Reflection on Caragarajah

The following is the reflection I did over the Canagarajah article English as an
International Language. The first time I read through it, and the time I reflected on
it, I missed the point it was making aobut how certain Englishes hold less status
than others. For example, British and American English are considered the
standard, while English learned in countries such as Singapore and Malaysia are
considered off-brand, and therefore less good. Practically speaking, it has nothing
to do with how proficient the speaker is at English, it has to do with the implication
of wealth behind sending a child to England or America, instead of the closer
English-speaking countries. This kind of socioeconomic implication behind language
acquisition is a huge problem in Korea, especially in light of the early study
abroad trend discussed in other articles.
1) The part that resonated the most with me from the Canagarajah article was the
concept of language as constantly evolving, meaning that ideas of "standardized"
language are arbitrary. This deconstructive take on language means that traditional
teaching, which focuses on drilling formulas and grammar into students heads may
not be the most effective way to give them language acquisition skills, because that
rigidity is in direct conflict with the fluid nature of language.
2) Is the implication here that English is less important as a universal language, and
more useful as a tool to communicate ideas from native languages to other nonEnglish languages? I'm not sure that I agree. While English is certainly a difficult
language to learn, especially given the variety of Englishes that exist, I still believe
that it functions as a universal language. People learning it as non-native speakers
do bring their own distinctions to the language, in the form of accents and specific
cultural nuances, but essentially the point of learning English worldwide is to more
easily communicate with other people. Whether or not it's for the purpose of
speaking with other non-native speakers is a question of specifics to the individual
speaker.
3) Strategic communication in the context of our teaching in Korea suggests finding
the underlying grammars of both English and Korean, identifying the divergences,
and working around that basis. However, more important than the language
structure itself is how the students feel they can express themselves in English. It
has to be an atmosphere where there is less fear of academic punishment if a
mistake is made, because if students are afraid to speak they won't as often as they
need to in order to increase their proficiency. Another thing is imbuing the lessons
with actual socializing aspects, like joking or storytelling, to engage the students.
The whole point of learning new languages is to communicate more effectively, so I
follows that there should be a focus on what people care about enough to
communicate.
4) Just based on what I've been told by my Korean teachers, I feel like the idea of
active student participation in Korea would make the teachers uncomfortable.
There's a long cultural history in Korea of demonstrating utmost respect to elders,
which means questioning them and engaging in dialogue as equals would not be as
simple as it would be here in the States. Students in Korea are expected to take

notes and listen attentively to lectures. Maybe a more dialogical style would be
more effective, especially in a language learning setting, but culturally it may not
work.

English Fever in Kyunghwa (reflection on Park 2009 article)

This is a reflection I did on the Park article entitled English Fever in South Korea. I
titled my reflection differently in order to acknowledge my inability to make an
accurate assessment about Koreas entire education system based on my
experiences at one school. This article struck a personal chord with me, in the
mentioning of wild goose families. As I state in the reflection, my family did
something similar in order for us children to acquire Norwegian language fluency.
While my story is individual and the article has more to do with the big-picture
social problems Korea has with it, I feel that the two are intertwined. Children who
deal with the stress of international upheaval multiple times, and feel that their own
culture is inferior to another based on this practice, would have tensions within
themselves and with their families the rest of their lives. If this is a practice that
affects a large percentage of the Korean population, it could have serious
repercussions in the future, between generations and between displaced children
and their home country.
I think the most important concern in the article had to do with the social and
psychological impact of the early pure study abroad concept on South Korea and
their children. From reading it, I would think the main concerns would be parentchild relations, because in pure study abroad the idea is that English learning is
easier if there is no other first language. That would mean that parents do not
prioritize communicating with their children, and instead on the economic value of
making them learn English. That could be psychologically damaging in the long run.
Another concern I could see is the upheaval on the children happening twice: once
from Korea and once back to Korea. There isn't any real hard data yet because the
phenomenon is fairly new, but I could see that also being a problem because the
children are being forced to adjust to two very different societies in a fairly short
period of time. I personally did something similar growing up to the "wild goose
family": my father stayed in the United States to work, and sent my mom, my
siblings and I to Norway in the interest of teaching us all Norwegian. At age 10, my
skill was already decent, but living there definitely improved my pronunciation and
vocabulary. Unfortunately, my mother didn't speak the language and instead of
being respected as a doctor, she was treated like a migrant worker and subjected to
a lot of racism, as were we kids. We were bullied and harassed quite a bit, which I
think is a universal problem when children move to foreign countries. If the move
from America to Norway was that difficult, and those are both fairly similar cultures,
I can extrapolate that that kind of moving around from Korea to English speaking
countries and back would be even moreso.
That all said, I do believe that studying abroad is the best way to learn and/or
maintain a second (or more) language. The girls I've met here in Kyunghwa who

studies abroad have vastly better English than their counterparts. But I think the
important difference is the age, which I believe was older for these girls (?) and the
choice. The article mentioned Korea's low scores on English proficiency, and I think
it has to do with interest in the language. For example, the native English teachers
here don't speak much Korean at all, despite living here for years. If that's possible
for English speakers that aren't interested, then surely the same can be said for
Korean native speakers being forced to learn a language they have no interest in.
The girls also have a tendency to think that their English isn't good enough, so in a
vicious cycle they ust don't practice. They instead let a more proficient (if
marginally so) speaker do all the talking for them. On our part, I think we should
encourage imperfect English more than just no English at all, but also show interest
in communicating with them in Korean. So far, when I speak even a tiny bit of
Korean with them, they open up much more quickly, and are more willing to engage
in both English and Korean. English shouldn't be seen as the endgame, but rather a
skill that can enrich their lives. It shouldn't be used to put down their native
language, and that mentality is what's making Korean English learners have a tough
time in the class.

Park &Lo Reflection

This reflection over the Park and Lo article, Transnational South Korea, focuses
primarily on the commodification of language, and the separation of language and
culture/identity. My personal beliefs about language as primarily a tool for
communication and exposure come through in this artifact. I take note of the
imperial nature of English teaching abroad, but I dont condemn it on those
grounds. My views are essentially: this is the situation as we found it, we have a
responsibility to adapt and help others adapt to be as successful as they wish to be.
In this case, it has to do with teaching English at a high school level. I do still find
the notion of more status being associated with certain types of English
problematic. But, as a native American English speaker, Im not in a good position
to make the point that Malaysian or Singaporean English is just as effective. The
most I can do (and did) was praise the girls I knew had studied abroad in those
countries on their English abilities, which wasnt difficult because their proficiency
was objectively high.
1) What is the central purpose of the authors in writing this piece?
The purpose of this article was to bring attention to the commodification of
language, but also implicate how, specifically in the South Korean context, the type
of person who learns the language (English) is more important than the language
acquisition itself. It focuses on the contradiction between national pride, and the
elite status of a Korean national with impressive English language skill. It's the result
of the interaction between US and Korea since the war, when English was used to
distinguish more elite members of society, and the rapid industrialization and
globalization the country has experienced in the past 20 years.
2) What does the commodification of language mean from a neoliberal perspective
in the Korean EFL context?

In this context, language has less to do with identity and more to do with how that
language can elevate a person's status, through job opportunities and the prestige
of knowing a globally recognized language. While Korean is not (yet) a language
often used on the international stage, Chinese, English, and even Japanese are and
therefore knowing these languages is a requirement more for business than for
cultural education.
3) According to Park and Lo (2012), the heated pursuit of English in South Korea is
not a mere local reflection of the worldwide currency of English. How would you
explain it in your own words?
It also has to do with the aforementioned close relationship between South Korea
and the US since the Korean War. Because the United States is such a global power,
the English language became a symbol of power among the Korean people, and
they wanted their children to have that language ability to succeed in the
competitive job market in Korea.
4) Why do we need to look at the highly specific cultural and social context of Korea
for lessons in the EFL classroom?
Within this cultural context, English is seen as a status symbol, but only within a
carefully constructed set of values. There are some contradictions within this
context: they value mastery of English, but not from those considered "not Korean".
Even if someone is ethnically Korean but born somewhere else, or even an
expatriate, their language proficiency becomes irrelevant. That means, that as EFL
teachers in Korea, that from their perspective we are giving them a useful tool to be
competitive within their native job market exclusively, because in other contexts the
English wouldn't make a difference to their status.
5) In what ways does the Korean situation show us that a focus on English can have
significant implications for theoretical concerns of a sociolinguistics of globalization
(e.g., identity of jogiyujak students)?
It causes a tension between national pride and competitiveness to succeed in a
capitalist society, which is what globalization is spreading. It also causes, on a more
individual basis, the disruption of traditional family units by breaking them up over
several countries, with the sole purpose of learning a language. Social and
psychological development are less valued and even allowed to be hindered in the
pursuit of English proficiency.
6) Overall, what did you take away from this article in relation to your experience at
Kyunghwa?
I think that the article expressed a number of social and cultural concerns about
Korea's obsession with English acquisition, but it mostly focused on early study
abroad and the image of an ideal English speaker within their society. As to the
English education received in their own elementary and high schools, not much was
mentioned. In Kyunghwa, I've noticed that they are marketed as an English Business
school, and that's part of what makes them so prestigious. So the idea of English
commodification persists.

Moussu & Llurda

When I reflected on this article, Non-native English-speaking English language
teachers: History and research, I was frustrated with it. In my opinion, it was
excessive in length, and it contradicted itself in several ways. While it
acknowledged the contradiction itself, the information that was used to back up
their assertions was self-admitted to be non-cohesive and therefore not to be taken
as seriously as thorough case studies, which have not been documented yet. By the
end of the article, the only thing I took away from it was There isnt much research
in this field yet, and we hope this article will help galvanize more studies to create
more material to work with. This is a fine point to make, but I still think it was too
long, and my irritation is visible in the clipped nature of my responses.
1. What is the main purpose of the article?
The main purpose of this article seemed to contradict itself: it was trying to show
the differences between NS and NNS teachers, but for the purpose of showing that
the delineation is arbitrary and that there arent really any (studied and recorded)
important differences between the two anyway. The most fact-based assertion
made in the article is that NNS teachers are discriminated against in hiring
processes, but the prejudices against them may not be well founded. Since this is
such a new field of study, there isnt enough cohesive research to solidly determine
most of the assertions made.
2. What were the authors' underlying assumptions regarding the NEST v. NNEST?
Their underlying assumptions are that there are differences in their teaching overall,
but they arent necessarily positive or negative in regards to student learning
experience. Most of their data about opinions on teachers opinions of themselves,
and student opinions of teachers, come from questionnaires and other varied
research projects that are too scattered and not voluminous enough to base any
solid conclusions on yet.
3. What were their conclusions?
Their conclusions are essentially that there isnt enough information yet to make
any actual conclusions. The whole article was questioning established terms like
native versus non-native speaker, as well as questioning where multilingual or
bilingual people stand on that spectrum, or where native English speakers from
predominantly non-English speaking countries do.
4. How does that relate to your experiences here with NEST v NNEST?
One of the points the article made was that the tendency with NEST was that they
have a firm grasp on idiomatic expressions, cadence, and pronunciation, but overall
their knowledge of grammar is poor. I think that particularly resonates with me,
because in one of our lesson plans we wrote I have/have not(past tense verb)
which we didnt think about at the time, but its incorrect. It was supposed to be a
present perfect, which we would have known if wed had to take English as a
second language, or had more detailed instructions on the structure of our own

language. Essentially, native speakers dont automatically see their language as a

series of constructions because they learned it in their formative years, instead of
learning it the way their students do.