View Content #27383

By Stephanie Knight, CASLS Assistant Director

Language learning is not a panacea for ethnic and cultural discrimination. As Kubota (2015) writes, “the neoliberal paradox of investing in learning English as an international language and simultaneously avoiding communication with certain linguistic/national groups is a phenomenon individually shaped by one’s experiences” (p. 474). Indeed, whether an individual has a positive disposition toward learning about and interacting with others in the world is a more likely indicator of successful intercultural communication than whether the individual perceives an inherent value in language learning itself.¹ The resulting paradox, a paradox in which the neoliberal value placed on learning global languages may not actually result in increased international communication (Kubota, 2015, p. 468), and as an extension, improved intercultural competence, is palpable concern upon consideration of the classroom as a vehicle for development of the necessary critical dispositions to yield successful communication in the (linguistically and communicatively) unsterilized, unpredictable wild.

The consideration of the inherent complexity of any communicative scenario provides insight into this claim. The language used is obviously important; having enough grammatical competence to convey intended meaning is always helpful (though with increasing advances in mobile technologies and translation software, perhaps less critical than it once was). However, any number of other factors cultivate nuances that impact that interaction; each interlocutor’s relative degree of individual or group orientation (Atkinson, 1997), conceptualization of self as victim or victimizer (Kubota, 2016), and even something as ephemeral as mood can determine the ease, efficiency, and agility with which communication is executed. As such, language learners negotiating communication in the wild have an enormous task at hand; they must be able to manage the creation and interpretation of utterances, but they must showcase enough openness to their fellow interlocutor to be able to simultaneously (and rapidly) notice, interpret, and filter social and environmental cues. Such high-level, high-stakes cognitive and social engagement necessitates practice in the classroom, practice which can be achieved through the analysis and evaluation of not only discourse, but the environment in which that discourse takes place.

In his critique of incorporating training in critical thinking in classroom courses designed for English language learners, Atkinson (1997) writes about the “(a) opposing notions of relations between the individual and the social system, (b) contrasting norms of self-expression across cultures, and [(c)] divergent perspectives on the use of language as a means of learning” (p. 79). That world language teachers are specially equipped to address (at least partially) these concerns is obvious; as has already been motioned, communication (in the wild) requires openness and blended engagement in social and cognitive processes. However, these processes are not given or inherent to the practice of language learning itself. Educators must strive to cultivate them in learners to promote high levels of intercultural competence. This week’s Activity of the Week provides an example one classroom activity designed with that particular goal in mind.

References

Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly. 31(1), 71-94.

Kubota, R. (2015). Race and language learning in multicultural Canada: Towards critical antiracism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 36(1). 3-12.

Kubota, R. (2016). Neoliberal paradoxes of language learning: Xenophobia and international communication. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 37(5). 3-12.