Category: Uncategorized

I do wonder a little, if we are so against certain topics in the classroom not just because they might be seen as offensive to members of the classroom, but also because their semantics might be misconstrued in conversation which could lead to further confusion for or from the speaker rather than them being able to convey their meaning with ease (semantics and pragmatics). For example, talking about sex as an act (sexual intercourse) versus the sex of a person (or rather gender) could easily be confused and lead to a barrel of confusion for the speaker. Perhaps they should be avoided?

Overall however, I don’t believe this. I think as a language, any language be it English or otherwise, might be imagined as a tree. Those who are taught only the essentials, or ‘polite’ and ‘safe’ topics are only able to climb the bottom branches.

 

I believe a large part of why there is an idea of politics in the classroom is that we are scared of offending people. The idea of offensiveness is something that has been a large part of the latter parts of my degree. 

In TESOL methodologies we looked at the phrase ‘PARSNIPS’ (TESOL methodologies). 

Politics Age, alcohol Religion, race Sex, sexual orientation Narcotics  Immigration (isms) Poverty, pork Social class

These are several areas which will never be mentioned in ELT textbooks or in ELT classrooms. These topics are seen as ‘taboo’ and in need of censoring. Additionally, there is a vicious cycle between the publishers of books and the authors. Whether the authors want to try and implement change within the textbooks or not, they face a large challenge. If they write any kind of taboo topic/ suggest it with illustrations then they are at risk of a publisher not publishing their books because the publishers know so many classrooms won’t use them when they contain ‘certain’ topics.

Some of the topics might be considered as ‘taboo’ which I looked at in second year (sociolinguistics). When I was looking at these topics I thought it was really interesting how ‘taboo’ topics were essentially indefinable (this was the conclusion of my sociolinguistics project). What was taboo and offensive for one person, wasn’t even worth an eyebrow raise for another. Reflecting upon my theme of politics in the classroom in relation to this: how do we possibly decide what can and cannot be included in a textbook, or in a syllabus when every country (let alone every individual) has a different idea to what can and can’t be used. Because schools, and publishers are more concerned with what might offend one person rather than benefit another, I believe there is a lot of topics left out of English Language teaching which should definitely be considered.

 

When first starting university  several names reappeared that I hadn’t heard since A-level. (Introduction to ELL) Of these Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development was briefly mentioned (alongside other infamous names such as Searle and Austin). Whilst Vygotsky points out that there may be a ‘desired age’ to learn certain things (such as language) this does not make it impossible to learn things at a later age. On the other hand some extreme examples such as Genie (Introduction to ELL),  a young girl who was not exposed to social contact and thus has never fully acquired a first language, show that exposure at least to a language is vital at a young age. 

Certainly reflecting on my own personal experience, I wonder how much of a difference trying to acquire languages at a later age has impacted my ability/ motivation/ belief in myself and therefore my language progress (BSL beginner, BSL continued, Polish). 

However, the point of this particular blog post was to point out that there is a large difference between younger and older learners, not just in the way you teach them but how and what you teach them. This difference was particularly obvious to me when I could reflect upon my experience teaching adults (CELTA) and my experience teaching children (Language at work). In both situations the common connection was that English was being taught as a second language. However as a teacher i found it much harder to consider what i should teach in the classroom.

It would never occur to me to teach a young child vocabulary about politics, religion, race issues, or sexual orientation unless the child asked me a question about any of these topics. Yet for an adult learner, as an adult myself, it seems strange that if i didn’t know these topics in a second language I spoke often, I’d never be able to discuss them. 

There is no ‘real’ English language. Yet through lectures, dictionaries, and prescriptivism attitudes we seem to have convinced ourselves that there is an absolute right way, and an absolute wrong way to use English. Even at university level we are taught grammar and syntax. (grammar first year). In CELTA I was taught set ways to teach English and what to count as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Finally in TESOL methodologies the concept of politics within the classroom arose, and the confliction of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ English became highly prominent.

A concept that as a linguist I struggle with stems from reading the words of Herbert Clark (language in interaction). “Language is used for doing things” (Clark,  2005). My individual belief is that all language is used for doing things, and such all language should be available to anyone who wishes to learn it. Yet in the English language classroom (and almost certainly others, ELT being my main experience and understanding) there is a large amount of politics in place within the classroom setting. From censoring topics, to censoring textbooks- the politics at play in EL classrooms is affecting the language that a student knows and is able to use out in the world (TESOL methodologies).

However, whilst reflecting upon this- it is clear that there is positives and negatives that come with this controlled form of education. Studying other languages (BSL, Polish) provides insight into how it is to learn a language as a non native speaker rather than to teach as a native speaker. Whilst native speakers have the luxury of dancing around with ideas of available topics, and interesting parts of language, for a non-native speaker, any form of structure such as simple grammar or syntax offers a raft of safety in an ocean of uncertainty for learners. 

All this means is that the debate of Politics and censorship within the ELT classroom must be focused on a higher level of learning.

This blog is set up for the third year module reflections and connections module code: 3ll207

In the short blog posts following i intend to talk about censorship within the English language classroom and the positives and negatives surrounding it using a few different academic references, and my own opinion to reflect upon them. I have included in parenthesis and/or red text the module name which I believe links most to each ideologies that I am discussing to help demonstrate that this particular topic links into so many areas of my university life.

 

Enjoy!