Pardo Aldabaldetrecu


Published on

Multilingual education and LFE

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Pardo Aldabaldetrecu

  1. 1. Lingua Franca English, Multilingual Communities and Language Acquisition SURESH CANARAJAH Mª Maite Pardo Aldabaldetrecu
  2. 2. Questioned dichotomies by Firth and Warner(1997) <ul><li>Non native versus native speakers </li></ul><ul><li>Learner versus user. </li></ul><ul><li>Interlanguage versus target language </li></ul><ul><li>They reflect a bias towards innateness, cognition and form in language acquisition. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Research on Lingua Franca English Language learning and use succeed through Performance strategies Research on LFE affirms this questioning and also reveals that: Social negotiations Situational resources IN FLUID COMMUNICATIVE CONTEXTS
  4. 4. Dichotomies in language acquisition that need to be reexamined <ul><li>Grammar versus pragmatic </li></ul><ul><li>Determinism versus agency </li></ul><ul><li>Individual versus community </li></ul><ul><li>Purity versus hybridity </li></ul><ul><li>Fixity versus fluidity </li></ul><ul><li>Cognition versus context </li></ul><ul><li>Monolingual versus multilingual </li></ul>
  5. 5. Main points of the article written by Suresh Canagarajah <ul><li>To review studies on the acquisition and use of English as a contact language </li></ul><ul><li>To consider the implications for the dichotomized constructs in SLA </li></ul><ul><li>To review the literature on communicative practices in non-Western communities </li></ul><ul><li>To move on to outline a new integration of the SLA constructs on a practice-based model that would better accommodate the communicative processes of multilinguals </li></ul>
  6. 6. Acquiring and using Lingua Franca English <ul><li>LFE belongs to a virtual speech community </li></ul><ul><li>Speakers of LFE inhabit and practice other languages and cultures in their own immediate localities but they recognize LFE as a shared resource. </li></ul><ul><li>Multilingualism is at the heart of LFE ’s hybrid community identity and speaker proficiency </li></ul><ul><li>A radical implication of this multilingualism is that all users of LFE have native competence of LFE </li></ul><ul><li>We can not treat LFE speakers as incompetent </li></ul><ul><li>LFE is inter subjectively constructed in each specific context of interaction </li></ul><ul><li>The form of LFE is variable </li></ul>
  7. 7. Acquiring and using Lingua Franca English <ul><li>For communication to work across such radical differences given among they speakers it is important that acquisition and use go hand in hand . </li></ul><ul><li>A language based on negotiation can be developed only through and in practice </li></ul><ul><li>Because LFE is inter subjectively constructed in a situation and participation specific manner it is difficult to elicit a baseline data to assess the proficiency of LFE speakers </li></ul><ul><li>English of multilingual users is an inter language </li></ul><ul><li>LFE is not a product located in the mind of the speaker: </li></ul><ul><li>It is a form of social action </li></ul><ul><li>Language learning involves an alignment of one’s language resources to the needs of a situation </li></ul>
  8. 8. Acquiring and using Lingua Franca English <ul><li>LFE speakers must continuously work out a joint basis for their interactions, locally construing and inter subjectively ratifying meanings </li></ul><ul><li>The only cases of miscommunication House(2003) observed in her research were in the interactions of multilingual speakers with those individuals for whom English is native or sole language </li></ul><ul><li>LFE users are always conscious of the social roles they play in their contexts of contact communication </li></ul>
  9. 9. Acquiring and using Lingua Franca English <ul><li>Features of LFE: </li></ul><ul><li>Need to consider meaning as negotiated and inter subjective </li></ul><ul><li>Treat form as shaped by participants for their own purposes in each communicative activity </li></ul><ul><li>Affirm learners as capable of exerting their agency to renegotiate and overcome errors </li></ul><ul><li>Integrating learning and use </li></ul><ul><li>Provide for non learner social identities in acquisition </li></ul><ul><li>Accommodate both purposive everyday communication and nonfunctional play as equally contributing to acquisition </li></ul><ul><li>Relate to language as practice </li></ul><ul><li>Treat cognition as situated and competence as performance </li></ul><ul><li>Interpret the communication of novices in context without comparing it with NS norms or a target proficiency or treating it as an interlanguage </li></ul>
  10. 10. Language acquisition and use in multilingual communities <ul><li>Higgings (2003) found in her group experiment that multilingual students were more successful in decoding the meaning of lexical and grammatical items from new Englishes than Anglo-American students. </li></ul><ul><li>Linguistic diversity is at the heart of multilingual communities </li></ul><ul><li>Khubchandani(1997) used an indigenous metaphor, Kshetra to capture the sense of community as it could be visualized as a rainbow </li></ul><ul><li>People develop simultaneous childhood multilingualism, making it difficult to say which language comes first </li></ul><ul><li>It is clear that the linguistic pluralism has to be negotiated actively to construct meaning. In these type of communities meaning and intelligibility are intersubjective. </li></ul>
  11. 11. Language acquisition and use in multilingual communities <ul><li>Meaning does not reside in the language but produced in practice as a result, individuals in such societies acquire more synergy and serendipity and develop positive attitudes to variations in speech in the process of “coming out” from their own language-codes to a neutral ground </li></ul><ul><li>This sounds similar to Firth’s(1996) let it pass principle and Planken’s(2005) noman’s land </li></ul><ul><li>Communication in multilingual communities involves a different mind-set and practices from the mind-set and practices in monolingual communities </li></ul>
  12. 12. Language acquisition and use in multilingual communities <ul><li>Implications </li></ul><ul><li>Participants must engage with the social context and responsively orchestrate the contextual cues for alignment </li></ul><ul><li>Mutuality and reciprocity indicate the ways participants align their moves and strategies in relation to their language resources </li></ul><ul><li>Acquisition aims towards versatility and agility not mastery and control </li></ul><ul><li>In multilingual competence, grammar receives reduced significance and it is treated as always envolving and creative </li></ul><ul><li>In multilingual communities language acquisition takes place most effectively in everyday contexts </li></ul>
  13. 13. Reconstructing Disciplinary paradigms <ul><li>Dominant construct in SLA are founded on monolingual norms and practices </li></ul><ul><li>The field treats language as a thing itself, as an objective identifiable product giving importance to form and treating language as a tightly knit structure neglecting other processes and practices that always accompany communication </li></ul><ul><li>Mainstream linguistic prioritizes the homogeneity of community, competence and language structure treating it as the basic requirement that facilitates communication </li></ul><ul><li>Constructs based on monolingualism and homogeneity are well suited to communities that desire purity, exclusivity and domination </li></ul><ul><li>Acknowledging the heterogeneity of language and communication would force us to develop more democratic and egalitarian models of community and communication </li></ul>
  14. 14. Reconstructing Disciplinary paradigms <ul><li>The struggle now is to find new metaphors and constructs that would capture multilingual communication </li></ul><ul><li>A practice-based model would accommodate the realizations of LFE and multilingual competence </li></ul>
  15. 15. Reconstructing Disciplinary paradigms <ul><li>Practice-based model characteristics: </li></ul><ul><li>What brings people together are the interests to be accomplished which would permit individuals to move in and out of multiple communities </li></ul><ul><li>Communities will be contact zones where people from diverse backgrounds meet, they will work together through negotiation practices </li></ul><ul><li>People will engage actively in purpose activities of that community </li></ul><ul><li>Identities would then be based on affiliation and expertise </li></ul><ul><li>Form will be reconstructed ceaselessly to suit the interests of the participants in the manner of emergent grammar </li></ul>
  16. 16. Reconstructing Disciplinary paradigms <ul><li>Teachers have to develop in students a readiness to engage with a repertoire of codes in transnational contact situations </li></ul><ul><li>We have to train students to shuttle between communities by negotiating the relevant codes </li></ul><ul><li>We have to focus more on communicative strategies rather than on forms of communication </li></ul><ul><li>Students would develop language awareness rather than focusing only on mastering the grammar rules of a single variety </li></ul><ul><li>We have to move away from a reliance on discrete-items tests on formal grammatical competence and develop instruments that are more sensitive to performance and pragmatics (with imagination and creativity) </li></ul>
  17. 17. Conclusions <ul><li>Although Firth and Wagner (1997) argued for rectifying the imbalanced between the dichotomies that characterize SLA we are now moving toward more radical options of reframing the constructs </li></ul><ul><li>The previously ignored or suppressed constructs are now becoming the basis for a new integration or synthesis. </li></ul><ul><li>Language acquisition is based on performance strategies, purposive uses of the language and interpersonal negotiations in fluid communicative contexts. </li></ul><ul><li>The previously dominant constructs such as form, cognition and the individual are not eradicated but get redefined to adopt hybrid, variable, situational and proccesual characteristics they did not have before. </li></ul><ul><li>These are treated in a more socially embedded, internationally open and ecologically situated manner. </li></ul>
  18. 18. Conclusions <ul><li>These definitions given about language, communication and communities shape our understanding of acquisition. </li></ul><ul><li>There are both ideological and methodological implications behind the reexamination of SLA </li></ul><ul><li>As historical conditions change and when we encounter new realities brought to light partly by the critique of existing models we must construct new paradigms informed by our new knowledge </li></ul>
  19. 19. Conclusions <ul><li>It is time to : </li></ul><ul><li>revise, reformulate and refine </li></ul><ul><li>our models of acquisition </li></ul><ul><li>for the more egalitarian context of transnational relations and multilingual communication </li></ul>
  20. 20. <ul><li>That’s all for today! </li></ul> [email_address]