English Language Teaching in its Social Context
English Language Teaching in its Social Context
English Language Teaching in its Social Context
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
of116 CELIA ROBERTSassumed that someone of South Asian background was unlikely to speak <strong>English</strong> and theevidence to the contrary did not appear to dent the supervisor’s certa<strong>in</strong>ty that here wasanother non-<strong>English</strong> speaker. We could speculate on the outcomes of such an encounter andthe possible tensions set up for the <strong>in</strong>dividual m<strong>in</strong>ority worker who both needs to becomea participat<strong>in</strong>g member of a new community but who is <strong>in</strong>sult<strong>in</strong>gly positioned by a memberof that community as a non-<strong>English</strong> speakcr.The second set of discourses stem from the British-based Cultural Studies and, <strong>in</strong>particular, Hall’s (1988) notion of ‘new ethnicities’ and what Hewitt (1986) has called ‘localmultiracial vernaculars’. Recent research has shown the destabilisation of <strong>in</strong>heritedethnicities and the emergence of new ethnol<strong>in</strong>guistic identities which challenge theorthodox essentialist ideas of language and race (Gilroy, 1987; Hewitt, 1986; Rampton,1995a). This second set of discourses suggest that the process of second language socialisationis not a straightforward case of becom<strong>in</strong>g communicatively competent with<strong>in</strong> a fixedsociocultural group. It is rather a hybrid process of both learn<strong>in</strong>g to belong and yet rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>gapart ~ hav<strong>in</strong>g several social identities and affiliations to several languages (Pierce, 1995).And this <strong>in</strong> turn has an impact on the wider social formations which themselves determ<strong>in</strong>ewhat socialisation means.<strong>Context</strong>ualisation and wider social processesThe l<strong>in</strong>k between SLS and these wider social processes is well illustrated <strong>in</strong> Gumperz’sstudies and their recent formulation <strong>in</strong> Eermans et al. (1 997). As Lev<strong>in</strong>son (1 997) <strong>in</strong> thesame volume asserts:it is the large-scale sociological effects of multitudes of small-scale <strong>in</strong>teractions thatstill partially fuels his (Gumperz’s) preoccupations with conversations, most evidentperhaps <strong>in</strong> his concern with thc plight of the <strong>in</strong>dividual caught up <strong>in</strong> these large-scaleforces. (p. 24)Lev<strong>in</strong>son captures here many of the elements central to a redef<strong>in</strong>ition of second languageacquisition as a social phenomenon. The focus on the micro - the f<strong>in</strong>e-gra<strong>in</strong>ed detail ofconversations ~ is l<strong>in</strong>ked to the macro - the wider social processes where social networks,identities and relationships are structured and restructured. What is significant for aredef<strong>in</strong>ition of SLA as part of this is the fact, as Gumperz asserts, that <strong>in</strong>dividuals are ‘caughtup <strong>in</strong> these large-scale forces’. So every encounter where there are language differences isboth an opportunity for language socialisation but also a site where identities andrelationships are played out through the dom<strong>in</strong>ant discourses of language and ethnicity,albeit with<strong>in</strong> a conventionally respectful <strong>in</strong>terpersonal framework. And this may be whyLev<strong>in</strong>son talks of the ‘plight’ of <strong>in</strong>dividuals s<strong>in</strong>ce the k<strong>in</strong>d of <strong>in</strong>tercultural <strong>in</strong>teractions thatrout<strong>in</strong>ely occur <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>stitutional sett<strong>in</strong>gs are unequal encounters.Gumperz’s concern with the l<strong>in</strong>guistic dimension of social action shows how aspectsof l<strong>in</strong>guistic signall<strong>in</strong>g and cultural and social background knowledge work together toproduce communicative <strong>in</strong>volvement (or not) and outcomes at both <strong>in</strong>dividual and societallevels. His focus, therefore, <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e with the discussion above is on communicative practice.In order to analysc these practices, Gumper7 draws on an eclectic bag of tools and, asLev<strong>in</strong>son ( 1997) suggests, there is none of the theoretical cleanl<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>in</strong> his approach whichcan be found <strong>in</strong> Conversation Analysis. Gumpcrz draws on pragmatic notions <strong>in</strong> his<strong>in</strong>terpretive procedures but as part of a wider sociological <strong>in</strong>terest. Similarly, he has beenmuch <strong>in</strong>fluenced by Conversation Analysis. Like CA his analysis focuses on members’