Historical accounts of language education in the U. S. show that
monolingual approaches to the teaching of English have by no means always been
the norm (Baron, 1990; Crawford, 1991; Daniels, 1990); rather, there have been
cyclical fluctuations in policy often determined by political rather than
pedagogical factors.
In the l9th century, for example, the decentralized and locally
controlled nature of public schooling allowed for bilingual education in
accordance with the political power of particular ethnic groups. It was the resurgence
of nativism and antiforeign political sentiment in the late 19th century that
signaled the decline
of bilingual education. The advent of World War I, the increase in
immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, and the growing role of
immigrants in the labor movement contributed to an increasingly xenophobia
atmosphere in the early 20th century; "foreign influence" was blamed
for the nation's political and economic problems and the Americanization
movement was promoted as a means of countering this influence ESL instruction
became a vehicle to enhance loyalty both to the company and the country, with companies
like the Ford Motor Company requiring employees to attend Americanization
classes (Crawford, 1991, p 22). English
was associated with patriotism--speaking "good" English was equated
with being a "good" American (Baron, 1990, p 155). Children were
encouraged to profess language loyalty through oaths such as one that began as
follows:
I love the United States of America, I love my country's flag, I
love my country's language. I promise:
1. That I will not dishonor my country's speech by leaving off the
last syllables of words.
2 That I will say a good American ''yes" and "no"
in place of an Indian grunt um hum" and " nup-um " or a foreign
"ya" or "yeh" and "nope" (Robbins, 1918, p. 175,
cited in Baron, 1990, p. 155)
According to Baron, the spread of ESL instruction in the first
quarter of the 20th century was a direct outcome of the Americanization
movement; it was at this time that direct methods stressing oral English gained
favor over methods which allowed the use of the students' native language, and
English only became the norm in ESL classes. In the early 1920s, Henry
Goldberger developed an approach to adult ESL instruction which focused on
teaching practical English including lessons on opening bank accounts, visiting
the doctor, making purchases, asking directions, and showing gratitude. He
recommended that English be the sole medium of instruction, and, in grouping
students, "warned teachers to prevent the formation of 'national cliques'
which would delay the work of Americanization" (Baron, 1990, p. 160).
Hand in hand with instructional approaches designed to promote U.
S. values were formalized gate-keeping practices designed to exclude foreigners
from the ranks of the teaching profession: Speech tests were instituted, and
those who failed the pronunciation sections were denied licenses. Many states
passed laws
requiring teachers to be citizens. According to Baron (1990),
country of origin and native language were more important for teaching ESL than
training: "As a result of these efforts to homogenize the language of the
teaching corps, schoolteachers remained by and large monolingual English
speakers untrained in any methodology to teach English to non-anglophones and
unable to empathize with the non-anglophone student" (p. 162).
Although this is not the place to proceed with a detailed account
of the subsequent development of ESL methodologies I present this slice of
history to show that practices we take for granted as being pedagogically
grounded have antecedents in overtly ideological tendencies. Much of the
discourse from the
Americanization period is mirrored in the discourse of present-day
"innovative" approaches which focus on survival English in an
English-only classroom, with the notable difference that, at that time, the
political agenda was more explicit.
Phillipson argues that more recent global roots of commonly held
assumptions about English language teaching (ELT) can be traced to British
neocolonial policies. He claims that the development of ELT as a profession was
itself a direct response to a political imperative. English was seen to be a
key component of the infrastructure required for the spread of British
neocolonial control and, as such, there was a vast infusion of funding to
support the development of ELT in the late 1950s and early 1960s. A conference
held at Makere University in Uganda in 1961 articulated this relationship of
dominance and dependence between the developed and developing countries through
the ways ELT expertise was to be shared and disseminated.
Five basic tenets emerged from this conference which, according to
Phillipson (1992), became an unofficial and yet unchallenged doctrine
underlying much ELT work. These tenets are:
€ English is best taught monolingually.
€ The ideal teacher of English is a native speaker.
€ The earlier English is taught, the better the results.
€ The more English is taught, the better the results.
€ If other languages are used too much, standards of English will
drop. (p. 185)
Phillipson argues that these tenets have become the cornerstones
of the hegemony of English worldwide.
Thus, although the roots of monolingual approaches to ESL have
been largely obscured, and despite the fact that they are based on arguments
which have been challenged by research, they have come to be seen as natural
and commonsense.
0 comments:
Post a Comment