Wednesday, March 12, 2008...6:03 pm
The Cultural Complaint of the Day
I just completed my readings for a mini seminar that I am attending in the morning regarding ESL learners and the writing center. All of the texts made some very interesting observations, and brought up some topics that I had not thought about since I got my masters in linguistics. Language has always fascinated me; the way we use it to construct meaning, and the way we use it to understand others.
After reading these essays, the one thing that I could not let go of was the insistence that communicative practices in writing for ESL students must be done in a singular way. With the exception of one essay (which included an honorable mention of Asian linguistic practices), there was really no allowance for the way in which the ESL students must use their individual languages to assist in making the connections necessary in obtaining what these authors felt were essential bridges leading to native intuition. Allow me to explain. As an ESL teacher, I had students from many different linguistic backgrounds; Bosnia, Germany, Morocco, and the Philippines, just to name a few. The one thing I always understood as a linguist/ESL instructor was that the most efficient way to build a bride is to start with the materials at hand. That is, while it is important to teach them English language conventions, it is also important to have some understanding of the linguistic features of their L1 (first language). For example, what in their language acts as a qualifier (for example)? Do they understand what a qualifier does in their language? If they don’t, it doesn’t matter how much language you give them-the understanding will remain surface knowledge until they can make the connection in a way that is meaningful to them. The first rule of ESL is that students that are proficient in their L1 have a higher success rate of understanding their L2.
Another thing I found a bit bothersome (and maybe it’s just my love of the relation of language to culture that makes me so sensitive about this type of thing) is the way in which the dictionary of collocations uses specific phrasing and sequences, without any allowance for options-as if there is only way way to express certain ideas. Look, I understand that academic language is necessary and specific, but the beauty of language is supposed to be its flexibility (Do I have to remind you why Latin is dead?). The knowledge that phrases like “Could I have a word in your ear” pass as acceptable is a little scary. I am fluent in two languages, and I would never say that, much less write it! Instructions that read “choose the appropriate word” without giving ESL writers more than one option seem problematic to me as well (take for example the sentence that reads “We had to queue for ages at the taxi rank” with rank being the suitable word). My major objection to the way texts of these type are constructed is simply this: students that feel insecure about their linguistic prowess tend to cling to the ideas validated in textbooks, dictionaries and the like. For ESL writers/students, these texts represent the rules of the language they are trying to acquire. Further, if these types of texts are readily available in Writing Centers (where tutors are no less than cultural informants), it is a natural assumption that the information in these types of texts is “correct” and unquestionable.
Now, I could take the scholarly high road and extol the virtues of these types of texts, the intentions that guide them, their value, and go along with the unspoken assumption that as they (the ESL students) evolve as English speakers, the additional language they acquire will somehow expand their knowledge in a way that would interrupt those hegemonic teachings, but I won’t. You do the linguistic math.
Leave a Reply