conceptualize norms in English language teaching (ELT)?

To answer this question, we must first see not only "how much" but "how" English has spread-for example, in Africa (Bokamba, 1992), in China (Yong & Campbell, 1995), and in Japan (Stanlaw, 2004). When the massive global spread of English is seen only in terms of diffusion, problematic assumptions follow: namely that "pure" English weakens as it diffuses from the center and thus English pedagogy should be directed at restoring "pure" NS norms among its receivers.

Naturally, the spread of English is accompanied by local adaptations. It is "indigenized" in a process of "acculturation" and "nativization" (Kachru 1986, 2005) or "decolonialized" (Kumaravadivelu, 2003) according to the social and cultural needs of those using it. Indeed, more progressive theories of the spread of English reveal that English has spread thanks to a process in which different localities have gained ownership and agency over English to create their own varieties of English (Kachru 2005; Kumaravadivelu, 2003). Some may openly or overtly look at such indigenization as an imperfect replication of NS English, whereas others, under certain conditions, respect new Englishes as legitimate varieties of their own.

Maintaining a Central Standard vs. Acknowledging Varieties
The most basic yet hotly contested issue at this particular 2006 TESOL Discussion Group was whether teachers and students should adhere to a central standard of English or acknowledge expressions from various local varieties. Despite world Englishes being a discipline making major inroads into the TESOL organization, several teachers in attendance at the session strongly favored maintaining a central standard or a "single monochrome form" (Quirk, 1988) of English according to how native speakers use it. Obviously, such a sweeping prescription for English communication would set off a warning signal for intercultural communications scholars and critical pedagogists (Freire, 1970/1997, 1998) who realize that sociolinguistic contexts and various learner variables must be considered (Gill, 1999). Furthermore, being a native speaker does not automatically make one a competent intercultural, collaborative communicator.

Nonetheless, the notion of the "native speaker" seems tied to the language (Kubota, 2001) and to ELT. Davies et al. (1999) described rating scales for speaking tests. "Typically such scales range from zero mastery through to an end point representing the well-educated native speaker."  Universities in Japan have departments devoted to "Global English communication" that call themselves "English/American Departments" (eibei gakka), ironically named after two relatively monolingual and monocultural countries. Such a monocentric view of English is opposed by a pluricentric view of world Englishes (Kachru, 1986, 2005). Below are five perspectives on this monocentric versus pluricentric debate.

English as a Native Language (ENL)

  • Thus "foreign" to NNS. 
  • Views norms as monocentric.
  • Critical research (Kachru, 2005) shows how interlanguage theory and second language acquisition theory (Ellis, 1994) emphasize NS competence as the end point for second language proficiency and construct the ideal teacher as an NS teacher (Cook, 1999). In other words, ENL holds that the closer to NS forms, the better.

> Criticism: Irrelevant for sociolinguistic realities of huge masses of people. Relegates any form of bilingual creativity (e.g., Bob Marley's lyrics, Salmon Rushdie's literature) to being a deviation or error.

English as "Global English" (EGL)

  • Also conceived as English as an international/global/world language.
  • Somewhat similar to the idea of "world standard spoken English" (Crystal, 2003; McArthur, 1993).
  • Often focuses on the spread (not necessarily the indigenization) of NS English.

> Criticism: "It suggests there is one clearly distinguishable, codified, and unitary variety called International English" (Seidlhofer, 2004). Also, sociolinguistic realities necessitate local varieties of English that may address "linguacultural" needs better than do U.S./British canons.

English as a Lingua Franca (ELF)

  • English developed as a "contact language" by members of two or more "linguacultures."
  • English as a medium of intercultural communication.
  • Claims to operate and develop independent of the norms of its native users.
  • Researchers identify and codify commonly used forms (lexical/grammatical, phonetic) that differ from NS forms. One current trend is identifying phonological aspects (Jennifer Jenkins' Lingua Franca Core, 2000; Melchers & Shaw, 2003) that highlight (a) syllable-timed rhythm, (b) consonant clusters, and (c) simplified vowels.
  • Value is placed on forms that do not impede communication, intelligibility, and comprehension.

> Criticism: Easily and often confused with a push to codify and enforce a single variety of English. Practical pedagogical inroads remain somewhat limited though ELF theory, and research continues to grow.

World Englishes (WE)

  • Postcolonial English varieties that have been institutionalized (e.g., India, Singapore).
  • New Englishes (especially in Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean).
  • Asian Englishes (conceived and conceptualized as an innovative dimension of Asian sensibilities). 
  • Opposed to one "world English." 
  • Promote the vitality, creativity, and potential of varieties of English.
  • Resist hegemony of NS standards and appropriate English for local use and context.
  • New fields of inquiry including ELT's "critical turn" (critical pedagogies, critical applied linguistics [Pennycook, 2001], postmethod [Kumaravadivelu, 2003])
  • Also known as "Liberation Linguistics, the Kachruvian Approach."
  • Pluricentric view showing that the new varieties of English are governed by their own norms and rules.
  • Old view: native/ESL/EFL; new view: inner/outer/expanding concentric circles, which deemphasizes "first versus second" language and emphasizes instead that English does not belong to NS countries as a first language and other countries as a "second" language. "It is almost unavoidable that anyone would take 'second' as less worthy" (Kachru, 1996).

> Criticism: Three concentric circles were effective for post-ESL/EFL purposes but  the "three circles" oversimplify some "linguacultures" and remain open to simplistic yet potent misrepresentation because of the terms used (i.e., restoring primary legitimacy to an "inner" circle and its norms). Research on variety codification and corpus projects thrives but with limited pedagogical inroads.

Pedagogical Concerns
Though newer models (WE and ELF) based on varieties of English call for a reevaluation of norms and pedagogy, ELT testing and textbooks still seem to be following the ENL or EGL models outlined above. Admittedly, most mainstream textbooks and tests now feature various NNSs in the "talent" role (i.e., as voice or video talent, or in photographs), but some fundamental ENL or EGL tenets remain. First, they maintain as their end point competencies exhibited by the presumed "educated native speaker" (Cook, 1999). Second, they do not account for the fact that most interaction in English today takes place between NNSs. People speaking interculturally must converge their speech and its forms toward both natives and nonnatives, but "nonnative" convergence is penalized on tests (Jenkins, 2002) and many textbook tasks. Third, an important question is whether textbooks and texts are designed to engender single-sentence accuracy according to presumed NS norms and forms, or to encourage multiple-sentence fluency according to today's intercultural communication demands. More fundamentally, in ELT textbooks for engendering communication skills, what percentage of tasks are "controlled" output in which a learner is forced to produce an NS form and what percentage are "spontaneous" output in which learners output their own forms?

Beyond tests and texts, the ENL and EGL way of assessing miscommunication becomes problematic because ENL makes it the fault of the speaker if he or she did not use proper NS forms or the fault of the listener who did not understand the "perfectly composed native-like" forms in a sentence (Gill, 1999). A more relevant collaborative communication requirement involves multiple sentences from a speaker that contextualize messages, as well as an effort from the listener to clarify and collaborate.

Conclusion and Items for Further Discussion
Two things stood out from the TESOL 2006 Discussion Group. First, the notion of a monocentric nativeness as natural will continue to plague the various arguments for more broadly multicultural English and pluricentric standards of nativeness. Second, an unresolved area for change and struggle involves discussions of developing ELT norms, goals, and theory. Below are some concerns and shifts likely in ELT and TESOL.

English > Englishes
It has long been commonplace to respect "native" English varieties. Clearly, few would lay blame one way or the other for cross-cultural miscommunications as long as they involve designated NSs (e.g., Americans, Canadians, English, New Zealanders). However, miscommunication may be more relevantly understood in intercultural communication terms rather than in terms of the geographic home of the communicators. Thus a larger paradigm shift forces us to look beyond the NS-NNS construct and thus beyond NS-like linguistic competence in ELT so that we can conceptualize new norms and pedagogy. 

EFL >  WE
The world Englishes movement asserts not only the legitimacy of several new varieties of English (Kachru, 1986, 2005) but also the way in which English serves as a source language for local acculturation. Furthermore, as long as English is considered an international language, one must question its status as a "foreign" language. This status has numerous implications, among them that tests and ELT materials predicated on the idea that English is mainly for interaction with NSs lack validity. Another implication is that nonnative teachers who have traditionally been devalued in favor of NSs in EFL contexts (Bokamba, 1992) may be viewed in a new light. Multilingual sensitivities and multiculturalism may become a more integral part of the linguistic competencies involved in ELT.

Second Language Acquisition >  Broader Linguistic Resources
Instead of a linear ELT approach with the end point being usage in accordance with the presumed native English speaker, a new ELT sees English as a source language for locally appropriate adoptions and innovations. It sees communication skills in a larger context where a multitude of linguistic recourses play a critical role. Certainly intercultural communication skills would serve as one central linguistic resource that has nothing to do with whether one is an NS or not.

Micro-Linguistic >  Macro-Linguistic
When we elevate this discussion to the discourse level and take into consideration English as a medium for intercultural communication, we can see how discourse becomes a critical unit of analysis. Which communicates better across cultures: a single sentence spoken with native-like qualities or a series of supporting sentences contextualizing a message? Obviously the latter would be a more relevant competency. Using discourse as a unit of analysis helps us to reconceptualize the idea of a "good communicator" in English. 

Micro-Linguistic ELT >  Macro-Linguistic ELT
Micro-linguistic ELT and testing dwell often on learner "deviations" from "standard forms" within the sentence. Testing and teaching which enforces the simplistic dichotomy between native and nonnative lexical/grammatical usage "inside the sentence" is becoming less and less valid.  Such pedagogy overlooks more valid and vital factors on a macro-linguistic level. These factors include intercultural communication competencies. Also, the ability to contextualize one's message occurs outside the sentence unit. Do textbooks, tests, and teaching materials focus on micro- or macro-linguistic competencies? How can we engender the ability of competent speakers of English (native or nonnative) to communicate, contextualize, and convey a message in multicultural contexts?

Single- >  Multiple-Sentence Production
Multiple-sentence communication, not single "native-like" sentence exchange, is naturally a more relevant norm shared by competent communicators regardless of their linguistic background (Soresi, 2005). Competent speakers of all varieties of English who may be considered competent intercultural, collaborative communicators exhibit multiple-sentence production skills. Thus our end point shifts from NS usage to multiple-sentence exchanges. Pedagogy & testing shifts from the ability to enunciate a single sentence in perfect accordance with presumed NS monocentric norms to multiple-sentence production in accordance with pluracentric norms. (For detailed pedagogical approaches to multiple-sentence production see Soresi, 2004.)  An educational focus on multiple-sentence communication therefore does not penalize linguistic creativity.

One important new norm then becomes the creation of multiple sentences for collaborative communication or meaningful discourse. In other words, with multiple-sentence communication competency, we no longer concern ourselves principally with words, lexis, or grammar, or single sentences differing or "deviating" from native-like usage. In this era we can more fruitfully look toward multiple-sentence communication: fruitful for its ability to contextualize; make up for miscommunicated or nonshared forms, lexis, grammar, or pronunciation; and thus conceptualize relevant and attainable skills for this new age of English communication.

References 
Beneke, Jürgen (1991). "Englisch als lingua franca oder als Medium interkultureller Kommunikation?" In R. Grebind (Ed.), Grenzenloses Sprachenlernen: Festschrift für Reinhold Freudenstein (pp. 58-61). Berlin: Cornelsen & Oxford UP.

Bokamba, E. (1992). "The Africanization of English." In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 125-147). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 185-209.

Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, D. (2003). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language (2nd ed). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Davis, A., et al. (1999). Dictionary of language testing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Freire, P. (1970/1997). Pedagogy of the oppressed (Rev. Ed). New York: Continuum.

Freire, P. (1998). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Continuum.

Gill, S. K. (1999). Standards and emerging linguistic realities in the Malaysian workplace. World Englishes, 18, 215-231.

Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? London: British Council.

Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, J. (2002). What standard for English as an international language? In E. L. Low et al. (Eds.), The Teaching and use of standard English (pp. 25-32). Singapore: Singapore Association of Applied Linguistics.

Kachru, B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of non-native Englishes. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

Kachru, B. (1996). The paradigms of marginality. World Englishes, 15(3), 241-255.

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

Kubota, R. (2001). Learning linguistic diversity from world Englishes. Social Studies, 92(2), 69-72.

Kumaravadivelu, R. (2003). A postmethod perspective on English language teaching. World Englishes 22(4), 539-550.

McArthur, T. (1993). The English language or the English languages? In W. F. Bolton and D. Crystal (Eds.), The English language (pp. 323-341). (Vol. 10 of the Penguin History of Literature). London: Penguin Books.

Melchers, G., & Shaw, P. (2003). World Englishes: An introduction. London: Arnold.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Quirk, R. (1988). The question of standards in the international use of English. In G. Lowenberg (Ed.), Language spread and language policy: Issues, implications and case studies  (pp. 229-241). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209-239.

Smith, L. E., & Forman, M. L. (Eds.). (1997). World Englishes 2000. Honolulu: College of Languages, Linguistics, and Literature, University of Hawaii.

Soresi, S. (2004). A progressive approach to fluency with SPM. ESL Magazine, 42. pp.7-9 Modern English publishing, Chicago IL.

Soresi, S. (2005, summer). Multicultural English proficiency: A new model for global considerations. Intercultural Management Quarterly, 6(3), pp. 3-9. Washington, D.C.

Stanlaw, J. (2004). Japanese English: Language and culture contact. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Yong, Z., & Campbell, K. P. (1995). English in China. World Englishes, 14/3: 377-390.
Blackwell Publishing.

Stephen Soresi is a full-time lecturer in the Department of Foreign Languages at the Takushoku University in Tokyo, Japan

 



Announcements Call for Manuscripts

ICIS Winter 2007 Newsletter

Topic: World Englishes in TESOL

The audience of this newsletter is composed of intercultural communication teachers, administrators, and teacher educators in TESOL. Manuscripts for the winter 2007 issue of the newsletter should be related to the topic of world Englishes in TESOL. Below are some suggested subtopics within this subject. However, manuscripts focusing on other aspects of intercultural communication not addressed below are welcome. Manuscripts will be carefully reviewed before being published, to ensure that their content and style are of a suitable quality and usefulness for the ICIS newsletter.

Subtopics Within World Englishes

Should only native speaker (NS) varieties of English be taught in English language classes or are there other varieties that may be more useful to students?

Are we in an era of maintaining a central standard of English around the world or should different varieties of English be acknowledged as legitimate forms in their own right?

What are some of these nonnative speaker (NNS) Englishes and how do they differ, if at all, from NS Englishes in their form, content, and use?

How has the construct of a native speaker changed? What should the future of this term be?

How did the different varieties of world Englishes develop and how are they distributed around the world?

How does the relegation of NNS Englishes to a lesser status in ESL/EFL classrooms relate to the presence of so-called neo-colonialism in Great Britain, North America, and other economically and politically dominant English-speaking regions?

Is English a "Trojan horse" for American culture?

Do you agree that, as The Economist said in 2001, English is "a world Empire by other means"? If so, is TESOL playing a role in such neo-imperialism?

Is it possible and/or useful to develop a corpus and instructional material to teach each variety of English considered to be nonnative?

What methods work best for teaching in a context in which an NNS variety of English is prevalent and for serving the sociocultural needs of its users better in this context?

How do students or parents or school officials respond to a course in which an NNS variety of world Englishes is taught or to an NNS teacher who leads the class? Is there a desire to learn a "pure" form of English or is this distinction irrelevant to students' needs?

Should teachers be trained for teaching world Englishes as opposed to only NS varieties? If so, how can this be done?

How do textbooks and standardized tests deal with or mitigate against the teaching of NNS Englishes?

Does someone who learns a new language also adopt that language's culture or can learners project their own culture through a "foreign" language?

Where do we draw the line between "errors" and bilingual creativity such as Bob Marley's lyrics? What should TESOL professionals do about "bilingual creativity"?

How does linguistic background affect teaching? Is the ideal teacher a monolingual native speaker, bilingual native, or bilingual nonnative?

(Questions in part thanks to Stephen Soresi)

Authors submitting manuscripts should be aware that some journals, including TESOL's own Essential Teacher, will not accept a manuscript that has been previously published in the ICIS newsletter.

The deadline for submission is January 15, 2007. Manuscripts should be approximately 1,600 words in length (permission must be sought for longer texts) and must be formatted according to the guidelines of the American Psychological Association Publication Manual, Fifth Edition. Manuscripts must be submitted electronically to rebekah.r.muir@nhmccd.edu.



About This Member Community ICIS Steering Committee Members

Susan Coakley (Cochair), scoakley@comcast.net

Sara Keyes (Cochair), piratequeen@usa.net

Donna Fujimoto (Chair-Elect), fujimoto@wilmina.ac.jp

Piper McNulty (Past Cochair), pipermcn@aol.com

Nancy Tumposky (Past Cochair), tumposkyn@mail.montclair.edu

Rebekah Muir and Mary Huebsch (Newsletter Editors), rebekah.r.muir@nhmccd.edu and Huebsch_Mary@sac.edu

Eunhee Seo (Webmaster), ellenseo@temple.edu

Usha Venkatesh (Secretary/Historian), usha.venkatesh@montgomerycollege.edu

Don Snow, Victoria Tuzlukova, and Armeda Reitzel (Members at Large), donsnow48@hotmail.comtuzlukov@jeo.ru, and acr1@humboldt.edu

Natalie Hess (Past Past-Chair), Natalie.Hess@nau.edu