[lg policy] Unequal Englishes

[Harold Schiffman]

*Subject:* Unequal Englishes
E-mail this message to a friend

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).

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its
members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner or
sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal, and to write
directly to the original sender of any offensive message.  A copy of this
may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman, Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20160602/93c1c535/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list