Abstract
Following earlier discussion on language, ideology and power relations, this chapter provides readers with an account of an English as a Lingua Franca program in a well-established Japanese university. The unfolding of events epitomize the manner in which narratives bear (bare) out instances of professional inconsistencies and intransigencies which banefully disrupt genuinely enlightened and emancipatory ways of approaching language teaching. Resistant and intransigent behaviors on the part of teachers roped albeit involuntarily into change initiatives for which they have little understanding or sympathy are seen to be sources of misalignment (and mischief), adversely affecting transformative ideals. The chapter concludes with the observation that contradistinctive epistemologies and contrary ideologies frustrate sincere attempts at advocating for more dynamic, accommodative and humanizing understandings of language and language teaching.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alderson, J. C. (2009). The micropolitics of research and publication. In J. C. Alderson (Ed.), The politics of language education: Individuals and institutions (pp. 222–236). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Bamberg, M. (2005). Narrative discourse and identities. In J. C. Meister, T. Kindt, & W. Schernus (Eds.), Narratology beyond literary criticism: Mediality, disciplinarity (pp. 213–237). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Barton, D. (2007). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Block, D. (2017). Political economy in applied linguistics research. Language Teaching, 50(1), 32–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000288.
Block, D., & Gray, J. (2016). ‘Just go away and do it and you get marks’: The degradation of language teaching in neoliberal times. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(5), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1071826.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2013). Negotiating translingual literacy: An enactment. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(1), 40–67.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2016). TESOL as a professional community: A half-century of pedagogy, research, and theory. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 7–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.275.
Council of Europe. (2011). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Strasbourg: Language Policy Unit.
Dardot, P., & Laval, C. (2013). The new way of the world: On a neoliberal society. London: Verso.
Dendrinos, B. (1992). The EFL textbook and ideology. Athens: N. C. Grivas.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The Birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. In H. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208–226). Brighton: Harvester.
Foucault, M. (1984). Truth and power. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The foucault reader (pp. 1–75). New York: Pantheon.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). New York: Bloomsbury.
Goodier, T. (n.d.). Working with CEFR can-do statements: An investigation of UK English language teacher beliefs and published materials. London: King’s College London and the British Council.
Goosseff, K. A. (2014). Only narratives can reflect the experience of objectivity; effective persuasion. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(5), 703–709. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-09-2014-0167.
Gray, J., & Block, D. (2014). All middle class now? Evolving representations of the working class in the neoliberal era; the case of ELT textbooks. In N. Harwood (Ed.), English language teaching textbook (pp. 45–71). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Green, A. (2010). Conflicting purposes in the use of can do statements in language education. In M. Schmidt, N. Naganuma, F. O’Dwyer, A. Imig, & Kazumi Sakai (Eds.), Can do statements in language education in Japan and beyond (pp. 5–48). Tokyo: Asahi.
Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holliday, A., & Aboshiha, P. (2009). The denial of ideology in perceptions of ‘nonnative speaker’ teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), 669–689. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00191.x.
Jaynes, S. (2015). Making strategic change: A critical discourse analysis. Journal of Organization Change Management, 28(1), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-04-2013-0053.
Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a lingua franca in the international university: The politics of academic English language policy. London: Routledge.
Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice, 2(3), 49–85. https://doi.org/10.1515/eip-2015-0003.
Kubota, R. (2011a). The politics of school curriculum and assessment in Japan. In Y. Zhao, J. Lei, G. Li, M. He, K. Okano, D. Gamage, H. Ramanathan, & N. Magahed (Eds.), Handbook of Asian education: A cultural perspective (pp. 214–230). New York: Routledge.
Kubota, R. (2011b). Immigration, diversity and language education in Japan: Toward a glocal approach to teaching English. In P. Seargeant (Ed.), English in Japan in the era of globalization (pp. 101–122). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Dangerous liaison: Globalization, empire and TESOL. In J. Edge (Ed.), (Re-)locating TESOL in an age of empire (pp. 1–26). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Leung, C. (2014). Communication and participatory involvement in linguistically diverse classrooms. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 123–146). New York: Routledge.
Lillis, T. (2003). Student writing as ‘academic literacies’: Drawing on Bakhtin to move from critique to design. Language and Education, 17(3), 192–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780308666848.
Menard-Warwick, J. (2014). English language teachers on the discursive faultlines: Identities, ideologies and pedagogies. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Pavlenko, A. (2007). Autobiographic narratives as data in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 163–188. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm008.
Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839950080103.
Pennycook, A. (2007). The myth of English as an international language. In S. Makoni & A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. 90–115). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839950080103.
Richards, J. C. (1993). Beyond the textbook: The role of commercial materials in language teaching. RELC Journal, 24(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829302400101
Rivers, D. J. (2013). Institutionalized native-speakerism: voices of dissent and acts of resistance. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 75–91). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Sargent, J., & Winward-Stuart, J. (2010). Implementation of a can do based syllabus in an eikaiwa. In M. Schmidt, N. Naganuma, F. O’Dwyer, A. Imig, & K. Sakai (Eds.), Can do statements in language education in Japan and beyond (pp. 250–265). Tokyo: Asahi.
Sato, Y. (2010). Using can do statements to promote reflective learning. In M. Schmidt, N. Naganuma, F. O’Dwyer, A. Imig, & K. Sakai (Eds.), Can do statements in language education in Japan and beyond (pp. 184–199). Tokyo: Asahi.
Seargeant, P. (2009). The idea of English in Japan: Ideology and the evolution of a global language. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
Street, B. (2003). The implications of the ‘New Literacy Studies’ for literacy education. In S. Goodman, T. Lillis, J. Maybin, & N. Mercer (Eds.), Language, literacy and education: A reader (pp. 77–88). Stoke on Trent, Trentham.
Thompson, J. B. (1987). Language and ideology: A framework for analysis. Sociological Review, 35(3), 516–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1987.tb00554.x.
Thompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture: Critical social theory in the era of mass communication. Cambridge: Polity.
Toh, G. (2012). Having English as a resource for multicultural understanding: Exploring possibilities in Japanese ELT. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(3), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.655248.
Toh, G. (2016a). English as medium of instruction in Japanese higher education: Presumption, mirage or bluff?. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Watson, G. (2003). Ideology and the symbolic construction of fairness in organizational change. Journal of Organization Change Management, 16(2), 154–168. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810310468125.
Widin, J. (2010). Illegitimate practices: Global English language education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Toh, G. (2019). A Narrative of Intransigence and Disingenuousness. In: Effecting Change in English Language Teaching. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15261-1_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15261-1_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-15260-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-15261-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)