pa be Rand ts Qtoe eee a Se ie Gates Ra mn Seaslesreiane saves. 7060122 Inoifs como LINGUA ESTRANGEIRA: IDENTIDADE, PRATICAS E TEXTUALIDADE EnGLisi 48 A FOREIGN LANGUAGE: IDENTITY, PRAOTIORS AND TEXTUALITYCort 2001 Homann FFLCHUSPe Epa pride reproduc pac ep sent ataranio pa eres ‘rman Mrinergitin~ Su ura SRLENSe 2008, le ENPUL, etd na nn PLEAS? oD ton ado anata Commas date Cove Wiking nro — een 0 Rages Ss Com i rgmindonee Sane Reto Preficlo Preface ne -agradectmentoo. “Acknowledgements Parte I~Basine de linguas estrangelras: Part1~Foreign language teaching: theoretical reflections (On he ntact un in EFL echrg ‘kanavilil Rajagopalan 2 ‘ransdscpioart tnthe teak of English a8 foreign tanguage ‘Maria Antonieta Alba Celant ‘theory constndtion in secon language acqustion research "kevin John Keys. terry eatin, eet pedagogy ane ory Clarissa Menezes Jordao « Who's aad of stylists? ‘Sonia Zyl ‘Parte 1 - Questdes de identidade ‘Part I~ Questions on Udentity [BUT classroom as an arena for entity cashes Kanavill Raagopaa de gener. entade no sarod mia "Viviane Heber ‘As esos de nguas ec dsereo publ: strut 0 deseo da ingua estrangara “Ana Maria ©, Caraga soELT cLassnoom AS AN ARENA FOR IDENTITY CLASHING Kana Rego Inher interesting review of Alastatr Pennycook's wily land cowardice’ that has, by the way. just come out [Ragopalan, 1990a), noting that itis indestve ofa ris of onselence currently sweeping across the English languast teaching community all over the world Indeed, highly symp- fomatie ofthe profound sense of unease caused by books ike the one by Pennyeook just referred to, and hs more recent nosh and the discourses of elotalism (Pennyeook, 1998). fas well as such earller, equally disturbing block-buster tes fhuch as Philipson's Linguist imperaism (Pilipson. 1992) Ia tecent remark by a student of mine, berselfan EFL teacher, ‘to the effect that sie would rather net read these books any more, s0 38 to fel free to go about her daly business without shy remoree and gully consclence, nthe paper Just men toned. I have looked into the whys and wherefores of th guile complex and argued that a good deal of it ilsgulded and totally out of proportions, and what is ev “orve, based on premises that no longer had good in ur con emporary world, marked by vantsbing cultural frontiers and shifting tlentiies. (The point i, no doubt, highly polemical. fis evidenced by the subsequent debate ~ ef. Canagaraja, 10002: Rajagopalan, 19990). 1+ Unversdade Estadual de Campinas.= —~— 0 oun Rawoenan iy way of making a frst approximation tothe tople 1 have chosen for this tet wi. the elash of identities in the ELE asscoom, I want to take up Helborows eplgmmatie~ oF, ‘maybe, “enlgmnatie" ea better word here remark once aga und proceed to unpack t somewhat more systematically. Now, {o begin with, it ems to me that there are atleast to Ways ‘psig this sentenee open. Itall depends om how you log ‘ally parse ts syntax Ist tobe read a saying that something has happened fo the teaching of Engh In recent tes so that Iso longer possible to view as simply a special ease ‘of language teaching? Or does the auxhor mean to say that the English language itself has undergone such profaind ‘changes that one ean no longer treats being on par with ‘other languages (or, simply put, English fs no lange a ‘guage in the ordinary, familar sense ofthe word) T shall at ‘empt to pursue both these possiiies although {night add here that, judging by the context in which her remark ap pears, Holborow sees more likely to have ad in mind the rst ofthe ee alternatives (Chances iv OUR ATTITUDES TO LANGUAGE TEACHING ‘There can be no doubt that English language teaching has undergone rapid changes ove the past ew decades, Many of diese changes have taken place in dfect response to changes {alung place tn theoretialIingulsties which invariably called ‘he sbots unt very recently (and probably stil does, though ‘warty would hasten to deny this emphatiealy) A time there ws, a8 many of us might sill remember, when the teaching of English mostly consisted in dels and patter practices well tery parrot repetitions, designe to make the st ‘hn ‘conditions to react to external stn in as mechan ‘al ai automatic a manner 2s posible, just aa ~ a i was Illoved =the native speakers do. This period af what we might ‘lhe “robotelsation ofthe language leaner” soon gave way 4o the revolutionary ideas of the Chomslgana who shocked ‘shicallolats and language teachers with the claim thatthe ‘live speakers of a language didnot learn thelr language: ‘hey amply dequired Or, rather, the language in question ‘a srjeringexpertence. tn principle, every uma chil orn with the capacity fo aequire any Tanguage. because Is Drain is equipped with a master programme called ‘ersal Grammar’, The logical conclusion from there on was hat ithe aim wos stil to transform EFL learners into near hatives, then ft was not eonitning and abt formation re fmmended by the behaviourist that was going todo the Jo, ‘Mhe Immediate and most visble change that resulted fom {his paradigm shift was that what Ihave elsewhere referred to the apotheosis othe naive n contemporary linguists el. jagopalan, 1997; 228) ~a dramatie change indeed from the ier days offi Iingustes when the natives were Tooked ‘as the living specimens ofthe Noble Savage If the Chomslgan native was touted as the be-all and all of everything there wae fo knowing a language and the absalute reference point in all (foreign language ching, he Hymsean counter revolution wih is rallying ery commuineative competence” impressed upon us that Ia st the nav, ut the native plus his native etreumstances ‘manner reminiscent of the Spanish pllosopher Ortega y 0. There followed a heel period of intense search for thentic material and atlempls to re-create a language lear” environment as close to the natives real ereumstances 2 sible. Getting it stalght from the horse's mouth was stl order ofthe day, but there was the adlidonal requirement ‘he wor had toe fully appropriate to the contexts (sa. stable) in which a native Would concetvably use ther. ing and haveing n the forelgn language became just ant a being able to talk about the pros and cons of alisation or the dangers of a nuclear flare-up in South Te teal language Iearmer was the one who could pass ‘native. “The inevitable backlash to allthis glorification of au fentety and all the rest was also just around the corner here was a growing perezption that net only was the teach Ingo -authentie" language behaviour not paying the dividends fvginally promlsed, but that many'of ts consequences Were ‘petually detrimental to acquisition by the fren learner ofa— ‘ owas Rao ‘oasonable mastery of he target language. leven suspect that ‘overemphasis on humming and having efetvely induced the ‘unsuspecting learners to acquire unnecessary verbal ties and, ‘w some eases, actually encouraged stuttering and mambling in the name of aulhentiety. mind you! The reaction eae ‘sa pendulum swing to the opposite extreme of folding that ‘as afterall nice fr the forelgn language learner to sound ‘oreign~to retain thereby some of his ot her essential frei ness. What Is most striking about these frequent winds of ‘change in our attitude to foregn langage teaching ts that hardly anyone realised that some ofthese ideas were under witen by surreptitious ideoioglcal agendas, ‘But al this, someone might protest, sold hat. After il ‘any introductory book on English tanguage teaching wil tll, you a story with roughly the same plot as sketched above. But {his only goes to prove the point made earlier, vi. that wih Tare exceptions, all major changes in language teaching prac ‘ees have so fr been erect responses to iaiportant paradigms shifts tn theoretical ngulsties (Cf Rajagopalan, 199%). What Interests me at this moment is, however what has been hap pening tothe English language itself ever since it spilled over {o the four comers ofthe world, becoming as result no longer ‘confined to good old Albion ~ the "preious gem set in the slver seas". The eal importance of Holborows remark that teaching English is no longer simply teaching language les think, not so mach inthe lac that our attitudes fo language teaching have changed but in the largely unrecognised fact ‘atthe very status of English language has changed! ae cent years. As I shall contend bow, what is referred to as ‘World English, isa ngustic phenomenon the Like of whieh the world had never seen belore and for an adequate deserip Won of which our steck-in-irade concepts and categories ae roving to be thoroughly inadequate aid out of date (Chinnor IN THe WaY We CONCEPTUALISE LANGUAGE four attitude to language teaching in general, and for- guage teaching in pardeular, has undergone sign changes n the past few decades, no less spectacla have the changes taking place inthe way we eonceptaloe language, espectalty inthe context ofthe breath-taknal api developments in the end-ofthemillennium global scent ‘Ours san age of erumbling barra, be they mercantile, ec otal, Informational, cultaral, oF even lings. Never be fore in the history of mankind has the idea af a global village foemed so near to becoming s realy ‘The English language or what we today refer to as the ‘World Enlist is a test-case which i straining to the tmost ur inherited wisdom as to what a language is all about. To fppreeate this point, ii important to take note, ist of al, Of the fact that most of our thinking about language (and this applies to the professional linguist just a much as It floes tothe man tn the sted is very much what it used to be In the 19 century. As Hutton (1896) has aptly remarked, lngutsties isthe most 19" century of the disetpines taught ‘nour universities today. Recall that 10" century was the peviod when slogans like "One language, one eulture, one Ination” seemed to many to be straightforward descriptions fof things as they really were. That was a century Whose Za feist waa echoed by Vossler when he waxed eloquent about the “Spint of Language” (ef. Vossler, 1952). "A language.” pondered Vossler(1952:110), "is defended more obstinately the more alive the feling and the clearer the consciousness that iis a matter of preserving one's tribal, racial ad 8- tlonal characterises." Writing at about the same Ume as Yosser. Robert Bridges, Poet Laureate and founder of the "Society for Pure English”, was to lament the tendency of he Brafish language which was. in his ew, "growiing) out of fouch” with its great literary tradition. And Bridges (1925/1969): 88) went on to speculate: “Te danger Is much tccensed by the widespend find haphcard ditoution of English sealers il fer the word exposed Yo all manner of ulate ‘vironment, ould at that nether ngage am ever have had its ental fore 0 diated fd even ths does no exhatst the scription of ‘ur spec pet because theres ure thistno inotos conden, namely, a wherever ‘trcountrymen ae sted abroad tere ar a Sic often comunties orphan ace, Ste taining among hemes thera Speen eam emai aur o mutate ae ‘Mhtehng among tears at Kinds of under ing, eomipiena trough habitual nee (08 throne de eahbourng Ens By way of stration, Bridges offered the phrase th old ‘Laxly may be trusted totale care of herself whic he had come fcrose in the New York Times. And Bridges was convinced that such aberrations from standard English would have a disastrous consequence “Dil whatever sort of speech mgt naturally arise is extremely unikely that the unknown ac ‘ldental inguistic profs would oulbalance the ealeulable lose'YBrides, 192541909) 88. Of course, nether Vesler nor Bridges lived long enough ‘to.sce the dramatic changes that were oon to take place all ‘over the terrestrial globe, Had they ad a foretaste of things to ‘come, they would probably have thrown up their arms in sheer flespair and total inability to come to terms withthe steady Aistpation of identities that seemed stable and given once ‘and forall. Both Vossler and Bridges would have been at a Joss to comprehend the linguistic phenomenon called World nish WB}, means ofeammuntcaton across the globe that emerged in the wake of Worl War Il Not the least important famong the distinguishing features of this amazing phenom ‘con fs the fae that more than tw thirds of ose who regu larly use WE as part of their day-to-day fe do not ofally ‘quail “native speakers" when judged bythe eritriastipu~ Tated by professional linguist. Perhaps the lesson tobe learned from this is that the very concept of native speakers hopelessly inadequate or, Ws knows, anaehronistie ~ when i eomes to deserbng pro- “ilenty in WE, as opposed to the good old English language in whlch Spencer besoeched the Thames to run sof tile ended Jno son ad Shakespeare managed to hide from his audi- ‘oo Ue embarrassing fet that he knew lite atin and ess (Rajagopalan, 1997), What makes WE so diferent from fn. Arable, Greck, Sanskrit snd so on. all af which, one or another in the past, served funetionally comps ble roles, is that ifs nobody's mother-tongue. Or perhaps ‘One should be saying. WE belongs to everyone who uses i hore or less regularly. The speakers of WE ace marked by What Bhabha (1900: 291) has ealled “the uncanny fluency of Mother's language. Widdowson (1984: 885) has elated that ‘hnntemalional language has tobe an independent langage lies mine), by which he meant, 1 think, that tn order to fil ts funcion aa-alingva franca, it ean no Tonger be the ‘of any single nation, race, oF whatever. Widdows nto recall the following Words ofthe Nigerian writer yom Acie: Yet hens Lngige wl beable to carry the lech om Alea experene. Butt wl hate to Dea new Engh ell fall communion wih Shattral fume but sltre to sus new Aes ‘eroundingy: Ace, 1968: 225) “The only saagin the argument outlined above thin ‘dhe implication of an emergent homogenety. a uniformity ftrons the board that is seeuted bythe centripetal free excr- ‘teed by the “ancestral home", The implication in question = filly understandable and may be traced back othe quest for ‘ageatnely universal language. As I shall angue below. WE is et understood within an agonist conception of language fn communication. [BLT ax tie 1SSUES oF IDENTITY So Holborow did hit the nail on the head when she aimed that teaching English $s no longer simply a special (ese of teaching a language to someone other than a speaker (tat language or for that matter sameone whois already fpeaker of the language but wants to step up his or ber prof Ceney int by acquiring one af ts more prestigious varletenRavana Rowers 0 lo we o rom here? 1 dnk the greatest challenge before ll of us involved inthis great World-wide enterprise of yor rather “alssemnating ith ll he Deridean ver lays of meaning that this worl has aquired thanks to Bhabha) Repeat at oe eer bang ae Pelagogleal or linguist (or, for that matter bot) ‘onvetlon that a proper answer to the problems of under ‘landing the role of lish inthe world today a8 wel the ‘callenges involved in teaching it can only be frtheoming i ‘we decide to approach the phenomenon of WE as a sacio-po- Itcal phenomenon ofa sort unprecedented in history. ‘Asa socio-political phenomenon sil inthe making, WE, {sa site where identies ofall orta are constantly being nego” tiated and re-negotited. What we have to get used to i the ‘dea of dealing with unstable ents, dene thats, whose defining traits, soto speak, thelr permanent stabi. That ts what brings to the fore their eminent pollteal nature. As ‘we contemplate the phenomenon of WE, one thing tnt Is be- ‘coming increasingly clear i that we are no longer inthe realm of Identites conceived in the Aristotelian lola! tradition of ‘either/or’ but identities that shift eontinwally, with people happy to slip back and forts from one dently to another, The personality ofa typical WE speaker is epitomised by Woody ‘Allen’ “Zell, the prototype of the eternal migrant. the prod tut of post-colonial diaspora If we have enormous difealty| tn coming to terms wath these transient identities, part of the ‘explanation atleast has to do withthe fat that we are si ‘mostly working with coneepts and categorie inherited from a bygone age, where the prevailing political ellmate was Javourable to conjuring up strong snd clealy defined Ident tes even where there were ote. I the absence of discrete and stable Mentites is what ‘marks our end-ofche-millennum cultural scenario, it only sands treason that the way we conceptualise language must reflect che rapid changes already underway. Language i, af ter all, amongst the most important cultural attributes of ‘peoples and nations ~ or whatever Is sil lef ofthese raply| ‘isappearing entities tn an ierensingly globalised word, BY the same token, language teaching cannot remain immune to YF Coon 8 ER oR ee ss co changes elther. Specialists tn teaching ~ and, in par lar the teaching of WE—wil henceforth, ned to ak nto fonsideration the tmportant fact that language teaching i, fer and above everything ese, a matter of negotiating ident thes ef Cansagarajah, 19996). And, to be sure diferent socal fan cuitural environments wl call for diferent strategies when Htcomes to dealing with the question of negotiating new Ken Iles in te foe of contact with alien tongues. As a mater of ict this was forescen as early a 1970s, when Kachr (1976) ade a forceful ple agaist the unWversal application of peda- gical models which, n hi sew, needed tobe appropriately Ahvied to su the sock political, educational and comm Ineative needs In many countries of he Britsh Commonwealth, ‘here Is growing evidence of the emergence of local varieties ‘nn standards (MeArthur, 1998). Sahgal (1991:805) angus, for instance, that "English is part of the eultural Kenly of Ini ELT cassnoom aNb THE NEED TO NEGOTIATE IDENTITIES ‘As seen inthe foregoing section, ours is clearly an age of constanly shifting identities, Ineseapably this alls for the [adoption of novel strategies in forelgn langage teaching. ‘As Slatoabb-Kangas (1991: 300) has observed. ‘hen tently ts seen a stable character ofa yen, that person be fo be stad. When 1 [Scnnschangg uh again, butt ha terete fn te pope who do the negating bath ‘Gese people lr imtanee mise member ee ‘naj seuber are tobe ste. But when ene ‘Genutyescen sta rlton not characters. the ‘cuullons for negotiation become a tof ‘Sin. adaluon to the prone negating What Shutnabb-Kangas Is urging 8, inn, that we ‘deflect our attention from the lingutsties and the pelo of language teaching to the poites of communication acrows it———e—t”~S 7 Kaman Rasen ‘uit barriers. Languages are not fats ofthe matter as they ‘were unquestioningy and somewhat nalvey though tobe ul fatrly recently. They are, f anything, Nags of allegiance (, Rajagopalan, 19990) In other words, one's inguin tdentiy and the related issue of language leyalty can only be under stood properly tf we approach ther issues shot through ‘with political implietions It follows that, Insofar a a good ‘deal ofwhat goes on in a foreign language classroom sa highly ‘complex exereise in the renegelation ofthe lentes of every ‘one involved inthe process. foreign} language teaching mst ‘bescen as rst and loremosta political matter, The BFL cass rooms thus an arena where what we should (pleally expect {sa clash of klentities. If fr along time this fundamental point cluded the attention ofthe specialists It s because we ‘were mostly working witha rather romanie notion of comm Ileation, where the partleipants Lally seek to cooperate with fone another by wilfully adopting the rules ofthe game and feting according to the dictates of “ogi of conversation" Unfortunately, such an idealised view of eammnieaton ca at best be shown fo reflect what goes on in an Weal word or ‘raining eamp for Boy Scouts. The reality ofan EFL classroorn |S. farcry from any such kylie peture. To miss this impor. lant point isto miss out on an tmportant realisation that Is slowly ~ albeit belatedly ~ beginning to dawm on a growing umber of scholars whe work in the ares of BFL, ‘Noe: Ts ext was prepare fom noes sed or a plenary tl under the sume tite deivred atthe XV ENPULI had USP, Sto Paulo, frum 10h to 2ne July 1000 Many ofthe Kens contain in tis per were orga dewlped as part of «mone sbiows recarch yee hanced by the CN eee 8. 30615185.) Rereieenees. ACHE, ©. (1068) English and the ASan writer, Transition opi 18 eprint as an Append to MAZRUT AA (1073) he pre wig a the Est tanguage. Haque: Mout, HA (2900) Discmiation: time, narrative a he ma [ins ef the raader nation tn: BHABHA, H. (el) Nation and eran, London Rowe. p- 291-823 RIDGES. 125 19550 Te soe wrk Soy os hat Tract X4, Reprinted BOLTON. W. : CHESTAL. D.C). {lacs The Egish anguage Val 2. Bosay by lng ancl ‘eters Cambetige: CUP p. 56-9. CCANAGATAAJAH, 8. A.(19008) On EFL teachers, awareness, and saency. ELT Joura ET 19000) Resisting tngutictmperitsm 0 English ein, Geir: OUP. HOLBORON, Bf. (1996) Review of Me cute pots af Bs as nl language yA Pennyenle EL Jour 9072. HUFTON, C. (1996) Law lessons for Ungulsts? Accountable as of profestnalcastienton. Language and Conant, 19/3. p. 205-14 KACHRU., (1976 dels fEnga othe hd wo white mas ingle burden rlangnge agate? TESOL Quarter, 10.2. parse DMeABTHUR, 7. (1998) Te Eagle arguages,Cambetdge: CUP. PENACOOK. A. (1006) Meet pots of Elisha an ere tha language: London: Langa PMC 90) Engh and the discourses of cloilism. Landon Poulletge. PHILLIPSON. (1002) Lnqutcinpriatane Oxford: Oxford Un "ery Fess AJAGOPALAN,K. (1997 Linguistics andthe myth of ats: on Sita on te eontrnery ee nemo Ege, Jou flop agmaten 27, p 22591 oe) OF EFL teacher, conscience and cowardice. BLT Jour Ti 5). I (000 A cavest or two on auareness and ages: resnonse To Canaghrss BLT Jorma 513. _ Node) Ting ip emis the dn of sorta not Teh but of Kent eri in apple gues eae uma of Apple ings. 9.1. P 9-119. [SAHGAL, A (801) Language uso @ igual setting in ‘CHESS, J. (ed) HOON Bets eeu de wer Ca Cupp 206.307 SSKUINABD RANGAS, (1991) Bicltural competence i ta geno gota ce enti: PHLIFSON Reet i)- eve Renan tet ey men mar eet at ‘ual Matters. p. 307-32. 7 wt ln fr te i arya tees fener Eahainnmes seaeeeriae Sona ng. mm on ae ‘erly, 28 (2), p. 377-80. - (QuustOas Ds GENERO B IDENTIDADE Wo DISCURSO DA MIDIA aseplinas com cos teitrios ela entra em con- nelvindo Lingdstca, Sociolingdistica, Andlise do Dis- "Seinibica, Estudos da Comunieacio, Sociologia Pst fologia (Gel, 91:8, minha tndugho", Quests de discurso, mia Mdentiade vem merecen- Ao ateneto na ea de Anllae Critica do Discurso (ACD). Pes- ‘como Fairclough 2006), Caldas-Coulthard (1996) Work (1957) e outros yém desenvoivendo estdos de fen menos dacursivos em elagao a questees de Lologa, poder © ‘press em diferentes contexts historeose scio-calturas Para ansitstas eriticos do dlseurs, cada texto revelae cons {ot teagosidenttiron des paritpantes da interacio. A in fiuagem rlaciona-se com az identidades socal, pols pes ‘Sons falam, eserevem, ouvense lem de maneirasoetalmente Alclerminade. como lntegrantes de determinadas comunids fles,categorias socials, grupos expeciios,profisdes, organi lgagdes,socedades ow culturas (ran Dik, 1998: Factor, “709; Kreso, 1989). Em sua teoria social do discurso, Fair oui (199% 1995: 1905), por exemplo, enfatizn que a lin Jpingem engloba nio somente aspectas pragmatics, funclo Fis da tnguagem evdencindos pelos estdos de extos¢ sas Teopoctvas ocorrencis lingbistieas, mas também perspect 1 npr Feder! de Santa Cat, 1 ate abba cages em ges frm wadsas por min