http://nnest.blog.com/2011/04/30/suhanthie-motha/#comment-44
This was a fascinating read, thanks for posting. It connects with a few things I’ve been reading as of late, including an NPR story about bilingualism (see list of references). In fact, this NPR story includes a very similar anecdote to the one recorded by Pavlenko and retold by Motha. Another recent passage that Motha reminded me of was a book chapter, precisely by Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000, p.175), in which the authors pose a very legitimate question as to “the role of dominant linguistic ideologies in how people perceive themselves and their life stories”. As far as TESOL is concerned, the dominant linguistic ideology seems to continue to rest largely on ideas of monolingualism as the norm or unmarked condition and of the native monolingual speaker as the ideal to strive for. Bilingual speakers whose first language isn’t English are often sold on this idea, leading to self-marginalization (Kumaravadivelu 2003). Motha’s very sharp observation of the differential status in some contexts between bilingualism and English monolingualism (the latter conferring greater privilege) speaks to this notion. Last but not least, I want to highlight the promise that, according to Motha, race and empire perspectives hold for the decolonization of English language teacher education. I think that inclusion of these in teacher education programs is not only relevant but necessary. Treatment of these perspectives has to be organic and transversal though. In other words, it has to permeate the whole syllabus and the core issues need to be engaged seriously by all student teachers and their educators alike, rather than constrained to a single course or seminar. Linguistic ideologies, like all dominant ideologies, are deeply entrenched in people’s minds and it takes extended critical engagement even to begin to question them seriously. That reminded me of another article I just read, where the author (Suzuki, 2011) surveys her student teacher peers’ apparent changing beliefs over the course of a school term in which they were all enrolled in a sociolinguistics seminar with a theoretical focus on English as an International Language (EIL) and the stated objective of raising the participants’ awareness, understanding and appreciation of language variation (geographical, contextual, etc.). The participants expressed evolving notions about, and acceptance of, language variation (especially as related to accent) throughout the course. However, when asked whether they would be willing to include different (i.e. non American or British) varieties of English in their teaching, they relapsed into their old “monolingual habitus” (to use the same expression evoked by Motha), by expressing reluctance and arguing that what English language learners’ needed was “a minimum correct [model of] English” such as “American or British” (p. 150). Other adjectives used (or implied) in characterizing this variety of English included standard, mainstream and, by implication, non-accented. Suzuki’s account speaks to the need for a more in-depth and extended discussion of dominant linguistic ideology and imperialism, and of possible ways of fighting them in English language education.
References
Being Bilingual May Boost Your Brain Power (NPR News, accessed 05/01/2011
http://www.npr.org/2011/04/04/135043787/being-bilingual-may-boost-your-brain-power
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). A postmethod perspective on English language teaching. World Englishes, 22(4), 539-550.
Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and (re)construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155-177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Suzuki, A. (2011). Introducing diversity of English into ELT: student teachers’ responses. ELT Journal, 65(2), 145-153.
