Response to Hall’s “The Sociocultural Worlds of Learners”

I enjoyed reading Hall’s “The Sociocultural Worlds of Learners” in which he provides an overview of different research revealing the vitality and richness of the culturally and linguistically diverse worlds that learners bring with them to school. For me, the school is like a melting pot where the different cultural and linguistic worlds merge together. This reminds me the schooling days I had spent with my friends who were from different ethnic groups like Brahamin, Chettri, Baisya, and Sudra. Within these major ethnic groups, there are other multi ethnic groups. All these major or minor ethnic groups had different social, cultural, linguistic, and religious background and one could see their vitality and richness as sources of significant experiences, skills, knowledge, and beliefs. Because of our diverse social, cultural, and linguistic background, the classroom was the world of different “worlds,” the world that could represent multi ethnic groups of my community. I enriched my linguistic and cultural vision while I was studying in this linguistic and cultural diversity of learner’s world- the classroom in my school.

I do agree that there is always a significant and meaningful link or connection between the school and the community. Both are viewed as linguistically and culturally significant resources that help the learners to build their social, cultural, linguistic, and even religious background. I think that there is always a mutual connection between the community and the school. What makes me worry is what will happen if this link is disconnected due to power-relationship. As Hall says, it is possible that “the different worlds that non-mainstream learners bring with them to the class room are no longer viewed as sources of linguistic and cultural deprivation, or explained away as individual deficiencies.” This situation sometimes creates unexpected results like collapse of culture and loss of language in the long run if misunderstanding about the cultural and linguistic divergence among the learners develops. In order to run the world of diverse communities in a society, the different worlds that non-stream learners bring with them in the classroom should be viewed as linguistically and culturally significant resources. I think it is not possible to run the society according to the principles of school. Rather, I do believe that instead of trying to change learners so that they fit comfortably in traditional schooling practices, the pedagogic practices should seek to change schools so that all the learners can reflect and build on the linguistic and cultural diversity of learners’ world.

Going back to my schooling days, we did not have any homogeneous nature of communities as our community consisted of divergent ethnic groups. And so was the school. Each classroom had comprised many groups of students, with many languages and cultures. Following the traditional nature of imparting knowledge with no action or reaction from the student groups, there was no misunderstanding between the community and the school. However, the case is different now because of social change, pedagogic practices and learners’ awareness of their social and cultural position. So, this heterogeneous nature of my communities “gives rise to a number of social, economic and political issues which can only be addressed by applied linguistics and educators concerned with connecting learners’ sociocultural world to educational program” (Hall, 83).

Response to: Dialogues Around "Social Identity, Investment, and Language Learning"

Through case studies of five immigrant women in Canada, Bonny explicates how issues of inequity and social power determine when, where, and how often a learner will get an opportunity to speak. Her observations of the case studies show that motivation is not always the deterministic agent for language learning. Decisions to speak and not to speak are also dependent on the individual’s perception of personal investment. In other words, one gets motivated to learn language only according to the situation. It is situation or social context that determines the making of decision to learn language.

The story about Bonny’s participant, Martina, can be a source of inspiration for L2 students. In the story, I believe that it is the situation that compels her to stand up to her landlord when he tries to cheat her. The father and children are watching Marina when she argues on the phone, their mouth open in wonder. Interestingly, Martina uses her anger to push herself speak English to the landlord, even if she is afraid and is making a lot of mistakes. There are no options for her besides speaking English for the sake of her family as a lot of money is at stake. This incident is a turning point in her life as she now learns that it is much easier to assert her right to speak. This is the clear instance how social context or situation inspires the L2 to learn language in different culture and circumstances.

When I first read Bonny’s article “Social Identity, Investment, and Language Learning,” it inspired me to reexamine my past experiences and practices as a teacher in a college. No students dare to speak English in and outside the classroom. No motivation or inspiration can truly work to make student speak English. Though they love writing, they hesitate even to read out what they have written. I had much trouble to make my student speak English when I used to teach them. After reading Bonny’s articles, I knew that social position and seniority affected the ways my students in Nepal showed unwillingness to communicate with me. Now, what I understood through her writing is that in order to meet one’s goal and objective in language teaching, an ESL teacher should work first on creating such a situation or context that the ESL students will show their eager to respond right away.

In Nepal, I know that almost all students show just fragments of themselves in the English language classroom, but having read Bonny’s article, now I have decided that I will start different kinds of conversations with students; I will ask them if they feel they are different people when speaking English. In the halls, cafeteria, playing fields, and bookstore of college campus, the ESL teacher, I will reread the obstacle and discuss solutions if the students feel shy or humiliated to speak English. Bonny’s article, I believe, is a great source of inspiration for ESL learners and teachers to capture the complex relationship of language learners to the target language. Her argument that one can learn language with investment rather than with motivation is what really interests me.

Discussion Questions: 1) Do you agree that it is really challenging to teach English language to L2 in a multiethnic community in which the identity of a person is ruptured or changes according to the circumstances? 2) How do you solve the situation when L2 students feel shy or humiliated to speak English? Can you suggest any third option besides motivation and investment?

Response to: “On Discourse, Communication, and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA”

After reading their “On Discourse, Communication, and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA Research,” I found that there is still something to be done in SLA research as Firth and Wagner has attempted to analyze critically the predominant view of discourse and communication in SLA research. They discuss the status of some fundamental concepts in SLA, primarily nonnative speaker, (NNS), learner, and inter-language. Like them I also believe that whatever methodologies and theories are developed, they reflect an imbalance between cognitive and mentalistic orientation, and social and contextual orientation to language. SLA draws on multidisciplinary theoretical and empirical perspectives to address the specific issue of how people acquire a second language and the specific problem of why everyone does not do so successfully. No doubt, there are many important and groundbreaking findings and theories in SLA. However, the work that purports to examine nonnative/learner discourse and communication is impaired--an imbalance of theoretical concerns and methodologies.
I believe that language--as a socio-cultural phenomenon--is acquired and learned through social interaction. Active involvement is a necessary aspect of acquisition because it is through active involvement that discourse and communication become deeply charged. Learning FL is really a challenge for NNS as various factors play a significant role in this venture. In this sense, feeling of competence and difficulty are surely commonplace. What I believe is that meaning is not a private thought transferred from brain to brain. Rather, it a social and negotiable product of interaction, transcending individual intensions and behaviors. In a way, meaning is a social construct; it is negotiated. Firth and Wagner examine different manifestations of the mindset of the learner or nonnative, and finally come to the conclusion that FL learning and interaction are inherently problematic undertakings.

Finally, this article focuses on some of the existing theoretical, methodological, and conceptual problems within SLA and the ramifications of a conceptualized SLA. Loaded with heavy linguistic terms, the ideas Firth and Wagner have developed are rather vague and unclear in first reading. However, what is interesting for me in this article is that some sort of researching activities and interpretation of theoretical issues are juxtaposed together to make the points clear somewhere in the middle part of the article. Their arguments regarding the definition of language are what I concur. I also think that language is not only a cognitive phenomenon, the product of the individual brain; it is also fundamentally a social phenomenon. It is acquired through the active participation of LR (language learner) in a variety of contexts for myriad practical purposes. Now it is necessary that we have to go further analyzing the theoretical and methodological implication of SL learning so that we will redress the imbalance of perspectives and approaches within the field.

Questions for discussion: What are the major problems an NS faces while talking to an NNS? How can they conceptualize the ideas that they want to share during their communication?