April 22nd Readings

     These readings were extremely engaging. I liked the idea of a Sound House, as well as how we are constantly analyzing and "sizing up" ourselves and those with whom we speak, especially when they have an accent. I found it reassuring to read that it is very rare to find someone who learned English as second language and that has no traceable accent. It is encouraging to know that I may never have a perfect Spanish accent, and that is okay! Competence is not a synonym to accent.
     Chapter 5 of McKay's book argues that language EIL pedagogy should encourage awareness of the variation that exists in English today and recognize the validity of different varieties of English. To me, the key word here is validity. Students should not only recognize that their dialect or accent isn't the only one out there, but they must come to a sort of appreciation for others. Other dialects should not be looked upon as inferior, but rather accepted. I cringe when I hear stories of how native English speakers are rude to others who may have heavy accents. I feel that those with heavier accents should be applauded for their efforts and confidence to learn another language. If we were all given text in Swahili and told to read it, I think this would humble us and help us appreciate the linguistic efforts of others.
     Macroacquisition is the process of second language acquisition by speech communities in their own local context. We are seeing a growing number of standardized varieties of English in both Kachru's Outer AND Expanding Circles! I find the hybridization of languages very interesting. I also find the idea of a post-creole continuum interesting. This is where creole speakers shift towards the source language, resulting in a range of intermediate varieties. Through hybridity, then, there is "something different, something new and unrecognizable, a new area of negotiation of meaning and representation" (Bhabha, 1990, p. 211).
     Standard language refers to that variety of language that is considered the norm. It is the variety with educational purposes and language standards refer to the language rules that inform the standard and are taught in school. This, however, does not mean we should ignore the non-standard versions of English! I strongly believe that students will develop a higher understanding and comprehension of standard English by exploring other varieties of Englishes. The definition of standard English and all it entails is very controversial and very debatable.
     World Englishes present a challenge to the Standard English ideology. That challenge is plurality- there should be different standards for different contexts of use. The Standard English should be determined locally (endonormative) instead of determined outside its context of use (exonormative).
     Quirk argued that tolerance for variation in language use was educationally damaging in Anglophone countries. In other words, a common standard of use was warranted in all contexts of English language use. This just screams ethnocentrism to me! Kachru, on the other hand, said that allowing for a variety of linguistic norms would not lead to a lack of intelligibility among varieties of English but rather an educated variety of English would emerge from this situation. I would have to agree with Kachru. Personally, I think that one must have high intelligibility to be able to discern and recognize, as well as appreciate different varieties of English. It takes an open mind- one that is thirsty for new knowledge, not close-minded. The argument of the monolithic  model states that if localized standards are allowed to develop, English speakers will no longer be able to understand one another. I think this is a little outrageous. It would take a very, very long time to ever reach this point. Even if we did reach this point, so what? Language, like technology, is always evolving and adapting to the new times. We can look at how much change technology has brought about. Many would argue it is good change.
     "A man with one watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is unsure." I suppose someone who supports the monolithic model would especially like this quote. If we start allowing multiple varieties of English to come about, we will be uncertain and miscommunication will become more and more of a problem.
     Smith suggests three categories of interaction in his continuum: intelligibility, comprehensibility, and interpretability.
     Another question that arises is when an innovation can be considered a standard or norm. When, if ever, will LOL become the substitute for actually laughing? A mistake is not the result of the productive processes used in an institutionalized nonnative variety of English. A deviation, however, is the result of a productive process that marks the typical variety-specific features.

I found Lippie-Green's chapters extremely intriguing! It began by saying that standard language and non-accent can be seen both as an abstract (only exists in idea, something visionary) or myth (motivates social behaviors and actions). Every native speaker of US English has L1 accent, which is a structure variation in language, no matter how unmarked their language may seem to be.

"A dialect is perhaps nothing more than a language that gets no respect." This quote really caught my attention, sadly perhaps because I believe some people hold to it. Imagine this: two people walk into a fancy jewelry store. Who is more likely to be tended to, one who speaks "proper, standard English" or one who has a "strange" and "unusual" and "unstandard" dialect? Often times the proper one. I think this type of situation is more common than we would like to believe.

Are accents different? However, to contradict this, when I studied abroad in Spain, my Spanish mom told me my American accent was "precious." She built my confidence, while it could have been easily demolished. Also, I remember that the other students from the United States that were studying in Spain all had different regional varieties in their language. Many people became frustrated with those people from California because of how they talked. The term was "valley girl." It's interesting how dialects and accents can carry such strong baggage and connotations.

The question then arises- what does it mean to lose an accent? Is it to replace one way of speaking with another? Perhaps to add new phonology to an existing inventory? There is a long list of people who speak English as a second language but never built an "English Sound House" to fool others into thinking they're Native speakers. However, their abilities to use English are clear. Is this because they don't work hard enough or aren't smart enough? Personally, I would be scared if we measured intelligibility by someone's accent. Maybe the speaker refuses to give up the Texas in them, or the African American, for something less socially marked? Or are they just incapable?

Interestingly enough, actors don't have permanent Sound Houses. In fact, they have fake storefronts that won't stand up to strong, persistent breezes. Some people are better than others at putting together more than one Sound House. They aren't perfect, but they are good at imitating. This has nothing to do with intelligibility, but rather application. It is a matter of cognition and an 'ear for language.' Focused training and drawing attention to processes that otherwise wouldn't be noticed are ways to build another Sound House. One can adjust, but not substitute for the First Sound House. The true ability to build more Sound Houses past the language acquisition stage is undocumented. Rumors do exist of this, however. What a neat thing this would be to study.

It seems as though Kubota's idea of underlying power (and politics!) is prominent in almost all of the concepts and readings we have covered this semester. The ordering of social groups has authority over determining how a language is best used.

Lippie-Green's chapter goes on to show an emerging picture. Standard US English is the language spoken and written by those with no regional accent, who reside in the Midwest, and have average/superior education. So far I feel those all fit me, except for a little Chicago accent I have with some words. They often tend to be educators, which I am studying. They pay attention to speech. My friends have teased me because I am so in tune with grammar. For example, when I write Happy Birthday to someone on facebook, I put a comma after Birthday and before their name. It takes me an extra second, but it is grammatically correct and I realize that! Besides, my friends who seemingly don't care about grammar as much noticed it, too, if they are teasing me about it! Perhaps because they fit most of the other descriptions of Standard US English speakers...? Lastly, they are easily understood by all.

I liked reading about the individual role in the communicative process. The social space between two speakers is not neutral. The people communicating are constantly analyzing the situation...is there a need to be formal? Is respect due? Who owes who, and what is owed? In a similar boat, when confronted with an accent that is foreign, people must decide if they are going to accept responsibility in the act of communication. Members of the dominant language feel empowered to reject the role and demand that the person with the accent carry the majority of responsibility in the communicative act. Listeners and speakers will work harder to find communicative middle ground and foster mutual intelligibility when they are motivated socially and psychologically to do so, according to Lippie-Green. When the speaker perceives the act of accommodation or assimilation linguistically may bring more disadvantages than advantages (in in-group terms), they may diverge even farther from the listener's language.

We are constantly making social evaluations based on external cues (language and accent) when we communicate with others. These sociolinguistic cues are traced back to homeland, race & ethnicity, and social self of the person. Our personal histories and backgrounds, as well as social selves form our filters through which we hear the person speak to us and allow us to take a communicative stance. Usually, we share the burden. We may even accept a disproportionate amount of the burden if we are especially positive about the social characteristics we see in the person or if we are especially interested or benefit from the purposes of communication in that situation.

The degree of accentedness is something everyone should analyze and think through themselves. Whether it is from L1 interference or socially or geographically marked language variety, one can't predict the level of the individual's competency in target language based solely on accent. This is just not fair and is a harsh form of judgment. A high degree of competence is often attained by those who have strong second language accents. That is not to say that the accent is never an impediment to communication, because it definitely  can be even if all parties in the communicative act are willing to understand. The breakdown of communication is done not so much due to the accent as it is to a negative social evaluation of the accent in question and the rejection of the communicative burden. The accents we hear go through our language ideology filters. We can even feel completely justified in rejecting the communicative burden, or even the person talking with us.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that people who think they are free of prejudice often hold to the standard language ideology which attempts to justify the restriction of individuality and the rejection of the other. Educators and researchers must work to confront this issue, especially before it gets out of control.

I decided to copy a snippit of the summary of the Great Gatsby from http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/gatsby/summary.html. I think it is interesting that Gatsby, a man of great status and prestige, is described by many things, but one being his English accent. That just shows how accent and social class/power are so interconnected.

"As the summer progresses, Nick eventually garners an invitation to one of Gatsby’s legendary parties. He encounters Jordan Baker at the party, and they meet Gatsby himself, a surprisingly young man who affects an English accent, has a remarkable smile, and calls everyone “old sport.” "