LINGUIST List: Vol-27-2435. Wed Jun 01 2016. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.
Subject: 27.2435, Review: Socioling: Tupas (2015)
Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org
***************** LINGUIST List Support *****************
Fund Drive 2016
25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
Editor for this issue: Sara Couture <sara at linguistlist.org>
================================================================
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 13:00:13
From: Paula Prescod [paula at cityplay.fr]
Subject: Unequal Englishes
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36133097
Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/26/26-3468.html
AUTHOR: Ruanni Tupas
TITLE: Unequal Englishes
SUBTITLE: The Politics of Englishes Today
PUBLISHER: Palgrave Macmillan
YEAR: 2015
REVIEWER: Paula Prescod, University of Picardie - Jules Verne
Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry
SUMMARY
“Unequal Englishes” edited by Ruanni Tupas, is a 267-page volume bringing
together 13 chapters, 2 of which are co-authored. It is divided into 4 parts
of 3 or 4 chapters each. There is a list of figures and tables, a forward by
Arjuna Pararama, acknowledgments, notes on the contributors, and a 3-page
index.
The introduction written by Ruanni Tupas and Rani Rubdy sets the tone for the
volume. In their examination of the notion of inequality, the authors claim
that the attitudes we entertain about the use of English are inherited from a
long tradition of thinking that only ‘Inner Circle’ speakers can claim English
as their own, and that other users of English are illegitimate, having
corrupted the language. According to the authors, attempts to counter these
deep-seated beliefs have resulted in reinforcing the supremacy of
native-speaker Englishes, and in the marginalizing of varieties that dare
usurp the label “English” to refer to a language which arose out of the
contact between peoples and cultures through colonialism and globalisation.
Tupas and Rubdy revisit the question of whether ‘Inner Circle’ users or
‘native speakers’ own English. While we have come to accept the plurality of
English, it is our trust in notions like functional linguistic equality (Hymes
1985:v) and language diversity that has shaped the hegemony of English (p. 2).
Thus hegemony, entwined with political factors, has rendered the legitimacies
of Englishes uneven. The authors acknowledge the role played by scholars like
Kachru, McArthur, and Bhatt, who have underscored the necessity to reckon with
local Englishes. Nonetheless, neither the notion of World Englishes nor the
concentric model approach captures the social and linguistic pluricentricity
of English. Instead, such ideologies as ‘native speaker’, ‘standard English’
and ‘nation state’ have gone unchallenged. Consequently, it is difficult to
supplant these concepts despite the attempts made by scholars like Kachru to
foster the use of more democratic notions.
The chapters in Part 1 take a theoretical approach to linguistic inequality.
Chapter 1, written by Ryubo Kubota, proposes a critical examination of
approaches that underscore the pluricentricity of English. The author draws on
critiques of liberal and neoliberal multiculturalism and outlines the paradox
of the heightened interest in research on the diversity of English inasmuch as
it is linked to ideologies that claim to foster diversity but which reinforce
the notion of World English. Although they recognise homogeneity, pluralist
approaches are purely essentialist because they disregard power relations
among racialised groups. Consequently, they are comparable with liberal and
neoliberal approaches to multicultural education. Liberal multiculturalism in
education recognises the need to respect diversity but the approach often
results in an awareness for diversity which is not coupled with a critical
appraisal of the hierarchical relations that accompany diversity. Besides,
instead of promoting diversity and openness, neoliberal multiculturalism blurs
relations of power among ethnicities. According to the authors, concepts like
World Englishes, English as a Lingua Franca, and postcolonial performativity
do not account for power imbalances but instead leave unchallenged the
ideology of normativism.
Rani Rubdy’s contribution explores whether language equality is not utopian
since language use is inextricably linked to human capital. Given the roles
English has played in colonisation and globalisation, the author wonders
whether English is not itself the root-cause of inequalities. (p. 43).
Politico-historical, economic and ideological factors explain why we rely
heavily on ‘Inner Circle’ ‘native speaker’ norms, why we fail to recognise
language-internal variation, and why we continue to hierarchise Englishes
based on speakers’ ethnicities. In addition, the rise of a variety to standard
status is associated with the way the elite users of the variety endow it with
power and prestige. The call is therefore made to rethink standard English by
debunking established myths about it, to problematise monolingual, normative
approaches, and to relocate centre-based perspectives on teaching English
particularly in TESOL. The author invokes Kumaravadivelu’s (2003)
differentiation between decolonisation and nativisation and the need to
operate a shift from nativisation to decolonisation to expunge English
imperialism (p 50). Professionals in TESOL would nonetheless need to strip the
discipline of ‘native-speakerism’, to use their own experiences to assert
their identity, status, and employability (p. 51). While the author does not
deny the importance of standards, she calls for the use of more democratic and
equitable terms to qualify language varieties.
Chapter 3 is written by Joseph Sung-Yul Park. The author hypothesises that
subjectivity, involving personal and mundane feelings of affect, emotion and
sentiment regarding English, occupies a substantial part in learning the
language in South Korea. Besides influencing learning outcomes, it also
reproduces and sustains inequalities of English. Building on Raymond Williams’
(1977) ‘structures of feelings’ – of how the English frenzy ‘yeongeo yeolpung’
concerns not only the importance of having a high proficiency in English as an
index human capital (p. 62) but also the valorisation of white native-speaker
Englishes, considered to be the only legitimate models Korean learners should
emulate – the author stresses that the consequence of such mind sets is
unequal Englishes, whereby the English spoken in South Korea becomes
stigmatised, delegitimised as ‘Konglish’. The ensuing sentiment of linguistic
insecurity manifests itself bodily via palpitations and perspiration,
psychologically via a panoply of structures of feelings including anxiety and
embarrassment, socially via resorting to metalinguistic talk about the
experience of learning and practising English, and ultimately it has economic
consequences since Koreans see themselves as being forced to invest huge sums
of money to learn mainstream American English. According to the author,
reflexive engagement with the dimensions of subjectivity Koreans manifest in
relation to English should foster the development of a critical metalinguistic
awareness of these feelings, in order to help transform inequalities of
English.
In Chapter 4, Peter Ives examines whether inequalities lie between languages
themselves or in the relations among language users. The author confutes the
argument that the ground of linguistic power is occupied by language users,
contending instead, contra scholars like Pennycook and Canagarajah, that
languages, rather than their users, are unequal. The author’s approach
diverges from those of Wee and Pupavac to the extent that they conclude that
the pair equality / inequality applies not to languages but to their users,
and that they insist that approaches like those of Phillipson and
Skutnabb-Kangas, which advocate language rights, ultimately infringe on the
speech rights of majorities. Yves considers this tangent as an obstruction to
the civil and political rights deemed necessary for creativity and originality
in language. The author looks to analyses of language politics and the works
of scholars like Kymlicka, and particularly May, who purports that it is
linguistic democracy rather than equality that initiates political change
regarding minorities. He maintains that the charge of inequality cannot be
levelled at language users but that it must be extended to language varieties.
Part 2 comprises three chapters which examine how inequalities in English
proficiency and practice arise from deep-seated socio-cultural,
socio-political and socio-economic factors. In Chapter 5, Eric S. Henry
studies the effects of self-effacing comments and negative language
evaluations on the proficiency of Chinese speakers of English. The author
explains the development of metapragmatic discourse, and shows how such talk
about talk is often enrobed in joking narratives. According to Henry, the
increased importance of English for young Chinese is a breeding ground for the
dissemination and maintenance of joking narratives which feed negative social
evaluation. Consequently, they engender and strengthen relations of linguistic
inequality. The author relates how one English instructor chooses to relate
jokes about Xiaoming, a random Chinese speaker of English in the USA, who
miscues English expressions and ends up in humiliating situations. Such
narratives which portray Xiaoming’s use of English as pathological send a
message to the students: the only way to spare themselves the embarrassing
situations Xiaoming experiences is to target ‘Standard English’ and to avoid
Chinglish, portrayed as a devalued, ridiculed, backward and stigmatised
variety that does not have its place beyond China’s borders.
Glenn Toh’s contribution focusses on the discomfort felt by Japanese speakers
of English for reasons stemming from Japan’s ‘Right leaning politics’ and its
socioeconomic and cultural history. The author shows that ridding the nation
of the ideological inequalities that are entwined with English is a difficult
task. For one thing, the subjectivities and post-war racialist attitudes
towards foreigners are still present. Moreover, native speakers of American
English are also revered, and the mere thought of a Japanese variety of
English is inconceivable. Nonetheless, motivated by Pennycook’s alternative
epistemologies, the author suggests that a local form of English is the
outcome of localised activities and local practices, and that it is
refashioned in Japanese art. English in Japan animates, resonates, and
enlivens local meanings and performative practices. Nonetheless, the Japanese
remain undecided about the space English should occupy and caution about
turning to English to the detriment of national unity and integrity. The
nationalist ideologies that surfaced during the post-war period and the US-led
occupation of Japan fostered the rejection of non Japaneseness, Paradoxically,
they view English as a threat to Japaneseness. Yet, they tend to have a
sacrosanct view of a dominant monolithic English which bars any inclination
toward the plurality of English. In line with the paradox, Japanese youth are
encouraged to aim for native level ability in English but are cautioned to
contain their attachment to English for fear of losing their Japanese
identity.
In her contribution, Aileen O. Salonga examines the performance of gayness as
it relates to English performance in call centres in the Philippines. Although
it would appear that homosexual men are preferred recruitees given their
willingness to index traits associated with empathy, politeness, and
cooperation, in actual fact, these qualities are not enough to get even
homosexual males past the recruitment process. What is interesting in this
industry is that the linguistic control exercised by managers at the interview
stage serves to heighten the possibility for linguistic agency, according to
the author. Even more interesting is that one finds men who are willing to
engage in a speech style that is culturally indexed as feminine. The crux of
the matter is that socioeconomic aspects must be factored into the analysis
because the Filipinos who are able to imitate the desired accent and to
perform femininity in performing their duties have graduated from the
prestigious schools, have access to native speaker accents, via cable TV, and
are able to procure for themselves printed learning resources. It is in this
sense that English functions as a gatekeeper. Needless to say, the realities
in the call centre industry are a reflection of wider societal inequalities
where only those who are endowed with the linguistic capital afforded by
economic conditions can have access to valuable assets.
Part 3 addresses the functions English plays in multilingual spaces which are
being forced to transform under the pressure of globalisation. Christina
Higgins’ contribution portrays Hawai’i as typically reflecting diglossia, à la
Fergusson, where non-official and vernacular languages are often associated
with informal, low prestige status and private spheres, alongside official
languages that occupy public spheres. In Hawai’i, coexisting with English and
Hawaiian is Hawaiian Pidgin, a language that is erroneously considered an
inferior variety of English. The inequality it endured was sustained by a
race-based stratification system, and institutions like English Standard
Schools that enrolled only speakers of non-pidgin influenced English. Today,
Hawaiian Pidgin is a marker of local identity and solidarity, and it occupies
public spaces, being used in socio-political arenas, advertisements and
signage on administrative sites. There has also been a shift from covert to
overt prestige. Moreover, the language has moved from having the status of a
mere lingua franca to one that has a more positive status, associated with
local-style and pride. According to the author, Hawaiian Pidgin has been
instrumentalised to construct authenticity ‘that is tied to politicized
concerns about the local ecology’ (p. 149). As can be seen from the
commodity-oriented documents in Higgins’ corpus, Hawaiian Pidgin is
commodified in advertisements targeting local consumers. It therefore occupies
an essential space in the local symbolic economy, authenticating local
identity, with very little regard for, if not in complete defiance of, the
pressures that tend to force globalisation and cosmopolitanism onto states.
Chapter 9, written by Lin Pan, also deals with linguistic signage. Using as
her research context the globalisation and modernisation plans carried out in
Beijing to prepare it for the 2008 Olympic Games, the author claims that
different forms of English used in commercial signs in Dashilan are the result
of an ‘unequal process of glocalization’ (p. 163). The inequality is palpable
as much in forms of English as in the way these forms are displaced. According
to Pan, Dashilan is a good example of the hybridisation that results from
globalisation, since the use of English is best analysed as having been
delocated and relocated in a new ecology, taking on new forms, functions and
values and affecting the forms, functions and values of local languages. The
use of English forms displayed in the signs advertised by the 4 shops
investigated in Dashilan falls in line with the local development plans that
seek to showcase a modernised district. For Pan, incorporating into signs
features reminiscent of English serves to daze and elude foreign tourists who
know English better than they do Chinese, given that the English used is
generally not what they may be familiar with. In this sense, English has
brought social inequality to the locality.
In Chapter 10, Catherine Chua Siew Kheng underscores Singapore’s
sociolinguistic and ethnic diversity where English, Chinese, Malay, and Tamil
are the official languages. In recognition of the Singapore’s multicultural
fabric, and to foster bilingualism, schools have instituted the English+1
policy, whereby they offer English as a first language, and a second language
which is generally a ‘mother tongue’. The policy has however paved the way for
a number of ideological frames that compartmentalise races and cultures. It
also shows a stark preference for English since all save ‘mother tongue’
examinations are conducted in English. Besides, children are exposed solely to
English at pre-school. Access to English is also unequal at home due to the
presence of Singlish and heritage languages used by maids and grand-parents to
socialise children. To iron out these imbalances, families invest in extra
private tuition in English. Paradoxically, despite reflecting the state’s
multiracial, multicultural and multilingual realities and thus Singaporean
identity, Singlish is the subject of hostile attacks by the authorities who
argue that it impedes the ability to learn standard English. The author
observes that globalisation, changing trends in migration, and intermarriages
would require Singaporean residents to learn not only English, but also
Singlish. Yet, this parameter is neglected in the education policy.
The chapters in the final part explore the notion of inequalities of English
as it pertains to TESOL and to teacher training, teaching resources and
pedagogical practices in general. In Chapter 11, Vaidehi Ramanathan adopts a
postcolonial perspective to explore the degree of English vernacularisation in
postcolonial contexts despite efforts, on the part of the authorities, to
separate English from local languages, and ultimately the effectiveness of
vernacular pedagogical practices in learning and teaching English. The Raj’s
divide and rule policy, devised by the colonial government to treat Indians
differently – and to keep locals in subservient positions – is based on
government classification of individuals along the dichotomies Christian /
Heathen and English / Foreign, and subsequently depends on ethnicities, skin
complexion, language and religion. The idea of linguistic apartheid is
applicable here. In deciding that a small number of Indians would be given
access to English to help the British in their governance, the colonial
government endowed these Indians with ‘symbolic power’ and ‘cultural capital’
over those who were educated in the vernacular. The article addresses the
implications for the teaching and practice of English in Gujarati-medium
settings and for TESOL teaching worldwide. It is shown that teachers of
English actively partake in the vernacularisation of English by drawing on
vernacular resources to make western concepts and forms of language more
accessible to learners of English, thus contesting the divide and rule policy,
and breaking down the inequalities.
In Chapter 12, Phan Le Ha focusses on the consequences of internationalising
English education at the tertiary level, and the implications for offering
international interaction in English-medium programmes. She then measures
these against the perceptions and expectations of students who travel abroad
to attend English-medium universities. The study reveals that Asian students
attending an Australian university in Malaysia expect to be ideally prepared
for communicating with native speakers of English, whom they regard as the
legitimate guardians of the linguistic norms and cultural values of ‘Inner
Circle’ English-speaking countries. These perceptions of native speakers as
arbiters bring to the fore the ideologies and myths about native speaker
superiority and legitimacy, and confirm the unequal statuses of English
speakers. The study shows that, because they pay huge sums of money for
tuition, the students expect to interact mostly, if not exclusively, with
English native speaker teachers and classmates, in addition to having tuition
in English provided solely by native speakers. However, while they would
embrace these opportunities, the students would rather choose which western
values, practices and modes of critical thinking they should be exposed to, to
ensure that they remain within their comfort zone. By holding on to these
imaginary constructs, the students deny themselves what could turn out to be
enriching intercultural experiences.
In the final chapter, Ian Martin and Brian Morgan present the evolution and
structure of the programme dubbed the Diploma of Teaching English as an
International Language at the Glendon College in Canada. During this
undergraduate programme, which aims to train prospective English teachers,
candidates are required to do a 3-week international practicum at the E. A.
Varona Higher Pedagogical University in Cuba. On arrival in Havana, the
Canada-based students are required to carry out observations in
English-learning classrooms under the supervision of Cuban English teachers
who serve as their mentors. According to the authors, the structure and
content of the BA Honours programme allow the students to develop a critical
perspective and to debunk such entrenched constructs as native speaker
superiority and mother tongue prestige. This augurs well for repositioning
Englishes and accents of Englishes not in terms of which is better and more
prestigious but in terms of the ‘personal preferences’ of those who are
brought to practise them.
EVALUATION
The volume engages its readers to consider and weigh the challenges faced by a
wide range of users of English in their everyday lives, in their workplaces,
education or social lives. The countries serving as the background for study –
where English is an official language – are all ‘de jure’ multilingual states
(Hawai’i, India, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia). In the case of the
other studies, English is not typically a medium of instruction (South Korea,
Cuba, Japan, China). This quick overview reveals that the major focus is on
Asian countries. The chapter focussing on Cuba stands out as a loner. One
cannot help but wonder if this penchant for Asia was an editorial imperative.
While the studies cover a diverse array of subtopics, the lack of contextual
diversity is unfortunate. For instance, studies on English-speaking Africa and
the Caribbean are conspicuously absent. Disappointing too is the failure to
appreciate Schneider’s (2007) dynamic model in the theoretical approaches to
unequal Englishes, inasmuch as Schneider’s volume deals extensively with the
sociolinguistic outcomes emerging from the transplantation of languages during
the colonial epochs, and involves some of the very same spaces investigated
here.
The editors have succeeded in making the volume cohesive and well-balanced,
having aptly divided the contributions into 4 subthemes that interconnect
subtly with the title of the volume. Only on rare occasions does one lose
track of the central theme to the point of questioning whether we are in fact
dealing with the hierarchisation of Englishes or inequalities with respect to
individuals’ access to English (Chapters 8 & 11). That being said, even those
chapters give a good sense of how vernaculars play out alongside English.
Although notions like standard and native-speaker English continue to
flourish, one cannot help but agree with the idea that these are myths
(Lippi-Green 1997: 44), abstract, artificial, and “impersonal and anonymous
like the official uses [they have] to serve” (Bourdieu 1991: 48). Overall, the
chapters entreat the readership to adopt a more balanced appreciation of
language varieties, be they English-influenced or in contact with English, and
to work towards deconstructing these hard-and-fast ideologies. “Unequal
Englishes” joins the already rich array of literature on the politics of
Englishes in postcolonial settings to provide valuable research data for
teachers of English in multicultural spaces, but also for TESOL professionals
and students, and for those interested in postcolonial studies.
REFERENCES
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and symbolic power, trs. Gino Raymond and
Matthew Adamson. MA: Harvard University Press.
Lippi-Green, Rosina. 1997. English with an accent. Language, ideology, and
discrimination in the United States. London & NY: Routledge.
Schneider, Edgar. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world.
Cambridge: CUP.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Paula Prescod, previously an ESL and EFL teacher in the Caribbean and in
France, moved on to the positions of Part-time lecturer in English linguistics
at the Universität Bielefeld and Associate Professor of French pedagogy and
linguistics at the Université de Picardie Jules Verne. Her research interests
are the linguistic description and sociolinguistic phenomena of Caribbean
English-based creoles, and Applied linguistics. Her most recent publication is
''Language issues in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines'' (ed., VEAW, John
Benjamins, 2015).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***************** LINGUIST List Support *****************
Fund Drive 2016
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
This year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $79,000. This money
will go to help keep the List running by supporting all of our
Student Editors for the coming year.
Don't forget to check out Fund Drive 2016 site!
http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/
For all information on donating, including information on how to
donate by check, money order, PayPal or wire transfer, please visit:
http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
The LINGUIST List is under the umbrella of Indiana University and
as such can receive donations through Indiana University Foundation. We
also collect donations via eLinguistics Foundation, a registered 501(c)
Non Profit organization with the federal tax number 45-4211155. Either
way, the donations can be offset against your federal and sometimes your
state tax return (U.S. tax payers only). For more information visit the
IRS Web-Site, or contact your financial advisor.
Many companies also offer a gift matching program, such that
they will match any gift you make to a non-profit organization.
Normally this entails your contacting your human resources department
and sending us a form that the Indiana University Foundation fills in
and returns to your employer. This is generally a simple administrative
procedure that doubles the value of your gift to LINGUIST, without
costing you an extra penny. Please take a moment to check if
your company operates such a program.
Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!
----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-27-2435
----------------------------------------------------------