During our class today we discussed the debate between Braj Kachru and Randolph Quirk concerning the legitimacy of English varieties. While I'm in favor of linguistic varieties and I do not believe that everything that deviates from the "native standard" is an error, I understand Quirk's position on how not having a standard may disadvantage the already disadvantaged. A lack of proficiency in "standard" English may limit ones access depending on ones purpose or motivation for learning and using English.
I think as future scholars it is important to focus on finding practical measures to put theory into practice. Kachru's liberation linguistics that encourage pluralistic standards are ideal and ensure more equity, but what model (boundaries) will educators use to measure their students proficieny? Some scholars (e.g. Hymes) suggest measuring competency, but will everyone judge competency in the same manner? For example, if I understand what a student means and pass him/her along, will a future employer have the same amount of tolerance? Are we doing a diservice to our students but encouraging a liberation linguistics without considering the ramifications of using a local variety?
Leslie, I really liked your critical thoughts about WE debate. The concerns that you raised in the last paragraph are legitimate and address the core of the problem. However, don't you think that if we discouraged liberation linguistics and continued with the monolithic view of English, we would contribute to the blurring of the reality of today's English? I don't think teaching English within WE perspective entails us to teach one local variety. If we do so, I believe, we could promote the taught local variety over other varieties of English. WE perspective, as I understand it, requires not only to tolerate the different varieties of English, but also to expose our students to these varieties along the prevalent Standard inner circle English. After all, it is up to the students to choose the variety they want to use and our role would be to bring to their attention the associated ramifications, if any.
ReplyDeleteHey Leslie,
ReplyDeleteI doubt you'll check this but I was searching this topic and your blog came up! So, I just wanted to say hi! Hi! :) 5 years ago--time flies!!
Pluricencism is a good idea of the world English. However, if all users of the language from various regions stick to their divergent varieties, at what point shall international intelligibility be attainable? I am of the opinion that a central norm should be endorsed towards which all varieties should aspire without insisting nativelike exactitude. This will bring all of us to an axis very close to the centre and by implication operating within a convergent circle.
ReplyDeleteLanguage is what the native speakers use. If we appreciate variation in English language then a time will come when original English language may not exist because number of L1 English speakers are much less than L2 English speakers. So native English language should be institutionalized to promote it. As far as the matter of proficiency is concerned, native should be allowed to visit non native countries and should teach their standard language to promote it. Otherwise it'll be their own loss.
ReplyDelete