Universidad de Chile
Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades
Departamento de Lingüística
Is your English good or bad?: Social representations towards Alexis Sanchez´s use of
English in his first interview in that language. Theoretical and methodological implications on
teaching English as a foreign language
Informe final de Seminario para optar al grado de Licenciado en Lengua y Literatura Inglesas
Walesca Contreras Labra – Fabián Grez Peñaloza
Profesor/es Patrocinante/s: Cristián Lagos
Santiago-Chile
2016
Abstract
Conceiving language and languages as cultural systems, being the main focus of the
linguistic anthropological perspective, this study intends to apply this approach in order to
understand language teaching as a determined cultural system. Chileans Social
Representations towards Alexis Sanchez’s use of English in his first interview in that
language will be characterized and its possible theoretical and methodological implications in
English teaching. Through empirical and qualitative research, focus groups and personal
interviews were applied to English university professors, English university students, and
university students of science. Based on the thick description metaphor by the anthropologist
C. Geertz, the preliminary results show the existence of a serie of cultural models related to a)
native speaker ideal, b) speaking English well and poorly, c) the existence of different levels
of English d) good or bad communication depending on fluency, grammar, syntax, e) the
concept of error, and how all these categories reflect the reality of English teaching. These
results suggest that the social actors involved in English teaching and learning, express those
social representations based on an ideal of communication and an ideal of English language,
which at the same time, influences the way of teaching English as a foreign language in Chile.
Keywords: Critical linguistics; linguistic anthropology; social representations; language
ideology; folk linguistics
AGRADECIMIENTOS
En primer lugar, queremos agradecer a los participantes que con gran disposicion se
dieron el tiempo para ayudarnos contantemente este año para llevar a cabo este estudio. Así
mismo, queremos agradecer a nuestros profesores que nos han apoyado con sus
conocimiento, cariño y preocupación constante, pero especialmente queremos agradecer a los
profesores que nos ayudaron con la tésis desde su área de conocimiento. Además, agradecer a
nuestro profesor guía Cristian Lagos, por generar este espacio de discusión dentro de la
Antropolgía Lingüística y todo lo que nos enseñó en dicha área, lo que nos ha servido, no
solamente para la tésis, sino que además ha sido un riquecimiento para nuestra visión del
mundo y la vida. Por último, queremos agradecer a nuestros compañeros de inglesa y de otras
carreras que estuvieron con nosotros compartiendo este mismo espacio, discusiones,
entretención, estrés y comida.
En lo personal, agradecer mi familia por todo el esfuerzo realizado durante estos años
para poder estudiar sin que me falte nada. A mis amigos por todos los buenos momentos y
distracciones que me sirvieron de mucho, y para Jessica por toda la fuerza y el ánimo que me
brindó en este largo proceso. Todo el cariño y amor para ustedes.
Fabián Grez
Agradeceré en esta instancia, pero también personalmente a todos aquellos seres que
compartieron conmigo durante estos cuatro años, así como a mi familia, especialmente padres
y hermanas. A mis amigas y amigos, como mis queridos Keku y Gabriel. A mis compañeros
de inglesa y de seminario, que hasta el día de hoy seguimos acompañándonos en nuestro
sentir. También a aquellos profesores que me orientaron para llegar hasta acá. Y finalmente al
gato que vive conmigo, Mustaphi, que me amasó y despertó temprano todo este tiempo. Para
todos ellos, con los que compartí vida, carretes, comida, alegrias, estrés, sueño y sueños. Todo
mi amor para ustedes.
Walesca Contreras Labra
INDEX
Introduction
1
Chapter I: Identification of the study
3
1.1 Research questions
4
1.2 Objectives
4
1.2.1 General objective
4
1.2.1 Specific objectives
4
1.3 Methodology
4
1.3.1 Design and level
4
1.3.2 Participants
5
1.3.3 Data collection
5
1.3.4 Procedures
5
1.3.5 Analysis models
6
Chapter II: Theoretical framework
7
2.1 State of the art
8
2.2 Theoretical discussion
9
2.2.1 Critical linguistics
9
2.2.2 Linguistic anthropology
11
2.2.3 Culture and the role of language as tool and as a cultural practice
13
2.2.4 Social representations
14
2.2.4.1 Language ideologies
15
2.2.6 Language, politics and symbolic power
16
2.3 Main concepts of Linguistics applied to EFL as cultural constructs
17
2.3.1 “Native speaker”
17
2.3.2 “Error”
18
2.3.3 “Good pronunciation” and “good grammar”
19
2.3.4 “Fluency”
20
2.3.5 “Lexical richness”
21
2.3.6 “Immersion”
22
Chapter 3: Analysis and discussion of results
23
3.1 Social representations of English university professors
25
3.1.1 “Poor level of English”
29
3.1.2 “Speaking English well”
30
3.1.3 “Good communication”
30
3.1.4 “Error”
31
3.1.5 “Fluency”
32
3.1.6 “Good pronunciation”
32
3.1.7 “Lexical richness”
33
3.1.8 “To improve”
33
3.1.9 “Good grammar”
34
3.1.10 “Conversation”
34
3.1.11 “Willingness”
35
3.1.12 “Immersion”
35
3.2 Social representations of English university students
36
3.2.1 “Poor level of English”
40
3.2.2 “Speaking English well”
40
3.2.3 “Native speaker”
41
3.2.4 “Good pronunciation”
41
3.2.5 “Good communication”
42
3.2.6 “Good grammar”
42
3.2.7 “Error”
43
3.2.8 “Fluency”
43
3.2.9 “Lexical richness”
44
3.2.10 “To improve”
44
3.3 Social representations of Science university students
45
3.3.1 “Poor level of English”
46
3.3.2 “Speaking English well”
49
3.3.3 “Native speaker”
49
3.3.4 “Good pronunciation”
50
3.3.5 “Error”
50
3.3.6 “Fluency”
51
3.3.7 “Good communication”
51
3.3.8 “Lexical richness”
52
3.3.9 “To improve”
52
3.3.10 “Good grammar”
53
3.4 Theoretical and methodological implications on teaching English
53
as a foreign language in Chile
3.5 Discussion
55
Chapter IV: Conclusions
56
Chapter V: Limitations and further research
60
References
62
Appendix
67
List of tables
Table 1: Professors’ cultural models emerged from focus groups
25
and personal interviews
Table 2: Professors’ cultural models definitions
25
Table 3: English university students’ cultural models emerged from
36
focus groups andpersonal interviews
Table 4: English university students’ cultural models definitions
37
Table 5: Science university students’ cultural models emerged from
45
focus groups and personal interviews
Table 6: Science university students’ cultural models definitions
45
Table 7: Cultural models arose from focus groups and interviews
59
in each group of social actors
Table 8: English university students’ cultural models emerged
in the pilot focus group
67
1
Introduction
Social representations, and specifically language ideologies, attitudes and perceptions
towards languages have been broadly studied in different social areas that involve aspects of
language. These language ideologies, which may be explicit or implicit, support essential
notions of identity and community (Razfar & Rumenapp, 2012; Schieffelin, Woolard, &
Kroskrity, 1998).
Based on a special interest in the relationship between language and culture and how
this relationship could explain the people’s way of thinking, represented as a cultural practice,
this research is focused on Chilean social representations towards Chileans English use. Thus,
the present study is framed in linguistic anthropology, focusing on social representation of
chilean people towards Alexis Sanches’s use of English. This inquiry concentrate namely on
social representations of English university professors, English university students and on
people without linguistic studies and awareness, in order to analyze them and identify
methodological and pedagogical implications.
Previous studies regarding language ideologies about English, have focused on
specific aspects concerning English language as a “Global” or “International” language
(Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013:218). Thus, they have concentrated primarily on the
native speaker notion, native accents perceptions, and methodological aspects when teaching
English as a second or foreign language. Although there is a global interest for studying
English and language use, there is no much interest on a more critical perspective when doing
so. There is an incipient interest on critical linguistics studies in countries such as Pakistan
and Hong Kong, where English is an official language, being an empowered language in
contrast with their national languages. These studies are focused on specific aspects or
cultural models, such as “error” (Groves, 2010), or on the effects of teaching English in a
specific group of learners of English (Waseem & Asadullah, 2012). However, little attention
has been paid to social representations to a more diverse group of participants from a specific
community. Furthermore, in Chile there is an incipient interest on a critical approach, which
is focused mainly on indigenous languages, such as mapudungun, showing little interest on
critical and exploratory studies of different social actors’ social representations about English
as a foreign language.
Therefore, with this study we intend to fill the gaps, shedding light on the issue of
languages and the awareness of its cultural, political and social construct and contexts, and
2
the importance of this on the educational approach when teaching English as a foreign
language in Chile.
3
CHAPTER I:
IDENTIFICATION OF THE STUDY
4
1.1. Research questions
This study aims to answer the following questions:
1. Which social representations Chilean English teachers have regarding Alexis Sanchez’s use
of English?
2. Which social representations Chilean English learners have regarding Alexis Sanchez’s use
of English?
3. Which social representations Chilean Spanish native speakers without any formal English
instruction have regarding Alexis Sanchez’s use of English?
4. Which are the methodological implications in English teaching of these social
representations?
1.2. Objectives
1.2.1 General objective
To characterize social representations about Alexis Sanchez’s use of English in that
language and their respective pedagogical implications of English teaching.
1.2.2 Specific objectives
1. To characterize English teachers social representations regarding Alexis Sanchez’s use of
English
2. To characterize English students social representations regarding Alexis Sanchez’s use of
English
3. To characterize social representations of Chilean Spanish native speakers without any
formal English instruction regarding Alexis Sanchez’s use of English
4. To analyze methodological implications of the characterized social representations in
English teaching
1.3. Methodology
1.3.1 Design and level
Through a cross-sectional design and an exploratory level, this study will focus on
characterizing social representations of a specific group of Chilean society towards Alexis
Sanchez’s use of English on his first interview in that language. Due to the fact that this
research is framed in Linguistic Anthropology, with focus on social representations, a
qualitative approach will be carried out to characterize them.
5
1.3.2 Participants
To develop this study, a total of 20 participants was interviewed. Five of them were
senior students from English Language and Literature program from the University of Chile
for a pilot procedure. Then, the first group consisted of five university English professors
from UMCE (Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación); five students in their
final year from “Licenciatura en educación con mención en Inglés y pedagogía en Inglés”
programme from UMCE; and the final group was five students from the undergraduate
program of Science from the University of Chile. They are non native English and non expert
users; they had an instrumental instruction and they only use English for academic reading
purposes, but they do not possess language awareness i.e. they do not have explicit
knowledge, conscious perception and sensitivity about language learning, teaching and use.
We strived to have an equal amount of women and men in every group, i.e. two men and
three women or vice versa. Furthermore, the participants were middle class citizens.
1.3.3 Data collection
The data was collected by means of focus groups and individual semi-structured
interviews. Implementing focus group is useful to obtain different types of communication
that people use in a daily basis interaction, which helped exploring people’s knowledge and
attitudes. Moreover, group work helps and could encourage shier people to participate in the
discussion, making it possible, at the same time, to identify shared and common knowledge.
Nevertheless, the presence of many participants might compromise the confidentiality of the
research session (Kitzinger, 1995). Therefore, focus group methodology was complemented
with personal interviews in order to counteract the weaknesses of these group dynamics. The
topic addressed in these different interviews is Alexis’ use of English, what the participants
think about his performance with all the knowledge and perceptions of English they have, and
what different points of view and appreciations arise in that regard.
1.3.4 Procedures
First, a pilot focus group was conducted with five senior English students from the
University of Chile. In the final procedure, each group of participants was gathered in a room
and they were asked to sign the consent form. Then, Sanchez’s interview was shown to them.
Once they finished watching it, their general appreciations were asked regarding Alexis’ use
of English. In order to get participants’ social representations, they were asked about Alexis’s
performance on his first interview in English. In this light, the personal interview was
6
conducted to the individuals that participated more and provided more cultural models on the
focus groups, for them to give more detailed appreciations. Both types of interviews were
conducted on different occasions according to the participants’ schedules, and were recorded
in audio and video. The first two groups were interviewed at UMCE, and the last group was
interviewed at Filosofía y Humanidades faculty.
1.3.5 Analysis Models
After the data is collected, they will be analysed based on the thick description
metaphor
(Geertz, 1973), Language Ideologies (Kroskrity, 2004; Siegel, 2006), Critical
Linguistics (Fowler et al., 1979; Fairclough, 1995; Iyer et al.,2014), Dominant Ideologies
(Bourdieu, 1998), Social Representations model (Moscovici, 1979; Wachelke, 2012).
7
CHAPTER II:
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
8
In this chapter, the main theoretical aspects used in the development and analysis of
the study will be examined. Firstly, different studies related to the area of interest of this
present investigation will be described, concerning Linguistics, Linguistic anthropology, and
Critical linguistics in regards Social representations towards English as a second language.
Secondly, the theoretical concepts that frame this research will be developed
concerning (a) critical linguistics, (b) the concept of linguistic anthropology and its focus on
language variation and culture, (c) culture and the role of language as a tool and as a cultural
construct, (d) the concept of social representation, (f) language ideologies, and (g) the relation
between language and symbolic power.
Finally, main concepts of Linguistics applied to ESL as cultural constructs, which
arouse in the present study, will be described and conceptualized based on what literature
claimed about each: (a) “native speaker”, (b) “error”, (c) “good pronunciation” and “good
grammar”, (d) “fluency”, (e) “lexical richness”, and (f) “immersion”.
2.1 State of the art
Nowadays, English has become an international language and it seems to be the
language of power. In many countries, English has been taught as a foreign and second
language, being considered as a tool that allows a good education and good jobs. (LarsenFreeman & Anderson, 2013).
In this light, English language and teaching has been the object of study from different
linguistic disciplines. In the case of linguistic anthropology, research studies have been
carried out around the world. On the one hand, in the USA and Europe mainly, concerning
social representations, focusing primarily on language ideologies from learners of L1 (Razfar
2005; Razfar & Rumenapp 2011; 2012), and learners of L2 (Episcopo, 2009; Groves,
2010; De Costa, 2011; Waseem & Asadullah, 2012; Tévar, 2014).
On the other hand, in Chile, language ideologies and other social representations
studies have been mainly concerned with Chilean Spanish (Rojas, 2012; 2014; Figueroa,
2007), language ideologies of Mapudungun in an urban context (Wittig, 2009; Lagos, 2011;
2012), and revitalization of Mapudungun (Lagos & Espinoza, 2013; Lagos, Rojas &
Espinoza, 2013; Rojas, Lagos & Espinoza, 2015).
Furthermore, regarding the English language, local researches have focused primarily
on perceptions of teaching methods of English as a foreign language (McBride, 2009), and on
new technologies in the classroom (Morales & Ferreira, 2008), as well as language ideologies
underlying the official curriculum in English and Mapudungun (Pérez de Arce & Lagos,
9
2014). Nevertheless, researchers have not paid much attention to Chileans’ social
representations towards English as a foreign language in a more exploratory approach, taking
into account culture and a critical point of view, focusing on a wider range of participants,
which is the purpose of this study.
2.2 Theoretical discussion
2.2.1 Critical linguistics
Since this study is focused on a more critical analysis of English language and
participants’ social representation, it will be framed on a critical linguistics approach. Critical
Linguistics has specific connections of aim and method with history. Thus, both disciplines
treat texts as types of discursive practice and as documents. Furthermore, like the historian,
the critical linguist tries to understand “the values that underpin social, economic and political
formations, and, diachronically, changes in values and changes in formations”, and the
ideological relativity of representation is their main concern (Fowler 1996:10). Additionally,
this area of linguistics developed in the late 70s follows primarily the functional view of
language by Halliday, who then stated de idea of an “instrumental” linguistics (1978). This
area of study deals with all levels of linguistic analysis, but the branch most commonly
referred to is perhaps critical discourse analysis.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and critical linguistics share with Halliday (1978)
the idea that speakers’ choices of vocabulary and grammar are conscious or unconscious
processes, principled and systematic, which are based on ideology (Todoli et al, 2006). Thus,
the words speakers produced and texts are never ideologically neutral (Fiske, 1994; LarsenFreeman & Anderson, 2012), as they expressed our values and beliefs, being politicized.
More specifically, CDA claims that discourse inevitably involves power and ideologies. Thus,
critical analysts are concerned to uncover the ideological assumptions hidden in the structures
of language to overcome different forms of power expressions.
By critical discourse analysis, Fairclough claims that is the analysis that aims to
systematically explore often ‘opaque’ relationships of causality and determination between
(a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations
and processes, investigating how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are
ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power. And finally, to explore
how the opacity of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing
power and hegemony (1995: 132-33). That is to say, critical discourse analysis studies how
the relation of identity and power are constructed in language (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson,
10
2012). Furthermore, power and dominance are subtle, indirect and generally they occurred
when dominated groups accept that dominance, naturalizing it and legitimizing it, turning the
dominance into hegemony (Van Dijk, 1993b)
At the same time, critical linguistics has emerged from the writing of Language and
Control by Fowler et al., (1979), where the authors intended, to theorize language as a social
practice, which based on Althusser, it is a social and economic intervention, that in this
specific case, functions by the reproduction of ideology (Kress and Hodge, 1979); and to
formulate a public discourse analysis. This analysis was designed to obtain the “ideology
coded implicitly behind the overt propositions” (Fowler, 1996:3) in order to be examined in
its specific context of social formations, using Halliday’s ideational, interpersonal and the
textual macro-functions, as other linguistics traditions as a tool for the analysis (Todoli et al,
2006). For Fowler, the linguistic analysis of ideologies has experience a greatest progress due
to the two areas where Halliday’s ideational function has provided the “clearest
methodological inspiration”, such as lexical classification and transitivity (1996:11).
The goals of critical linguists regarding public discourse are defamiliarization or
consciousness-rising. Thus, critical linguistics looks beyond the formal structure of language
as an abstract system, and goes towards the practical interaction of language and context.
Thus, it attempts to explore a relationship between language use and the social conditions of
it. Moreover, critical linguistics claims that the value systems that are rooted in the medium,
i.e. language, mediate and mould all representation, and that something could have been
represented with different significance, having then, relatively varying representations
(Fowler, 1996). These ideas are closely related to the ‘critical’ aspect of the discipline, as
Connerton (1976) explains, criticism implies questioning the objectivity of certain objects of
experience, entailing a conception of emancipation, since criticism presupposes that reality is
covered by an inherent ‘deformity’, which must be removed. This critical lens have been
taken by applied linguistics.
Due to globalization and post-colonialism processes and the transformation of English
as a global and dominant language, becoming the center of instruction and language teaching
(Abhakorn, 2003), a continued need for critical work in applied linguistics have arose. As
globalization is taken as “a myth . . . a powerful discourse, an idée force . . . which obtains
belief” (Bourdieu 1998: 34), or a phenomenon that involves complex and a mixture of
processes, commonly acting in contradictory ways, which at the same time provokes
conflicts, disjunctures and new forms of inequality (Giddens, 1994:5). According to Iyer et al.
(2014), this inequality has been present namely in those countries where in postcolonial
11
contexts, there has been a dual instruction or in those countries where English is an official
language. Nevertheless, because of the powerful discourse of globalization, many nonEnglish-speaking countries are still moving to adopt English as a second language, as in
Chile, since the global information, technology, and the development of powerful
transnational corporate products, brands, and similar processes have made possible for
English to be a global language. In this light and a large corpus of critical work “refocused
applied linguistics studies on language as a means for power and dominance, cultural
hegemony, and ideological control” (Iyer et al., 2014:324).
An important feature of the critical turn was to focus on everyday language practices
and uses, following Hymes commitments, which is connected with a broader, normative
political analysis of institutional and social structures. This type of analysis was achieved by
following new theoretical resources for applied linguistics, namely the foundational political
and social analysis proposals by Bourdieu, Foucault, Gramsci, Bakhtin among others.
Consequently, applied linguistics moved away from its positivist and descriptivist bases in
Saussurean linguistics, raising foundational questions about its development as a postwar
technology for capital and the state. Therefore, critical applied linguistics aimed to move
away from describing the field as a set of foundational truths about language (Cummins,
2008), identifying and anticipating its historical re-objectification and reformation regarding
current geopolitical, material, and cultural context (Iyer et al., 2014:324).
In this sense, critical linguistics and linguistic anthropology are closely related, since
both disciplines are historical and take into account the political and social context of
language. While critical linguistics studies language from a critical point of view, linguistic
anthropology focuses on language from a cultural perspective, and both are arbitrary and
political constructs. Moreover, language is always pervaded by culture, being at the same
time, a cultural construct. Therefore, it is impossible to study language without a critical point
of view.
2.2.2 Linguistic anthropology
Linguistic anthropology is an interdisciplinary field that “studies language as a
cultural resource and speaking as cultural practice” (Duranti, 1997:2); providing, as a general
goal, an understanding of the different aspects of language in its cultural and social context
(Foley, 2012). That is, the cultural practices “as a system of communication that allows for
interpsychological (between individuals) and intrapsychological (in the same individual)
representations of the social order and helps people use such representations for constitutive
12
social acts” (Duranti, 1997:3). The interest in language use, which is a perspective shared by
other researchers as sociolinguists, primarily Hudson, (1980), and the focus on language as a
set of symbolic resources which build the social scheme and the individual representation of
actual or possible worlds (Duranti, 1997).
Furthermore, Hymes suggests the relation between anthropology and linguistics as
partly connected, sharing the same task of coordinating knowledge about language, but at the
same time, they differ in the sense that both work form different viewpoints. That is to say,
linguistics approaches its study from the perspective of language, and anthropology from the
viewpoint of man (1963).
Thus, Duranti claims that linguistic anthropology must be presented as a part of the
wider field of anthropology and not as a one of the four branches of it, due to the fact that
linguistic anthropology studies language from anthropological concerns. What gives to
linguistic anthropology its unique place in the humanities and social sciences is the dynamic
view of language which highlights language as a set of practices which mediates the
ideational and material aspects of human existence and conceiving particular ways of ‘beingin-the-world (1997). In other words, language should be conceived as a feature and
expression of culture, society and personality (Hymes, 1963).
The work done by linguistic anthropologists is about the ways in which the words said
in a particular context give participants and researchers a point of view, a way of thinking
about the world and the nature of human existence. Thus, for linguistic anthropology, the
interest is conceiving speakers as social actors, which in language place two roles, being a
resource and a product of social interaction. Additionally, these social actors are concrete and
abstract entities in speech communities, which, through infinite acts of speaking, are
constantly changing. And at the same time, it also focused on how language allows for and
creates differentiation between groups, individuals and identities (Duranti, 1997). Therefore,
since language is a social product, some language ideologies and beliefs arise without
linguistic basis.
Recently, there has been a growing interest in the cultural variation of language
ideologies (Blommaert, 2006; Kroskrity & Field, 2009; Lagos et al. 2013). Thus, cultural
models about English language as a second language have started to be studied. Some authors
have been interested primarily in English native speaker’s perceptions toward the use of
English of non native speakers (Lindemann, 2005; Tevar, 2014). Specifically, linguists have
shown interest in folk linguistics, which focuses on cultural model descriptions of folk or non
linguists have towards language, i.e. to describe popular linguistic theories (Niedzielski &
13
Preston, 2003). Hence, folk linguistics takes into account traditional knowledge, and
reflections from those who are not linguists (Paveau, 2011)
2.2.3 Culture and the role of language as tool and as a cultural practice
Culture plays an important role in linguistic anthropology for this discipline studies
language and speaking as cultural resource and cultural practices respectively. Nevertheless,
culture is a highly complex notion which has been of the special interest for different social
scientists such as linguistics anthropologists. Thus, many theories regarding culture have been
tackled and the current theories have tried to set the spotlight to more context-specific and
context dependent practices or forms of participations. But in all theories of culture, language
always plays an important role, for the notion of culture as learned patterns of behavior and
interpretive practices where language “provides the most complex system of classification of
experience” (Duranti, 1997:49). Thus, culture is presented as distinct from nature, but as
something learned or transmitted from generation to generation (Oswalt, 1986), which is a set
of values, habits, beliefs and practices that constitutes the lifestyle of a specific group of
people (Eagleton, 2001).
At the same time, the theory of culture as knowledge is the cognitive view of culture
where language is an important tool for thought. Furthermore, culture as communication is
another theory which is the semiotic view of culture, being a representation of the world, and
claims that human languages are also “powerful metalanguages, communicative systems that
may be used to talk about other communicative systems” (Duranti, 1997:49). Additionally,
Geertz claims that culture is, taking with Max Weber, that we are animals suspended in webs
of significance that ourselves have created. Thus, those webs are culture, which analysis is not
an experimental science searching for law, but an interpretive one searching for meaning
(1973). In order to go further in his proposal, Geertz tackled a thick description of the
culture, being an “account of the discursive system used by the members of a social group to
construct a particular shared version of reality, a unique conceptual world” (Smart, 2008:58).
Therefore, culture is a system of mediation, where language is a tool or a meditational object
which surround us in the society, that is, most of our social life is conducted, mediated and
evaluated through linguistic communication; and at the same time, culture is a system of
practices where language gives a useful link between inner thought and public behavior,
expressing cultural resources that also probably belong to a community.
Finally, based on Duranti (1997), the theory which presents culture as a system of
participation expresses that any action in the world has a social, collective and participatory
14
quality, where language is the prototypical tool for interacting with the world and speaking is
the prototypical mediating activity. Therefore, every theory of culture implies different
research directions, but all of them suggest the study of culture and the analysis of language
as a conceptual and social tool that is both a product and an instrument of culture.
2.2.4 Social representations
In social psychology, the collective experience of the individuals has been the aim of
several studies and theories regarding the relation between thought and production. Emile
Durkheim (1895), influenced by the contributions of Wilhem Wundt, stated that “collective
representations” of the consciousness transcend the individuals as a coercive force,
influencing the ways of conceiving, thinking, and evaluating social reality (Höijer, 2011).
Following the same line, Serge Moscovici (1961) coins the term “Social representations”
which differs from Durkheim’s collective representations due to the fact that it considers the
changeable, and variable character of social cognitions and the important contributions of
individuals to the formation of representations.
Moscovici gives many definitions of what social representations are, declaring that
they are “ideas that give coherence to our religious beliefs, political ideas and the connections
we create as spontaneously as we breathe” (1988:214) allowing us to classify and compare
people and objects regarding a social setting; and as a system of ideas or values which
establish an order, enabling communication between members of a specific community,
providing a common code for social exchange, naming, and categorizing different aspects of
their world and their individual group history (Moscovici, 1973). Additionally, Wachelke
claims that social representations are a product of the action of representing and replacing an
object for what it is being associated with. These social representations are often associated
with practices used by a specific group regarding the alluded social object (2012), which in
this case would be language and the speech act practices.
All things considered, what differentiates social representations with other sociopsychological notions, such as attitudes, prototypes, stereotypes, beliefs, etc, is the fact that
social representation is a symbolic structure shared and actively negotiated through
communication by a specific community (Wachelke, 2012). Even though, these systems of
beliefs are transmitted mainly through language, there are also beliefs and cultural models
towards language itself. Thus, due to the fact that this study is focused on beliefs and cultural
models towards language and languages, and based on a linguistic anthropology point of
15
view, these cultural models will be conceptualize as language ideologies as one of the most
pertaining social representations.
2.2.4.1 Language ideologies
The concept of Language ideologies have been tackled by different authors, as
Kroskrity (2004), who initially describe the notion in general terms as beliefs or thoughts
about language. At the same time, Razfar et al. (2012) propose that language ideologies are
the beliefs, ideas and values towards language held by a group of people i.e. social
representations towards language, which are actively performed in society. These beliefs and
views of society are the bases for their actions and behaviors. Thus, language ideologies
contemplates the ideas a group of people holds towards language and how these ideas affect
the way society uses and acts towards language. In other words, language ideologies are
beliefs about language and languages, which are present in social contexts (Kroskrity, 2004).
Therefore, language ideologies, as societal conventions, are views and actions (Razfar
et al, 2012; Siegel, 2006), which, at the same time, represents and underpins ideas of identity,
attitudes, policies, control and power within a society (Razfar et al, 2012). These beliefs,
feelings, and conceptions about language structure and use “often index the political
economic interests of individual speakers, ethnic and other interest groups, and nation state”
(Kroskrity, 2010:192). Namely language ideologies are the effects of culturally shared
conceptions and beliefs about the world that are projected onto language, which are usually
projections of non-linguistic issues (Lagos et al. 2013). Furthermore, due to the existence of a
close link between language ideologies and attitudes (Garret, 2010), the last one may affect
the validity of a language (Lagos et al, 2013). Along these lines, language ideologies should
be taken as cultural models that speakers have towards language use and function, which are
bound to the usage context and the speakers’ community.
At the same time, Siegel (2006) identifies different languages ideologies common to a
number of diverse cultural groups, such as Monolingualism, Standard language, Egalitarian
pluralism, and Equal opportunity. Thus, the two first propose the use of only one language as
a symbol of national unity, and although the las two claim democratic ideas, presents
contradictions, since they express differences and injustice between speakers of different
social groups anyways.
Furthermore, Siegel (2006)
(in Perez de Arce & Lagos, 2016) also states that
dominant groups maintain the standard form in order to promote and preserve their personal
interests. Moreover, this ideologies are transmitted through dominant groups’ institutions, as
16
educational system, being accepted by marginalized groups. Therefore, there is a bias towards
the standard forms, or as Milroy (2001) proposes, Standard language cultures, where the
members of it believe on the existence of a correct forma of a language, which is superior to
the other variants. These cultures additionally posses the idea of “common sense”, as they
conceive their beliefs to be absolute truths, with no room for debate. Thus, this idea agrees
with Del Valle y Gabriel-Stheeman (2002), who propose monoglosic cultures in western
societies, which stigmatize language variation.
2.2.6 Language, politics and symbolic power
Language ideologies, attitudes and cultural models regarding languages and
specifically English in a specific social group are not only based on linguistic matters, but
primarily on symbolic relations of economic power.
According to Pierre Bourdieu and John Thompson, linguistic exchange, or the speech
act between two people is also an economic exchange produced and “established within a
particular symbolic relation of power between a producer, endowed with a certain linguistic
capital, and a consumer (or market), and which is capable of procuring a certain material or
symbolic profit” (1991:66). Thus, utterances are not just signs or a message to be understood,
but they also bear signs of wealth and authority that intended to be evaluated and appreciated,
in order to be then believed and obeyed. Furthermore, the value of the utterance is given by
the relation of power established between the speakers’ linguistic competences, i.e. between
the capacity for production and as their capacity for appropriation and appreciation (ibid).
At the same time, Foucault states the concept of language and knowledge, which is
based on a dominant institutionalized system, that they are accepted by individuals,
reproduced and naturalized, becoming norms and cultural models (1995). Cultural domination
works by consent, and education is the best mean to generate consent (Gramsci, 1971). Thus,
the value of the utterance depends on the ability of agents to impose their perceptions to their
own benefit in a linguistic exchange (Bourdieu & Thompson, 1991). That is to say, utterances
bear a value given by a group of power dominating other’s utterances, where education plays
a central role in this process as a facilitator.
Nevertheless, the linguistic relation of power is not totally determined by the linguistic
forces alone, but the whole social structure is present in each interaction and therefore in the
discourse uttered, since in the speech act, the speakers who use the language spoken, as the
groups who posse the corresponding competence are present in the interaction. This is the
main problem in the interactionist perspective, as Bourdieu proposes, this approach conceives
17
the interaction as a close world, ignoring the situation or the relation of power between two
persons, for instance between an employer and employee or in a colonial or post colonial
situation, such as between two members of the formerly colonized nation (1982).
2.3 Main concepts of Linguistics regarding ESL as cultural constructs
In this theoretical section, different notions emerged in each group of participants
when talking about Alexis’s use of English will be approached as different concepts discussed
by different authors in order to contrast them with the participants’ own ideas regarding each
one.
2.3.1 “Native speaker”
In Applied Linguistics, there is a constant interest on the concept of a Native Speaker,
because of the need for models, norms and goals weather the focus is on teaching or testing a
first, a second or foreign language (Davies, 2003). Additionally, due to the fact that
multilingualism is the common scenario nowadays (Spolsky, 1998), a need for setting
standards have arose in order to measure success or failure of second language learners, being
the native speaker’s language use as the ‘only appropriate model for a second or foreign
language user (Andreou & Galantomos, 2009). Furthermore, it is frequently assumed that
learning a foreign language ´means being able to use it in the same way as its monolingual
native speakers (Stern, 1983). However, this assumption involves certain problems.
Native Speaker (NS) is an ideal that have raised and taken a central place in foreign
language teaching. Thus, in an educational context, teachers and instructors request to turn
their students into native speakers or achieving a near-nativeness level (Piller, 2002).
Defining Native Speaker is not a clear or easy task, but a complex and debatable one
(Andreou & Galantomos, 2009). Thus, at first sight, some of the first definitions given for a
native speaker have been quite straightforward and clear. First, it is said that a native speaker
of English, for instance, is someone who is born in an English-speaking country, who has
learned English during childhood in an English-speaking environment, someone who speaks
English as a first language and has a native-like command of English, is capable of producing
fluent, spontaneous speech in English that is characterized by creativity and has the intuition
to distinguish correct or wrong forms in English (Medgyes, 1999). At the same time, Stern
(1983) proposes that a native speaker is a person with subconscious knowledge of rules, an
intuitive grasp of meaning, ability to communicate within various social settings, a range of
language skills and creativity of language use. However, the concept of ‘native speaker’ and
18
all the features presented above have been questioned. Some researchers have argued that
these characteristics of a native speaker are confusing, misleading and cause of fuzziness
(Andreou & Galantomos, 2009).
The main problem regarding the term native speaker is that it suggests the existence of
a single, idealized register of the target language, although´within the same speech
community there are different registers and styles which are valued for various sociopolitical
reasons (Phillipson, 1992). Thus, what makes the task of defining a native speaker difficult is
that languages have several dialects, registers and styles. In this sense, which would be the
ideal native speaker of Spanish for instance, a professor, a musician, or a bus driver?
Furthermore, a person who lives in Madrid or in Andalucia? Moreover, when specific
language pattern are preferred over others, the foundations of the election are not purely
linguistics criteria, but due to social norms and process of standardization. Consequently, the
variety of registers within a single speech community adds ideological dimensions to the
matter in discussion creating at the same time the fallacy of a homogenous native speaker
who manifests accurate and proper language use (Andreou & Galantomos, 2009). Moreover,
being born into a specific community is not sufficient factor for an automatic good language
use, and some native speakers are not proficient in every language area (Rampton, 1990).
Therefore, since the ideal speaker competence is based on assumptions and intuitions and the
native speaker behavior is not documented, judging second language learners`performance
will be quite difficult (Williams, 1990).
2.3.2 “Error”
Errors have played an important role in the field of second language acquisition and
applied linguistic research, being errors an integral part of first and second language learning
(Khansir, 2012), having then important implications on language learning and teaching
(Zhang & Province, 2006). Although some authors state that defining ‘error’ is not an easy
task, others have developed different theories regarding error in Applied Linguistics. In this
light, two attitudes have been proposed towards learner’s errors: first, that bad teaching gave
rise to learners’ error, so teaching methodologies should be improved in order to avoid errors
to achieve perfection and being the learners able to learn “the pure and accurate form of the
target language” ( Zhang & Province, 2006:86). And the second attitude was that learners’
errors were inevitable and most important was to design a means to deal with them (ibid).
Additionally, it has been stated that errors “are an important source of information about
SLA, since they are the evidence that L2 rules are not simply memorized and then
19
reproduced”, but learners create their own rules based on input data (Ellis, 1988). Even
though these learners’ errors are not systematic, as they differ according to learners and
contexts, Ellis claims that they are regular in some way (1988). This agreed with researches in
psycholinguist that has shown that the patterns of learner’s errors are regular and follow
certain rules. Then, studying learners’ errors could thrown some light on how much the
learners have learnt and how they have yet to learn (Zhang & Province, 2006).
Nevertheless, since 1) ‘contrastive analysis’, 2) ‘error analysis’ and 3)‘interlanguage’
prevailed in the field of applied linguistic (Khansir, 2012; Zhang & Province, 2006), learners’
errors were identified from three specific points of view. First, errors are conceived as
interference of the learners’ mother tongue with the target language, being native language
interference the major source of errors in second language learning (Khansir, 2012; Zhang &
Province, 2006). Second, they are defined as a deviation, or more specifically, it is a
comparison between the errors made in the target language and that target language itself; or
as Richards (1971:l.) explained “the field of error analysis may be defined as dealing with the
differences between the way people learning a language speak and the way adult native
speakers of the language use the language” (Khansir, 2012; Zhang & Province, 2006). Third,
as Selinker (1972) discarded the notion of ‘error’, he introduced the idea of interlanguage
instead, claiming the possibility that learners’ language can be considered as a distinct
language variety or system with particular features and rules (Jie, 2008; Khansir, 2012). This
is based on the theory that when learning a second language, learners create a system for
themselves that differs in some aspects from their mother tongue and the second or the target
language (Khansir, 2012). At the same time, Corder has stated a distinction between ‘error’
and ‘mistake’, where the first one refers to systematic errors or ‘errors of competence’ and the
second to non systematic errors or ‘errors of performance’ (1974).
2.3.3 “Good pronunciation” and “good grammar”
According to Geoffrey Leech, language works through an abstract mechanism called
grammar when we communicate, which is a set of rules that allows us to “put words together
in certain ways, but which do not allow others” (2006:3). The use of grammar is often judged
or evaluated according to its use, being labeled as “good” or “bad” depending if the speaker
followed the rules or not. Following that line, if we conceive grammar as a set of rules which
describe how one uses language, the rules should not be judged as good nor bad.
Grammarians are supposedly concerned with describing the way people actually use the
language instead of prescribing it, being the last one which conceives the idea of a better or
20
worse grammar. Nevertheless, communicating effectively with language implies following
certain rules even though they do not belong to the Standard and universally approved variety.
From a dogmatic and prescriptive approach to language it is suggested that there’s only one
correct form of the language, standard language, which everyone should use in spite of many
existing varieties which are seeing as an incorrect grammar.
Moreover, from this perspective, the idea of ‘bad grammar’ is understood in a similar
way as ‘bad manners’ in the sense that it is something one needs to avoid doing while
communicating (Leech et al., 2006). However, from a descriptive point of view standard
language is just another variety or dialect, it is not “inherently better or more ‘grammatical’
that non-standard English (all varieties are grammatical in that they follow rules), but it has
prestige for social rather than linguistic reasons” (Leech et al., 2006). These varieties or
dialects are used to describe regional origins of English, being based on different language
use and users, which are reflected on the way one speaks. Then, speech may be identified on
the basis of its grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation. Every dialect has its own grammar,
use of vocabulary and pronunciation, which does not imply an incorrect or deviant use of
language, but just a variety of the language determined by the characteristics of its users
(Leech et al., 2006).
Regarding pronunciation, the standard and the most prestigious forms are Received
Pronunciation (RP) and General American (GA). The first one represents the Standard spoken
British English, which was spread by the broadcasting by the BBC and its prestige since it is
the variety commonly considered to be upper-class and educated speakers. The second one is
the standard spoken American English, which was mostly used in the Midwest and it is
characterized by the suppression of identifiable regional and social variants (Cruttenden,
2001).
Therefore, due to the fact that Standard English is the best known variety of English in
Britain, it usually used for pedagogical reasons in textbooks and inside the classroom (Leech
et al., 2006)
2.3.4 “Fluency”
One of many aspects considered when evaluating students production of English is
fluency. However, the concept does not possess a clear definition, making the evaluation of
L2 learners’ speech competence quite subjective. Chambers (1997) states that the definition
of fluency is widely unresolved, and its often used as an assessment for language proficiency
in an academic context. Following that line, fluency has been used to measure speakers
21
proficiency in the language based on different aspects of language use, such as reading,
writing, and speaking. For Fuchs et al, reading fluency is considered as the “oral translation of
text with speed and accuracy” (2001:239).
Jean Chandler, on the other hand, conceives fluency as the number of words written in
a specified period of time (2003,). Finally, in terms of speaking fluency, Skehan and Foster
take into account accuracy and complexity. First of all, they measure fluency through number
of pauses, secondly, the percentage of clauses without errors to measure accuracy, and thirdly,
taking into account the level of subordination as a measure of complexity (1997). In a similar
way, there are authors who take into account communicative competence when referring to
fluency, J.C. Richards defines it as “when a speaker engages in meaningful interaction and
maintains comprehensible and ongoing communication despite limitations in his or her
communicative competence” (2006:14). All things considered, fluency is a complex concept
which meaning varies according to what it is been study and the authors point of view.
2.3.5 “Lexical richness”
Researchers use the term “lexical richness” as measurement of students’ complexity
and variety of “productive vocabulary” in a language (Lu, 2012), specially when evaluating
spoken and written proficiency. Even though the term is widely used in L2 teaching and
research, there is not an agreement on how lexical richness should be investigated (Daller et
al., 2003). Thus, there have been many measures of lexical richness used by different authors,
such as self assessment, in which participants have to indicate if they know a certain word or
lexical item taken from a dictionary or a word list. However, this method is highly unreliable,
due to the fact that participants may have heard of a word without knowing its meaning,
nevertheless indicating that they know it (Zechmeister et al., 1993).
Another way of measuring lexical richness is the Type-Tokens Ratio (TTR), for
measuring written texts or speech. This method consists of indicating a relation between the
amount of different lexical items a person uttered (types) with the general amount of lexical
items (tokens). This form of measuring lexical richness has gained a lot of criticism due to the
fact that longer texts or speech limit the speaker in terms of words he or she can use (Arnaud,
1984; Richards, 1987). Consequently, many authors state that TTR does not measure lexical
richness effectively, in written nor spoken contexts (Broeder et al, 1993; Vermeer, 2000). In
addition, it is claimed by Vermeer that a more productive measure of lexical richness in
spontaneous speech is to consider the difficulty of the words used by the speaker (2000).
Following that line, Daller et al. claim that making a distinction between basic or advance
22
words could be achieved with a qualitative approach, giving more deepening regarding lexical
aspects of language proficiency than quantitative measures such as TTR (2003).
2.3.6 “Immersion”
The term immersion is used in two different ways in educational context, according to
Cummins. On the one hand, the concept alludes to immersion programs, which are planned
forms of bilingual education, in which learners receive significant amount of second language
input in an instructional environment, with the purpose of developing proficiency in the target
language.
On the other hand, the term makes reference to the immersion of immigrants or
minority language children in a classroom, conducting the class entirely through their second
language; with the intention of developing proficiency in the language they are learning
(2009). There are different types of immersion related to classroom immersion aimed mostly
for children between 5 and 14 years old; there is partial immersion, in which programs vary
the degree of emphasis put on L2, without spending the whole class time in the target
language, and total immersion, in which almost the entirety of the class time is spent in L2,
and the majority of subjects are taught in L2; among others (Baker, 2006). There are several
immersion programs in different countries aiming for minorities and immigrants, and the
most popular one is the Canadian Immersion program, which aims to promote fluency and
literacy in students’ L2 while continuing to develop their L1 (Cummins, 2009), which is the
case of French and English, respectively. There is evidence that a well implemented bilingual
program is a competent form of encouraging proficiency in two languages, for both minority
and majority language learners (August & Shanahan, 2006). Nevertheless, there are other
factors that may influence the effectiveness of immersion.
On the one hand, in a research carried out by Zimny, concerning Spanish proficiency
of Polish people living in Spain, results showed that children have better proficiency than
adults, concluding that immersion (high quantity and quality of input) does not guarantee, on
its own, the mastering of a language, being the age a decisive factor (2014). Another factor to
take into account is motivation, in a research study carried out by Maclntyre et al (2002) with
high French late immersion program students, it was showed that there is a correlation
between a higher perceived competence in the target language with positive attitudes and
motivations.
23
CHAPTER III:
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
24
In this chapter, all of the cultural models that came up in the focus groups and
personal interviews, for each group of participants, will be assessed in terms of what the
participants expressed regarding each specific cultural model and their corresponding
literature.
Even though, there are many cultural models that arouse in every group of
participants, there are some that just emerged in specific social actors. The shared cultural
models are the following:
-
“Poor level of English”
-
“speaking English well”
-
“good communication”
-
“good pronunciation”
-
“lexical richness”,
-
“to improve”
-
“error”
In the case of English university professors it is possible to find:
-
“conversation”,
-
“willingness”
-
“immersion”,
In the case of English university students and Science university students these were the
cultural models that appeared:
-
“good grammar”,
-
“culture”,
-
“power” and
-
“native speaker”
Similarly to the latter group, Science university students have “culture” but from a different
perspective, which will be discussed later on.
Therefore, these results will be presented and analyzed by each social actor. First, the
cultural models of English university professors. Second, the cultural models of English
university students. Then, the cultural models of Science university students. Finally,
methodological and pedagogical implications of the social representation into teaching
English a second language will be discussed.
25
3.1 Social representations of English University Professors
Table 1
Professors’ cultural models emerged from focus groups and personal interviews
Cultural Models
“Speaking
Focus groups/interviews
English
*This category emerged as a result of all the following categories
well”
“Poor level
of English”
“Good
communication”
“Error”
M3: “A mí me llama la atención que, con tanto tiempo allá, (…) esté todavía tan bajo el
nivel de inglés.”
M1: “ahora, viéndolo desde el punto de vista de la comunicación ahí había cosas que yo
no le entendía”
M3: “más que nada lo digo porque se siente a pesar de los errores…”
“Fluency”
M3: “…hay fluidez, no se corta tanto, no piensa tanto para responder”
“Good
M3: “no necesariamente que tenga tanta buena pronunciación”
pronunciation”
“Lexical richness”
H2: “(los futbolistas) siempre repiten como las mismas frases”; “(Si hablara de otro
tema) ahí no marcaría vocabulario”; “usa el mismo vocabulario que ocupa en español”
“To improve”
M1: “hay muchas cosas que pudiesen ser mejoradas considerando un año y medio de
clases con profesores particulares”
“Good grammar”
M3 “no necesariamente que tenga tanta (…) buena gramática”
“Conversation”
M1: “O sea, ahí veo como bien impersonal de hecho no hubo ninguna interacción (…)
no fue una conversación”
“Willingness”
M1: “teniendo buena voluntad hacia él, hay cosas que realmente yo no entendí”
“Immersion”
M3: “porque cuando tú estás inmerso es mucho más rápido el proceso.”
Table 2
Professors’ cultural models definitions
Cultural Models
Definitions
“Poor level of
M1: “…el inglés básico como profesora uno tiende a entender lo que está diciendo la otra
English”
persona. Sin embargo, cuando no eres profesora “no entiendo”, entonces pa mí ese básico
tiene que ver con cuan capaz eres de hacerte entender no conmigo, no acá, sino allá donde tú
necesitas en el fondo”
M2: “un nivel en que se cometan muchos errores gramaticales y de pronunciación y de
vocabulario, eso es básico, pero que igual la persona logre comunicarse, porque si no se
comunica para nada, ya no hay nivel ya”
H1: “Para mí un nivel como bajo es cuando ocupan, por ejemplo las mismas palabras o
palabras, depende, para mi depende de los contextos, depende las tematicas que estamos
26
hablando. El todo el rato hablaba del equipo, de la familia, agradecer and happy (risas).
Como por ultimo que en el en ese contexto hubiera dicho algo negativo o que hubiera algo a
lo mejor negativo, poner el opuesto poh, estar consciente de los opuestos, no solamente
“happy”, como todo lo mismo.”
“Speaking
M1: “Para mí el inglés debe ser un inglés standard, que tú puedas hablarlo y que en
English well”
cualquier parte del mundo te puedan entender y tú debes ser capaz de comunicarte con una
persona que aprendió inglés (…) Y eso pa mi es hablar un buen inglés, que te permita, no
hablo de hablarlo perfectamente con una entonación o con una pronunciación muy
exquisita”
M2: “la idea es que sea a nivel de comunicación, que se pueda comprender, pero no no no
necesariamente que tenga tan tanta buena pronunciación, tanta buena gramática, ya, pero a
nivel de un profesor de inglés tiene que ser más correcto en todo sentido, porque son un
modelo, entonces va a depender”
H1: “yo creo que lo más importante es el léxico que pueden desarrollar y los contextos
donde se desarrolla ese léxico (…) para mí el léxico y el manejo del léxico en el contexto”
“Good
M1: “yo creo que en el fondo comunicarse bien es cuando tú no tienes que repetir las
communication”
preguntas o las opiniones o los conceptos para que la otra persona te entienda. Por ejemplo
si yo te hago una pregunta X y tú no me entiendes y yo tengo que repetir esa pregunta tres
veces para que me entiendas entonces ahí hay un problema. Sin embargo, si tú eres capaz de
entenderme con s, sin s, en pasado, you went, etc. Entonces ahí hay comunicación, creo yo.”
M2: “Una buena comunicación es elegir una idea principal bien y elaborarla lo mejor
posible, usando palabras claves, que en este caso eran “happy” y “team”, en el caso de
Alexis.”
“Error”
M1: “Bueno, técnicamente el error es cuando el alumno desconoce la regla (…) y le mistake
es cuando tú sabes la regla y alguien te la ha dicho.”
M2: “Eh un error gramatical por ejemplo no ponerle la “s” a la tercera persona, eh usar el
did con el pasando el verbo con el verbo en pasado, esos son errores más o menos graves,
pero que no interfieren en la comunicación, porque se puede comprender igual, son
aceptables.”
H1: “Error es seria como algo incorrecto que sea constante que no estai consciente de que
es incorrecto (…)en general un error es como algo que uno comete too el tiempo sin tratar
de corregirlo”
“Fluency”
M1: “fluidez a algo no necesariamente a speed, fluency because of speed, sino que fluency
en el sentido de que las ideas, lo que tú quieras decir fluya y que no tengas esa necesidad de
pensar en cómo vas a decir algo para decirlo”
M2: “Yo considero fluidez la capacidad de producir extensiones mas o menos largas de
oraciones, ya? O lo que se podría ver como un párrafo pero oralmente, mas de 4 o 5
oraciones juntas sin tanta duda, sin tanta hesitation”
H1: “Creo que una conversación fluida seria donde los dos integrantes, o sea los dos
participantes de la conversación se entienda o traten de entender la idea del otro participante
27
y de laguna forma le ayude a seguir su discurso. Esa es como la labor de nosotros de
repente, de tratar de entender lo que está diciendo y ayudarle a construir el discurso.”
“Good
M2: “que estén los sonidos vocales bien hechos, que hayan por ejemplo, aunque no
pronunciation”
interfieren con la comunicación, pero para hablar un nivel más avanzado, que estén bien
pronunciados los verbos regulares eeeh que hayan matices en la entonación, probablemente
uso de weak forms”
“Lexical
M1: “Tener la capacidad de un momento determinado expresar el grado de, de esa
richness”
sensación, de ese sentimiento, de esa emoción, de ese gusto. Por ejemplo siempre digo oye
eliminen el nice del vocabulario, porque nice es nada.”
M2: “quizá utilizar a lo mejor mas eh sinónimos de las palabras. El repetía la misma idea
que es good for the team, entonces claaro, is happy (risas), entonces sí, variar un poquito las
palabras y lo que dice poh, en general el repetía y repetía la misma idea una y otra vez. (…)
Lo ideal sería que él pudiera hablar de otras cosas también, no solamente repetir eso, eh
poder usar otras cosas”
H1: “Para tener como una riqueza léxica, no se tener varias formas de decir lo mismo, no
ser repetitivo, no decir todo el rato “familia”, sino que, el grupo donde me desarrollo, no
repetir la misma palabra una y otra vez.”
“To improve”
M1: “me parece fundamental que él tuviese una noción de lo que son funciones lingüísticas,
por ejemplo dar una opinión (…), identificar algo. O sea, en términos de aprendizaje yo
diría
(…)
funciones
lingüísticas,
acompañado
de
las
estructuras
lingüísticas
correspondientes, frases idiomáticas, por ejemplo, que encuentro que eso es una de las
grandes falencias que tenemos en nuestra educación (…) es que hablamos con un inglés,
entre comillas académico, estructurado, porque enfatizamos mucho la gramática. Pero no
trabajamos, por ejemplo phrasal verbs, o idiomatic expressions, or proverbs, sayings,
montones de cosas.”
M2: “Eehm, en el caso especifico de Alexis, él, en su pobreza (risas), cometía el error de
repetir la misma idea varias veces. Al o mejor eso es una cosa que el podría mejorar (…)
Tendría que mejorar la elaboración de las oraciones, su pronunciación, eh su vocabulario
más que nada su vocabulario que lo encontré muy básico”
H1: “Yo creo que mejorar seria con cómo te decía con lo léxico (…) Eso puede ser una
mejora y algunas formas, decir como el eje léxico que contrarreste, así como “however, on
the other hand”, como que tratar de ligar sus ideas, un poco más complejo.”
“Good grammar”
M2: “estructuras más elevadas, eh hablemos de, no sé si puedo hablar de cosas mas técnicas
o no? Emm tiempos perfectos, condicionales, segundo condicional, tercer condicional”
“Conversation”
M1: “Bueno, lo que estamos haciendo nosotros ahora en estos momentos es una
conversación y yo me imagino que una persona, si nosotros quisiéramos hacer esta
conversación en inglés la podríamos hacer porque ustedes son… ustedes son estudian
inglés, claro por ejemplo yo no podría hacer esto con Alexis, no podríamos tener una
conversación en inglés con Alexis a no ser que fuera… le voy a preguntar: “¿Le gusta el
café?” “Yes, I like coffee” una cosa así, o sea a menos que sea una cosa muy estructurada
28
quizás él no podría tener una conversación normal con cualquier persona.”
M2: “Hablar de cosas más personales, porque aca estaban hablando solamente de cosas
relacionadas con el futbol, a lo mejor hablar más de su familia, de sus sueños, de su vida
pasada, de su vida en Chile, de lo que le gustaba hacer en su tiempo libre, cosas como mas
relacionadas con su vida personal.”
H1: “Una conversación sería algo no tan unidireccional, me hubiera gustado ver como una
interacción, hubiera sido educativo en ese sentido así de verdad Alexis le estaba entendiendo
o trataba de entender o le hacia contrapreguntas para entender lo que le estaba diciendo. Yo
creo que como las contrapreguntas o aclaración son importantes para una conversación
fluida.”
“Willingness”
M1: “en el fondo está la voluntad, porque además entendemos cómo funciona, entendemos
cuáles son las características que nos identifican como hispanohablantes, (…) Yo creo que
eso claro tú tienes como profesor, te da el aquello de entender lo que esa persona… de
interpretar, yo creo que tenemos mucho eso los profes. Entonces la necesidad de comunicar
de esa persona nosotros también… we bridged the gap porque si yo fuera “no entiendo, no
entiendo lo que quieres decir” (…) y eso es lo que creo que es distinto (…) entonces uno
quería entender.”
M2: “Es la capacidad de interpretar lo que la otra persona quiere decir, que probablemente
los profes de ingles la tenemos, tenemos más esa voluntad, porque estamos acostumbrados a
escuchar errores, entonces sabemos lo que quería saber, nos acostumbramos a ciertos errores
que los alumnos cometen y lo entendemos, entonces probablemente nosotros entendemos
más de lo que entendería un hablante nativo”
H1: “Es que por ejemplo cuando se tiene esa aceptabilidad de tratar de construir los gaps
que pueda tener dentro de su discurso, por eso cuando no se si me acuerdo axactamente,
pero cundo por ejemplo le faltaba el verb to be, si digo “me happy”, yo se que es “I’m
happy”, solamente uno trata de corregir esos baches como cognitivamente como para
construir un discurso, esa es como la voluntad, tratar de construir, tratar de ayudar al otro a
construir su discurso.”
“Immersion”
M1: “para ellos el total immersion es que la persona pueda desarrollarse completamente en
ese idioma sin recurrir al otro” “para mí eso fue total immersion, la necesidad (…) la
motivación, y en mi caso particular de no querer que te discriminen de cómo tu hablas”
“Entonces el total immersion significa que tú tengas la necesidad de comunicarte y eso es lo
que yo creo que le falta a él (Alexis) que no tiene la necesidad de comunicarse.”
M2: “Estar en el lugar donde se hable el idioma, con gente que habla el otro idioma.
(…)Mientras estén en el lugar y hablando el idioma. Yo creo que es importante también
estar en el lugar, más que el idioma.”
H1: “Para estar 100% immersed seria sin ese salvavidas constante del español que él sabe
que alguien le va a entender igual. Por eso el no tiene la necesidad de aprender tampoco
ingles poh”
29
3.1.1“Poor level of English”
Regarding the cultural model of Poor level of English, professors expressed different
ideas. M1 claimed that a poor level is expressed in two different situations. On the one hand,
when a professor has to make an effort in order to understand what the other person is saying
in English. On the other hand, when you are not a professor, a poor level of English has to do
with how capable you are to communicate your ideas. Thus, the participant makes a
distinction between professor and non professors, in which the first one has the capacity to
understand what the other person is saying. Although the interlocutor may express some
difficulties when communicating something, professors make the effort to understand, while
non professors do not. Nevertheless, what may or may not be a difficulty when
communicating depends particularly on the professors’ judgment or point of view. These
difficulties are identified by professors due to the fact that they are used to focusing on
different aspects of language such as grammar, pronunciation, syntax, and vocabulary,
leading them to believe that a barrier like obstacle exists for those who are not professors.
Therefore, they will not strive to understand the message.
M2 considers a poor level of English when a speaker is able to communicate despite
making several errors concerning grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary. Additionally, the
participant states that if a speaker is not able to communicate at all he or she will not posses
any level of English whatsoever. Thus, even though the participant claims that
communication is the most important aspect when measuring levels of English, it seems that
errors are still relevant in order to determine them. Consequently, a high level of English
implies the absence of errors in the language usage. H1 puts emphasis on vocabulary, for poor
level of English is using the same amount of words over and over again in specific contexts.
Along these lines, this participant gives importance to context for determine which set of
words one is going to use. Nonetheless, he expresses a necessity of a greater amount of words
usage in order to achieve lexical richness and consequently, a higher level of English.
Hence, for this group of participants a poor level of English means not being able to
communicate one’s ideas, in spite of the fact that one’s speech may contain phonological,
grammatical, and lexical errors. Therefore, in order to achieve a higher level of English
speakers should not make errors in each aspect of the language. This appreciation is based on
the perception that a Standard English is the correct and better way of speaking English and
consequently, any deviation from this norm should be considered a poor level of English.
Thus, this perception is not based on linguistic reasons, but rather on sociopolitical
foundations.
30
3.1.2 “Speaking English well”
Regarding speaking well, M1 claims that is speaking the standard English in order to
be understood in any country, being able to communicate with a person who learned or
speaks different varieties of English, but not necessarily pronouncing “perfectly”. At the
same time, M2 believes that speaking well has to do with communication, i.e. being
understood in spite of not having a good pronunciation nor good grammar. However, in the
case of English professors, they have to be “correct” in terms of pronunciation and grammar,
since they are a model. Nevertheless, H1 expresses that speaking well has to do with the
lexical knowledge and its use in different contexts.
Thus, for university professors of English, speaking well the language means being
able to communicate with a certain level of lexical knowledge, without necessarily having a
good pronunciation nor good grammar, but English professors must follow the rules of
standard English correctly. All things considered, this group claims that there are levels of
speaking English, and that even though the most important aspect is communication, they still
believe that speaking English well is using the Standard English. Moreover, despite the fact
that they do not consider having a “good pronunciation” or “good grammar” relevant for
speaking well, They consider that the Standard English implies having a “good
pronunciation” and “good grammar”, which is actually the canon or rules a speaker must
follow. Therefore, this cultural model is based, first on an ideal of the English language and
second, on sociopolitical foundations, since this notion is based on the Standard English
variant as the model and the appropriate form of the English language..
3.1.3 “Good communication”
M1 claims that a good communication presupposes not repeating questions, opinions,
or concepts, to make yourself understood. However, one is able to communicate in spite of
the presence of grammatical errors. In other words, a good communication can be
accomplished despite of grammatical errors if the listener understands the idea without having
to repeat it. M2 focuses on the speaker, for she argues that having a clear idea and formulating
it as well as possible, with the use of key words, allows a good communication. All things
considered, speakers can achieve a good communication albeit grammatical errors and a
limited lexicon.
This notion presupposes that there are levels of communication, where a good level, or
good communication implies “making yourself understood”. In this light, it is possible to
31
infer that there is a “poor communication”, which would be then, not “making yourself
understood”. That is to say, there is actually a contradiction between the notion itself and the
participant’s definition, since the latter suggests that there is actually communication or not,
and not levels of it. Thus, the idea of a “good communication” seems not to have clear
linguistic support, but it is based on an ideal of communication and an ideal of the speech act.
3.1.4 “Error”
M1 and M2 agreed that an error occurs when a speaker is not aware of the rules, but
one of them additionally made a distinction between ‘error’ and ‘mistake’, which agreed with
Corder’s idea of systematic errors or ‘errors of competence’ and non systematic errors or
‘errors of performance’ (1974). Then, H1 makes reference to an error when a learner does not
follow the rules in terms of grammar. Consequently, all of them refer to ‘error’ as fault or as a
deviation from the norm of Standard English, where one of them specified a grammatical
deviation. These notions are quite related to some ‘error’s definitions that some authors
intended to clarify in second language learning and Applied Linguistic areas. Although some
authors state that defining ‘error’ is not an easy task (Zhang, 2006), others have developed
different theories regarding error in Applied Linguistics, such as ‘contrastive analysis’ , ‘error
analysis’ and ‘interlanguage’ (Akbar, 2012).
Thus, ‘error’ is conceived first as a deviation, then interference, which could be or not
systematic, and finally, as Selinker (1972) discarded the notion of ‘error’ introducing the idea
of interlanguage instead, which occurs “when a learner of a language produces the processes
are used in learning of the language differs from both his/her mother tongue and the target
language is called an interlanguage” (Akbar, 2012). In this light, the participants explain
errors as interference of the mother tongue and as a deviation from the norm of standard
English primarily.
On the one hand, “error” is a quite useful phenomenon from a methodological and
pedagogical point of view. On the other hand, from a cultural point of view, the question that
arose is: How relevant is the “error” for communication? As the idea of “error” is based on a
deviation of the rule of the Standard English, it implies that if one speaks English using the
standard form, will be using the correct form. In this sense, the idea of “error” will be relative,
since it will depend on which side of the canon one is. Not following the Standard English
will be an error. Thus, speakers of English as a second language should deprive of their own
idiosyncratic characteristics to speak correctly, imitating ones from others. Hence, the idea of
“error” is a relative and political phenomenon as well.
32
3.1.5 “Fluency”
M1 conceives fluency as when one does not have a necessity of pausing to think how
you are going to say something. M2 considers fluency when a speaker is able to elaborate
long sentences without hesitating in his/her speech. For H1, fluency exists when all
participants of a conversation understand each other, and help construct each other’s ideas.
Also, the participants highlight that professors objective is trying to understand what the other
person is saying, assisting in the elaboration of speech, even though the person is not being
fluent.
It is important to mention that the concept of fluency has had many definitions
depending on what authors perceive as fluency, and if it concerns reading (Fuchs et al, 2001),
writing (Chandler, 2003) or speaking fluency (Skehan and Foster, 1997). Taking into account
J.C. Richards definition of fluency: “when a speaker engages in meaningful interaction and
maintains comprehensible and ongoing communication despite limitations in his or her
communicative competence” (2006) it is possible to say that Alexis could be fluent despite of
limitations in his communicative competence, and hesitations would not measure fluency.
Thus, the concept is limited to what the person evaluating believes it is, and its evaluation will
depend on the authors’ criteria.
All things considered, the notion of fluency is a relative concept and there is no clear
consensus what it actually is. Additionally, the concept is not based on linguistic
justifications, but rather on personal perceptions and esthetics, as in “not pausing” or
“hesitating” may seem as indicators of lack of proficiency. However, it does not mean a
speaker is not able to communicate or is not proficient in the language by merely pausing to
think what he/she wants to say or hesitating during the speech. Moreover, the idea of learners
being fluent as native speakers is based on the assumption that an ideal native speaker exists,
who does not hesitate nor pauses when he communicates, when in reality native speakers can
hesitate and pause while still communicating their ideas.
3.1.6 “Good pronunciation”
M2 makes reference to elements concerning phonetics, stressing the importance of the
correct production of English sounds, and at the same time, to phonological aspects such as
diverse intonation and the use of weak forms. According to her, these phonological features
allow a more advanced level of speech. Even though, communication would still be achieved
in spite of not performing the sounds correctly, these are relevant for a good pronunciation.
33
These assumptions are referring to the pronunciation of the Standard English and its
rules, where having a “good pronunciation” implies respecting this canon. Therefore, these
beliefs are primarily based on a prescriptive approach and on political basis that are hidden in
the acceptance of one variety of the English language as the ‘correct’ form i.e., the Standard
English.
3.1.7 “Lexical richness”
M1 conceives lexical richness as having the capacity of expressing degrees to express a
specific mood or preference, avoiding general lexical items such as “nice” to describe
something, for it means “nothing”. Then, M2 refers directly to the use of different synonyms
and being able to talk about different subjects. This is quite similar to H1, who claims that
lexical richness has to do with using different ways or lexical items to communicate the same
idea. Thus, when the participants refer to the use of synonyms, they give importance to the
quantity of words one use or know, but they are not taking into account ‘the degree of
difficulty of the words used by the informant’ (Vermeer, 2000) in spontaneous speech.
However, as Vermeer stated, methods for measuring lexical richness are not satisfactory
(2000), and consequently there are not clear definitions of the concept. Following these lines,
the notion of lexical richness suggests that there are no clear ideas of what actually is lexical
richness, but it is a relative concept, where the complexity of a lexical item, or its degree of
difficulty is not certain as well. Moreover, this relativeness sheds light on the fact that this
notion is not based on linguistic premises or explanations, but it is based on an aesthetic
appreciation of what is better or more appropriate for expressing one’s ideas. Nevertheless,
the speaker will still be communicating, in spite of he or she does not fulfill those unclear
requirements of lexical richness. Thus, considering that the bases of the lexical richness
notion are not linguistic ones, but it is based on someone’s perspective, someone who might
have been of influence, being then a notion based on political principles.
3.1.8 “To improve”
For each participant Alexis needed to improve several aspects of his use of English.
For instance, M1 focuses on linguistic functions for the purpose of giving an opinion, phrasal
verbs, and idioms, which are given less importance in educational contexts. Additionally, it
was argued by M2 that Alexis needed to improve many aspects of his use of English, such as
grammar, syntax, pronunciation and particularly vocabulary, for he should construct different
ways to communicate one idea. Likewise, H1 also gives emphasis specifically to vocabulary
34
and connectors in order to tie his ideas together giving them more coherence, and at the same
time, producing a more complex speech.
Therefore, in general terms, these ideas regarding “to improve” refer to an ideal of the
language, since they believe that Alexis needs to know more complex structures and using
“correctly” different aspects of English Language. This “correct” use of the language means
the achievement of the Standard English, using and following its rules in terms of grammar,
syntax, pronunciation and vocabulary. In this light, the participants’ beliefs are not based on
an ideal of the English language and its use, as on political matters, since their conception of
“improving” in itself suggest the importance of following the rules that a group of people
stated that are the correct use.
3.1.9 “Good grammar”
This cultural model arose just from one of the participants during the personal
interview, where she actually made reference to “sophisticated” structures when using perfect
tenses and conditionals, when being asked about a higher level of English use. In this light, it
may be claimed that a good grammar concerns the usage of the aspects previously mentioned.
In this light, these notions are primarily based on social and political matters, as the
participant express her preference of using “sophisticated” expressions, which has nothing to
do with linguistics basis.
3.1.10 “Conversation”
M1 claims that Alexis would not be capable of engaging in a “normal” conversation
because he cannot be fluent in English. Also, she mentions that fluency has nothing to do with
speed but having the ability to express an idea without hesitations, as was mentioned before.
M2 considers conversation when a speaker talks about personal matters such as family,
dreams, hobbies, etc. H1 conceives conversation when an interaction between both
participants occurs, instead of just one participant giving information unilaterally. Following
the same line as the first participant, a fluent conversation is perceived as an ideal
conversation, mentioning elements that, according to him, generate fluency such as questions
asked by both participants, remarks or clarifications, etc.
Thus, even though what is considered a conversation by these participants may vary,
they agree on using the term fluent when referring to an ideal conversation, which, as stated
before, is a relative term without a clear consensus. Following that line, a person could not
35
engage in a conversation if that person hesitates in his/her speech, although still managing to
communicate his/her ideas.
3.1.11 “Willingness”
Participants mentioned that they were able to understand Alexis speaking English with
a great amount of “willingness”. M1 states that willingness has to do with wanting to
understand what a speaker is saying, and because they are professors they are prompt to to try
to understand and “bridge the gap” of communication. Following that line, M2 agrees that
professors are the ones with the capacity to interpret what the other person is saying, because
they are used to detect “errors” students make. In addition, she claims that because professors
have willingness, they will understand better than native speakers what others are saying.
Similarly, H1 expresses that a professor has acceptability when it comes to build gaps in the
speech of others. They try to correct blanks in the communication, and help building the other
person’s speech.
Hence, for this group of participants having willingness to understand what Alexis is
saying is the thing that allows them to understand him more effectively. However, in a
communicative context every person plays a part on bridging the gap when trying to
understand the other person and it is not necessarily an ability only professors have.
3.1.12 “Immersion”
M1 states that an ideal immersion consists of living in a target language environment
without resorting to others for help. In addition, she claims that motivation and necessity to
communicate in the target language are very important to achieve a total immersion context.
M2 agrees that immersion has to do with living in a place where the target language is
spoken, with people who speak the language, regardless if there are immigrants who do not
have English as L1, but having to speak it in order to communicate their ideas. In like
manner, H1 considers for a speaker to be totally immersed one must not resort to his or her
primary language in order to make yourself understood.
Thus, participants agree that immersion is achieved when participants live in a target
language environment, receiving constant input without resorting to their own L1 to
communicate, which agrees with the purpose of immersion programs, in which learners
receive a considerable amount of “second language input in an instructional environment”
and develop “proficiency in the target language” (Cummins, 2009). Moreover, M1 clarifies
that motivation is very important to achieve total immersion, which concurs with the idea of
36
motivation as an important factor to increase proficiency in L2 (Maclntyre et al, 2002),
expressing that Alexis might not have the necessity to learn English and that is why his
immersion environment is limited.
Hence, participants conceive immersion not from the perspective of a classroom
context but as an ideal environment for an immigrant who lives in a place where his/her
mother tongue is not spoken. This ideal context is based only on the assumption that a learner
would be more proficient in L2 if considerable time is spent living there, which is quite
relative and may vary depending on multiple factors.
3.2 Social representations of English University Students
Table 3
English university students’ cultural models emerged from focus groups and personal
interviews
Cultural models
“Poor
level
Focus groups/ interviews
of
H1: “Entonces, en el momento que tiene que comunicarse con un equipo que es de allá,
English”
tuvo que aprender inglés, aunque fuera lo básico
“Speaking English
H1: “si la persona habla bien las personas van a pensar: “oh, este tipo es un erudito”
well”
“Native speaker”
M1: “Igual se puso nervioso, si igual te afecta que tengas un británico ahí (imitándolo) y
tú estás ahí con un nivel súper básico…”
“Good
H1: “También las estructuras fueron sumamente básicas, de repente decía “im very
pronunciation”
happy”, y lo mismo la pronunciación, uno encuentra pronunciación muy a lo chileno”
“Good
M1: “Yo creo que igual como que se pifió, tampoco creo que se concretó tanto la
communication”
comunicación ahí”
“Good grammar”
H1: “Independiente que no tuviera estructura, no tuviera nada, que no siguiera la
gramática, da exactamente lo mismo.”
“Error”
M1: “Entonces empecé como a dejar de lado todo eso y si es que tenía algún error, la
persona me lo decía o me lo corregía, ¿cachai?”
“Fluency”
H2: “Por ejemplo, el mismo Pellegrini también habla así igual, pero a diferencia que él
habla igual más fluido y tiene más bla bla”
“Lexical richness”
H1: “Si en todo caso en el futbol no es necesario muchas palabras para comunicarse
dentro de la cancha.”, “Yo creo que con las palabras básicas que dijo…”
“To improve”
M1: “Si en algún momento Alexis hiciera clases y todo eso, yo creo que igual mejoraría”
“Culture”
H2: “Nosotros siempre intentamos acercarnos más a la cultura anglosajona y por eso
nosotros intentamos sonar americano, sonar inglés” H1“Es que nosotros siempre
intentamos como aspirar a lo más alto”
37
“Power”
H1: “Te da un estatus”, M1: “y esa cuestión de querer ser totalmente superior a otro y
tener un estatus”
Table 4
English university students’ cultural models definitions
Cultural Models
Definitions
“Poor level of
M1: “Era básico por las estructuras simples que tenía, que eran como todas asi como “this
English”
is” o “he is” cachai? (…) y como usando key words del futbol po, cachai? Así como no sé po
“the team” no sé po, a eso me refiero como que al loco le enseñaron ciertas palabras para
estructurar una respuesta básica que no estuviera tan mal po, ¿Cachai? A eso es lo que me
refiero.”
H2: “Un nivel básico, yo diría que sería por lo menos tener algo de conocimiento de las
estructuras, por lo menos las más simples que hay, o sea presente, simple, pasado simple,
futuro, ya, y un vocabulario por lo menos un poco contextualizado con la vida cotidiana, que
es lo que nosotros hemos aprendido con la globalización. Eso sería lo más básico que uno
podría llegar a aprender, y claro y entender lo que uno está escuchando, ahí ya con eso uno
tiene como una especie de herramienta para decir, ya igual estoy como básico, puedo
mejorar”.
“Speaking
M1:
“siempre me ha gustado mucho el inglés y siempre le he puesto mucho color a la
English well”
cuestión porque es lo que me gusta y no sé po, a mi me gusta pronunciar bien, cachai? Así
como darle color po. Pero, también creo que el lenguaje, uno de sus objetivos principales es
comunicarse po, entonces no sé, a veces hay gente que confunde esa cuestión de, no sé po,
como que trata de imitar mucho a los gringos o a los británicos y se olvida de la parte
gramatical que es como lo importante pa hacerse entender, cachai? Entonces eso es lo que
creo, que es como la finalidad principal es comunicarse, da lo mismo como suenes, porque al
final venimos de distintas partes, no tenemos por qué ser como los gringos o los británicos.”
H1: “Para mi hablar bien inglés implica que la comunicación se consiga, que tu hablando,
independientemente que sea gramaticalmente correcto, puedas transmitir efectivamente el
mensaje que quieres sin ningún tipo de complicaciones”
H2: “Pucha hablar bien inglés tiene que ver, bueno siempre han estado las dos posturas de
que lo importante es la comunicación o de que lo importante es la gramática, la fonética, etc.
Aunque es cierto que la gramática igual es importante, porque necesitamos estructurar las
oraciones para que la otra persona nos entienda y la fonética es importante, porque hay
ciertas palabras con pronunciaciones muy parecidas que podrían causar un incidente, eeeh
prefiero privilegiar la comunicación por sobre cualquier otra cosa”
“Native
M1: “un hablante nativo como una persona que domina totalmente el idioma po, como no sé,
speaker”
así como alguien que estuvo o vivió mucho tiempo ahí, no sé. A eso me refiero, como
alguien que quizás nació ahí, que lo absorbió desde chico, ¿cachai? Y lo tiene totalmente
38
internalizado”
H1: “Hablante nativo es la persona que nació como primera lengua cierto idioma, en este
caso el inglés.(…)ellos saben el idioma y ellos predominan con el idioma y lo manejan
perfectamente y nosotros no”
H2: “porque el hablante nativo tiene esta cualidad de ser, de cómo está hablando su idioma
él tiene el cien por ciento del dominio de él, independientemente de que se equivoque o no,
siempre es fluido, siempre es rápido, siempre es más espontáneo, más natural”
“Good
M1: “a mi igual me molesta un poco la gente que no se esfuerza, quizás? Un poco en
pronunciation”
pronunciarlo como bién (…) no sé po, sonar… es que quizás a mí me gusta como imitar la
wea”
“Good
M1: “entender el mensaje que estai transmitiendo y el que te están pasando, ¿cachai? (…) no
communication”
sé igual partes de la pronunciación tiene que ver con la acentuación y toda la wea, entonces
si tu acentuai la cuestión en la primera no significa lo mismo si lo acentuai después, ¿cachai?
Entonces por ese sentido yo creo que como que sería un poco eh… no sé, ¿más útil? Tener
como una pronunciación más así como imitar la británica, ¿cachai? O la gringa, ponte tú.
Pero en términos de que se entienda po.”
H1: “Si el mensaje llega y la otra persona lo recibe, y la persona que mandó el mensaje
recibe una retroalimentación, eso es comunicación. Bueno eso sale en los libros y eso igual
lo hemos podido ver a través de los años aprendiendo un idioma.”
H2: “Más efectiva una que no se diera sin esos contratiempos de estar como intentando
codificar el mensaje muy acuciosamente, por ejemplo que yo te hable a ti y tú, en el
momento en que yo te hable, inmediatamente entiendas lo que yo quiero decir. No que tenga
que gasta en tiempo en qué quiso decir, qué estará queriendo decir, quiso decir esto, quiso
decir lo otro, ah pero fue esto no lo otro, o tener que… o perder tiempo preguntándome qué
dijiste, quisiste decir esto. Eso para mí no es una comunicación tan efectiva, porque no es tan
natural”
“Good
H1: “una buena gramática es, a mi juicio, aquella que no presenta errores. No obstante, es
grammar”
importante señalar que la comunicación se puede llevar a cabo sin tener una buena
gramática. Esto se debe a que en algunas oportunidades los errores gramaticales no afectan el
sentido ni la intención del mensaje. Por esta razón es que existen muchos hablantes de
segundo lengua que ya habiendo alcanzado un alto grado de proficiencia en la segunda
lengua, de todas formas siguen cometiendo errores ocasionales, debido a la poca importancia
que tienen a la hora de transmitir sus mensajes, ya que aún con ellos presentes, el objetivo de
logra a cabalidad. Por lo tanto, a pesar de que en estricto rigor se concibe la buena gramática
como aquella ausente de errores, esta definición se puede flexibilizar en cuanto a la
funcionalidad comunicativa que cumple la gramática, quedando reinventada como aquella en
que los errores son poco frecuentes y no entorpecen la comunicación.”
“Error”
M1: “Pero después empecé a cachar que si pensando todas esas cuestiones no estaba
comunicándome bien po, me estaba como limitando sola. Entonces empecé como a dejar de
lado todo eso y si es que tenía algún error, la persona me lo decía o me lo corregía, cachai?
39
(…) Si yo me acuerdo que dije así como que le pregunté a alguien por qué lo habían dejado
solo y le dije “What do they left you alone” una wea así y era “What did they leave you
alone” cachai? Entonces el loco quedó así como pa la cagá, incluso me dijo así como loca,
ese weon era pesao, me dijo asi como que hablaba como el hoyo, así puras weas”
H2: “porque a veces en inglés pasan que hay errores que afectan la comunicación y errores
que no (…)Pero un error en cuanto a lo que se entiende, porque si un error pasa, inclusive los
mismos nativos cometemos errores gramaticales pero como son errores más aceptados esos
pasan.”
“Fluency”
M1: “tener el idioma internalizado. No todo el rato así como tratar de traducirlo literalmente
en tu mente. Así como ya, pasaste por un momento de que, no sé po, estudiaste, practicaste,
te comunicaste y todo ¿cachai? Y ya sabis como comunicarte como inconscientemente po”
H1: “No necesariamente es hablar rápido. Fluidez en sí es tener las ideas lo suficientemente
organizadas para poder hablarlas sin perder el hilo, osea sin quedar con unas pausas
inmensas dentro de tu conversación, para mí eso es fluidez. (como pensando como decirlo)
claro, porque eso también es parte del idioma, esa pausas que uno hace, no (silencio) que uno
se queda callao completamente no, sino que “ahm ahm how can I say this? Aahh? los
silencios también son parte del idioma, son cosas que pueden mantener la conversación
fluida independiente de que uno esté pensando lo que quiere decir.”
H2: “Fluidez es el no detenerse. Es el habla espontánea regular que no se da por errores
gramaticales ni de pronunciación sino tanto de ideas (…) Porque cuando la fluidez se ve
afectada es cuando yo no sé lo que le voy a decir o no sé cómo decirlo.”
“Lexical
H1: “ No es malo que Alexis haya usado pocas palabras, pero igual tendría que aprender
richness”
unas cuantas más palabras acordes al contexto, porque tampoco ocupó muchas, ocupó
palabras como familly, palabras como happy o good, the team. Y una riqueza léxica, en el
caso de Alexis al menos, tendría que ser una riqueza léxica en el sentido de aprender un poco
más de palabras del futbol en si, como las posiciones, como él juega, como dar pases, podría
terminar dando instrucciones incluso, igual se puede mejorar mucho.”
“To improve”
M1: “Ah, porque yo creo que debería ponerse las pilas porque está en el Arsenal po,
entonces está totalmente en contacto con lo… con gente de habla inglesa y obviamente yo
creo que le facilitaría mucho eh… la comunicación po. (…) Bueno igual yo creo que como la
comunicación en la cancha también… tiene que ver con eso, yo creo que igual podría
mejorar sus relaciones, no cacho su vida ni nada, pero obviamente que si estai en un
contexto y queris relacionarte o queris sobrevivir o cosas así, yo por lo menos me esforzaría
en tomar unas clases, o, no sé, relacionarme más, ¿cachai? Así como para desarrollar un…
algo mejor, así como un lenguaje mejor más fluido quizás.”
H1: “ahí tendríamos que aprender más palabras de vocabulario, por ejemplo, tratar de
utilizar estructuras un poco más complejas, tratar de mejorar, empezar a fijarse un poco en la
pronunciación, porque al principio uno no se fija en la pronunciación. Claro tampoco hay
que ser tan exigente con cada una de estas cosas, pero ahí uno puede ir mejorando. Empezar
a entender más o menos cómo funciona la mente de las personas que hablan en inglés, si es
40
que uno quiere hablar con ellos claro está.”
3.2.1 “Poor level of English”
M1 considers a poor level of English when a speaker uses simple structures i.e. the use
of only the present simple tense, for example “He is”, and the use of specific lexical items
regarding football, in this case, in order to construct a basic answer which is not “that bad”.
H1 agreed with the previous participant, in the sense that having a poor level of English
entails the use of simple structures, such as simple present, past, and future. Nevertheless, this
participant differs from the first in terms of vocabulary usage, since a poor level of English
means using every day words. Additionally, having the ability to understand what a speaker is
communicating, while recognizing a need to improve. Therefore, a poor level of English has
to do with the use of simple grammatical structures and contextualized content words, and
being able to understand what others are saying.
All things considered, it is assumed by this group of participants that in order to
achieve a higher level of English, speakers need to use complex grammatical structures and
higher lexical knowledge, whilst using simple grammatical structures and repeating the same
lexical items is conceived as poor level of English. These assumptions refer to an ideal of the
English language as an ideal of communication, which is based, at the same time, on political
bases that propose the existence of a “correct” use of a language.
3.2.2 “Speaking English well”
M1 claims that even though she likes pronouncing well, she puts emphasis on
communication as the most important objective on language, being grammar a central aspect
in order to achieve communication, since she supports the idea of having different accents
being not necessary to imitate the British or the American ones. Additionally, H1 also
believes that speaking well implies being able to communicate without necessarily using a
“correct” grammar. At the same time, H2 acknowledges the importance of grammar and
pronunciation when communicating, being the latter the most important aspect regarding
speaking well. Therefore, for English university students, speaking English well means being
able to communicate, highlighting the importance of grammar and then pronunciation to
accomplish it.
Thus, although this group of participants suggest the importance of communication
when “speaking English well”, they claimed at the same time, that there are levels of speaking
English, and that using a “correct” grammar and “good pronunciation”, which implies
41
following the standard form, are central features in order to achieve this desirable level of
speaking English. In this light, English university students’ beliefs regarding “speaking
English well” are founded on an ideal of the English language and on political assumptions,
which are promoted by a certain social actors, based on the idea of the Standard English
variant as the best way of speaking English.
3.2.3 “Native Speaker”
For M1, a native speaker is a person who was born and raised in an English speaking
country or spent many years living there, having absorbed, internalized, and consequently
mastered the language. For H1, a native speaker was born with the language as L1, prevailing
with it as they are the only ones that dominate the language perfectly. H2 agrees with the
second one, in the sense that a native speaker dominates the language, and in spite of the fact
that he or she can make mistakes, they will always be fluent, quicker, more spontaneous, and
natural.
Hence, for English university students, a native speaker is conceived as someone who
masters a language completely and, even though they could make mistakes, their use of the
language will still be seen as the most perfect form of it. This conception of the native speaker
is based on an idealization of it, concurring with Madgyes’s definitions of a native speaker
who is born and raised in a English-speaking country or environment, who has English as an
L1, has a “native-like command of English”(1999), being fluent, spontaneous, and
distinguishing “correct or wrong forms in English”.
Nevertheless, the notion of “native speaker” is based then on unfounded assumptions,
since these participants claimed the same ideas of Madgyes, 1999, which have been broadly
criticized, as they presupposes an homogenous native speaker, which is not even clearly
defined. Thus, these opinions regarding the “native speaker” are founded primarily on an
ideal of the native speaker, who is the perfect model who owns the language. However, we do
not know who exactly is the native speaker, and they do not consider language variation and
dialects of the language, as the different performances of each speaker of it in different social
context.
3.2.4 “Good Pronunciation”
Regarding pronunciation, English university students claimed that it is not
fundamental to achieve communication, which for them was the most important objective of
the speech act. That is why “good pronunciation” was not a cultural model that arose during
42
the focus group. However, one participant mentioned in her individual interview, that
pronouncing “well” is important for her, just because she likes to imitate a native accent.
These participant’s assumptions are founded on the social norms regarding the ideal of
the “native speaker” as a model and owner of the norm, which at the same time, legitimize the
hegemony of this ideology, which does not take into account variation and dialects in a
language.
3.2.5 “Good communication”
For M1, a good communication is to understand what the other one is saying, and
making yourself understood by the other person. Additionally, she claims that having a
“native-like” pronunciation would be useful to achieve communication. Then, H1 states that a
good communication occurs when a person sends a message and the listener, receiving that
message, delivers a feedback. This is, according to the participant, a definition that we learn
from books and through the process of learning a language at the university. H2 conceives a
good communication when the message is understood right away, without having hesitations
or trouble trying to understand it, which means that speakers must express their ideas clearly
so the listener should understand immediately.
Consequently, English university students conceive a good communication when a
speaker and a listener understand each other, so there is an interaction between them, where
they interchange information providing feedback to each speaker’s utterances, which means,
as they understand each other, this interaction occurs without hesitations.
Therefore, as in the case of English university professors, this group suggests that
there are levels of communication. Nevertheless, the way in which they conceive a “good
communication”, they are, at the same time, proposing that communication actually occurs or
not. This notion then seems to be a relative idea, since it is not strongly founded, but it is
based on an ideal of communication and the speech act as well.
3.2.6 “Good grammar”
For H1, a good grammar, in stricter terms is not making errors, in the sense that a
speaker must follow the grammatical rules of Standard English. However, the participant
clarifies that in terms of communication, these errors might not affect the meaning speakers
try to convey, and that is common for people with a higher level of proficiency to speak with
grammatical errors as they do not affect communication.
43
Thus, even though is clear for the participant that the main goal of speaking in another
language is to communicate, there is still the assumption that following Standard English
rules of grammar without making mistakes is the correct use and better norm. All things
considered, this perception that a “good grammar” exists is based on political rather than
linguistic bases, which presupposes an ideal of the English language.
3.2.7 “Error”
For M1, an error is not following standard grammatical rules. For H1, on the other
hand, an error is not just a deviation for the standard rules, but an error is anything that affects
communication. In other words, even when there are grammatical errors, if there is
communication, these would not be considered errors by the participant, since for instance
even native speakers make mistakes but they are still able to communicate. Therefore, there is
not an agreement between students definitions regarding error, as the first one conceives her
error definition based on the error analysis approach (Khansir, 2012; Zhang and Province,
2006), i.e. as a deviation from the standard grammar specifically. The second one, although
he conceives error based on the same approach that the former one, this participant wides the
meaning of that perspective, claiming that not every deviation could be an error, but only
those that affect communication. Nevertheless, both assumptions from the two participants
are based on a relative concept which reflects political conventions of the Standard English.
3.2.8 “Fluency”
For M1, being fluent is having the language internalized, which means without having
to translate the ideas in one's mind. Although, some people believe that fluency means
speaking fastly, H1 states that fluency is when we have our ideas clearly organized in order to
express them, without taking time to construct the utterances. Although, there are some
pauses when we are thinking what to say, these do not interrupt the fluency of
communication, since they are part of it. However, the participant mentions types of pauses
which occur when a speaker is thinking how to say something, and these indeed interrupt the
fluency of communication. Following the same line, H2 agrees with the previous one, in the
sense that being fluent means not stopping to think how to say something. Thus, these
participants conceive fluency when we don’t have to pause in order to think how to express
our ideas, and that means we have achieved an internalization of the language. This idea
follows the conception of pauses as a measure of fluency (Skehan, 1997), but specifying
which are the pauses that affect fluency and which ones do not.
44
Similarly to the previous group, what these participants conceive as fluency is not
based on linguistic basis but rather on personal perceptions and an idealization of a native
speaker, due to the fact that pausing in speech does not necessarily entails lack of proficiency
in L2. Additionally, having internalized the language as native speakers of the language do
does not necessarily mean they will not hesitate or pause to think how they want to say
something when communicating.
3.2.9 “Lexical Richness”
This cultural model was not prominent in this group, as they did not consider
vocabulary as a central aspect of communication. Additionally, just one of them mentioned
Alexis’s use of “basic words” and that is not necessary to know many words in a football
context. In this light, this participant was asked about lexical richness, who expresses that in
the case of Alexis, he needed to learn more words related to football, as for instance how to
give instructions, different positions, etc. Thus, the participant said firstly that in a football
context one does not need to use many words to communicate in the field. However, Alexis
should know more words related to his professional context in order to have lexical richness.
This notion agrees with Vermeer, in the sense that many ways for measuring speakers
productive vocabulary take into account the amount of different words a person utters (2000).
Nevertheless, it differs in the sense that the participant does not specify the complexity of the
words produced, he rather emphasizes the use of vocabulary depending on the situational
context. Hence, the participant still focuses on the use of different words in order to
communicate. Thus, based on the relative ideas of the concept, and the lack of linguistic bases
of it, the participant’s assumptions are still conveying a political perspective inherited from
different social actors.
3.2.10 “To improve”
For M1, improvement means having a “better language” and being more fluent, in
order to facilitate communication with English speakers, considering that he lives in England,
and improving his personal relationships. Additionally, H1 claims that improving is to learn
more words, trying to use more complex structures, and paying more attention to
pronunciation. Although, is not necessary to be so demanding with each aspect, it is important
to improve in order talk with with English speakers. Thus, the goal of improving is to be
able to communicate with English speakers, and in order to achieve it is necessary to improve
vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, and fluency.
45
As in the case of the first group of participants, English university students conceive
the English language as an ideal system, where there is a “good” form and an “inappropriate”
ways of using the language. These participants underpin their beliefs on an ideal of the
English language, which is founded on political basis, being accepted and naturalized by this
social actor.
3.3 Social representation of Science university students
Table 5
Science university students’ cultural models emerged from focus groups and personal
interviews
Cultural Models
Focus group/ interviews
“Poor level of
M1: Igual con respecto al inglés es bastante básico,
English”
“Native
H3: Es que nunca vas a lograr ser un hablante como ser igual que un hablante nativo po
speaker”
“Good
M2: A mi me cargaría ir de viaje a un lugar y estar dos años y cachar que estoy
pronunciation”
pronunciando todavía mal, me daría lata
“Error”
H1: si fuera un medio escrito claramente ahí uno necesita un nivel gramatical alto, pa no
cometer errores y cosas así
“Fluency”
M1: O más fluido
“Good
H3: Entonces considerando que ya lleva un año o dos años igual esperaría (…) que si
communication”
pudiera comunicarse de mejor manera
“Lexical
H1: es que tampoco se arriesgó mucho. Usó palabras sencillas, para que le entendieran
richness”
quizás
“To improve”
H3: pero claro gramaticalmente igual es como… se podría mejorar
“Good
M1: y que la gramática no está muy buena porque probablemente la tradujo o alguien más la
grammar”
tradujo por él.
“Culture”
H3: Igual indica harto de nuestra sociedad
Table 6
Science university students cultural models definitions
Cultural Models
Definitions
“Poor level of
H1: “ Un nivel básico pa mi seria como poder leer ingles más que hablar, o sea poder leer
English”
ingles y entenderlo sería como nivel básico, y ya un nivel intermedio seria como por etapas,
como leer básico, intermedio poder oírlo y entenderlo y un nivel ya más avanzado sería
como todo lo anterior sumado al como poder hablarlo.”
46
M1: “Yo creo que uno, o sea primero para tener un nivel de inglés hay que entender por lo
menos lo que uno percibe cuando le están hablando, (…) y que no necesariamente se va a
entender, lo que hablábamos nosotros, el orden de las oraciones, pero se va a entender la
idea. Según yo eso es como un nivel básico, que uno es capaz de captar la idea y de
responder con respecto a lo que te están hablando”
H2: “Depende, cuando, es que yo me lo imagino en Chile y eso me lo imagino como que
uno hace como las cosas del colegio no mas, con eso yo me refiero a que uno tiene un inglés
básico, por compararlo con el resto de la gente, con el promedio como en Chile (…)
pronunciación no exigiría tanto, habría que manejar un poco no más para tener un nivel
básico”
“Speaking
H1: “Para mí hablar inglés es el hecho que uno se pueda comunicar, o sea lograr establecer
English well”
una comunicación y entender lo que te están respondiendo, lo que te están diciendo ya es
lograr hablar. Pero hablar bien y sería como hilar bien las ideas, usarlas bien
gramaticalmente, tener un vocabulario mucho más amplio que el que (a) uno le enseñan
como en el colegio.”
M1: “Yo creo que hablar bien (…) se debe entender y ese entender también tiene que estar
de la mano con una buena pronunciación, yo creo que así se considera, o sea, que sea
entendible para la persona que está escuchando y que cuando se pronuncien las palabras,
sabiendo que hay distintas pronunciaciones en distintas partes, pero que sea un formato (…)
reconocible como inglés”
H2: “lo importante es que la mayoría de la gente que habla en inglés te entienda cuando tu
hablas en inglés. Por lo menos, ojalá la mayor parte de la gente te entienda. Y ahora como
que uno para hablar bien tiene que respetar como ciertas normas, conocerlas y manejarlas, no
sé la pronunciación, ocupar bien la gramática, no sé, expresar la idea de forma como
concisa”
“Native
H1: “uno podría determinar o ver quién es hablante nativo y quién no por el hecho como la
speaker”
comodidad que se siente frente al lenguaje, quizás. O sea, el hecho de que pa un hablante
nativo de español siempre va a ser más cómodo leer un libro en español, hablar en español
(…) Como que uno está, se podría decir, como relajado, es como obvio, natural, cachai? (…)
bueno obviamente el dominio del idioma, o sea uno tiene un mayor, siempre tiene como un
mayor vocabulario, más fácil, etc. Pero, es más que nada pa mi la comodidad.”
M1: “O sea es una persona que nace en un lugar y se cría… o sea como su ambiente… se
cría con ese idioma. En cambio una persona que no sea nativa debe ser alguien que llegó
después de haberse formado ya otro idioma”
H2: “yo crecí hablando español, así es que soy hablante nativo, si poh y uno siempre…es
una persona que lleva mucho tiempo hablando una lengua, yo creo que por ejemplo si me
ponen alguien que nació en un país hablando inglés y otra persona que lleva, que no nació en
el mismo país pero que lleva igual no sé unos 15 igual yo no lo voy a distinguir, o sea, con
mucha practica son indistinguibles yo creo”
47
“Good
H1: “la pronunciación ideal sería dominar las vocales del inglés y que a uno le confundieran
pronunciation”
el acento como que casi uno es nativo, eso sería como el tope máximo” “O sea el acento
británico eh… a ver es que siento que el acento gringo, por ejemplo el norteamericano, es
como el español chileno. Es como… haber como decirlo… como que no se diferencian muy
bien algunas palabras. Puede ser como una cosa así, no? Como que hablan… como que no
modulan muy bien, hablan quizás como el chileno… como que abre poco la boca, no sé…
muy rápido. Pero el británico como que se da el tiempo de decir las… bueno igual yo he
visto algunas películas británicas donde a los tipos no se les entiende nada, pero al menos al
entrevistador se le entendía todo como bien (…) Era como el ideal así como de la
pronunciación, pero es como bien abstracto el concepto de decir que el acento era…”
M1: “Bueno no sé po, a ver como… porque las palabras en inglés no es llegar y leerlas,
cierto? Entonces, bueno en este momento no se me viene ninguna a la mente como ejemplo,
pero no es lo mismo decir “hello” que decir “jelo” po, cachai? O “jelló”, “helló”, cachai? De
repente hay palabras en inglés que uno llega y las dice así porque no sabe cómo se pronuncia
(…) por ahí yo creo que es como la buena pronunciación”
H2: “No sé, como pronunciarlas como parecido a lo que se hace en general en promedio en
todos países que se habla inglés. O sea que sea parecido a eso, (como al standard de?) si, el
standard”
“Error”
H1: “si fuera un medio escrito claramente ahí uno necesita un nivel gramatical alto, pa no
cometer errores y cosas así, y ortografía, etc.”
“Fluency”
H1: “Es que es como eso, como la naturalidad en que uno dice las cosas. (…) Pa mi la
fluidez es que uno piensa la cuestión, la idea, y es capaz de decirla sin tener que hacer como
todo un proceso detrás de cómo se dice, cómo sería lo mejor. Eso sería pa mi la fluidez.”
M1: “Bueno, igual depende del tema, porque si le ponen un tema muy complicado de
repente… no, pero algo fluido sería que… se dé por si sólo el intercambio de información, o
sea que no se dude al responder por estar concentrado o tratando de ordenar bien las frases, o
de acordarme de qué palabra tenía que decir”
H2: “Tiene que ver con no pensar mucho antes de hablar, no hacer muchas pausas y cuando
uno da una idea, digamos no devolverse, ordenar claramente las ideas que uno quiere, darlas
de manera rápida, osea que uno no se detenga mucho tiempo para entregar las ideas de una
manera ordenada de tal forma que se entienda la idea principal de lo que uno quiere decir”
“Good
H1: “Si se da solo de manera oral, claro, ahí también uno necesita un nivel básico de
communication”
pronunciación, tener como más fluidez, etc. Pero en una conversación así, cara a cara, uno se
ayuda de los gestos, entonces puede que le nivel de inglés no sea tan alto, pero uno tiene una
buena comunicación con la otra persona por el lenguaje no verbal, entonces yo me puedo
ayudar de eso, (…) El hecho de poder hilar bien las frases, bien lo que uno quiere decir yo
creo que es más importante que finalmente la pronunciación”
M1: “Bueno yo me imagino que las dos personas tienen que ser capaces de entender lo que
están hablando y que la persona responda frente al tema que está planteado en esa
conversación, para mí eso es una buena comunicación”
48
H2: “Bueno, que no sea ambigua y que y que al final se cumpla el objetivo de que uno da
una información y que esa información llegue lo más parecido a lo que el emisor quiere
entregar hacía el receptor y que el receptor entienda la idea que quiere transmitir el emisor”
“Lexical
M1: “era más o menos como siempre utilizaba las mismas palabras, como que era que… era
richness”
difícil, pero tenían que salir adelante, que él estaba bien, que el juego estuvo bien y que el
equipo, la familia. Por eso igual puede ser que eso se considere básico, porque usa siempre
las palabras que tiene más familiares respecto al inglés, puede ser. Como que no adentra más
allá de… algo más complejo, quizás una frase como más elaborada”
“To improve”
M1: “Y bueno también como es una figura pública debería aprender como a… ordenar sus
frases, cachai? Como utilizar bien la gramatica del país donde estai (…) Para entregar
información de manera correcta”
H2: “Es que como que faltaba a las reglas del inglés creo, no me acuerdo tanto, pero creo
que en una como que lo dijo con una gramática propia del español, asi en el orden de sujetopredicado, tradujo las palabras pero y en ese orden, en un orden que no es de la gramática del
inglés poh”
“Good
H1: “pa mi como una gramática más adecuada el hecho de que uno no tenga que, o sea, está
grammar”
tan interiorizado que no tengo que pensar mucho lo que quiero decir para decirlo, que es
como ahora lo que estamos hablando. O sea yo no tengo que decir “a ver que quiero, quiero
decir esto entonces debería decirlo así, ya, lo digo” no, no sale natural. Entonces, ese sería un
nivel de gramática ya como más alto, el hecho de que es natural, o sea tú pensaste la idea y
sabes como la vas a decir y por ultimo tienes otras dos opciones que podría sonar mejor
dependiendo del contexto en el que tienes que decirla eh… pero no es como una limitante…
para expresar tu idea”
M1: “Y bueno también como es una figura pública debería aprender como a… ordenar sus
frases, cachai? Como utilizar bien la gramática del país donde estai”
H2: “O sea es que el inglés tiene su gramática poh y está establecida como norma entonces
como respetar eso no mas y también digamos también considero (…) cuando es capaz de
desarmar como la gramática clásica, es que no sé por ejemplo como en español creo que se
llama como hipérbaton? Hacer como un desorden gramatical osea, por ejemplo no hablar
siempre sujeto-predicado en ese orden sino que uno sea capaz como de ocupar una estructura
diferente pero que la idea siga estando bien estructurada.”
3.3.1 “Poor level of English”
For H1, a poor level of English entails just reading in English and understanding what
you are reading, without having the capacity to understand what you are listening nor
speaking in English. For M1, it is to understand the general idea of what a speaker is
expressing to you and being able to reply accordingly. Then, H3 believes that a poor level is a
school level of English taught in Chile, which emphasis mainly grammar teaching and
49
reading, without paying much attention to speaking and pronunciation. Thus, for science
students a poor level of English is mainly reading and understanding what one is reading,
which implies more knowledge of grammar than other aspects of the language, being able, at
the same time, to communicate or interact in general terms, with another person in English.
Hence, for this group of participants, a “poor level of English” has to do with the
capacity learners have to achieve different skills such as reading, listening, and speaking. That
is to say, understanding what a learner is reading, listening, being capable to speak in English,
and communicate “accordingly”. Based on the notion of this cultural model, it is implied that
a better use of English exists, and also, based on their beliefs regarding “speaking English
well”, these notions are also based on political matters and on an ideal of the language usage.
3.3.2 “Speaking English well”
For H1, speaking well English means achieving communication, i.e. being able to
understand what the other person is telling you. Additionally, being able to construct your
ideas correctly, following grammatical rules, and having a wider vocabulary than the one is
taught in school. Following that line, M1 believes that speaking well English involves being
able to understand what the other person is saying, and for that one needs to have a good
pronunciation in order to be understood by the other speaker. H2 agrees with the rest of the
participants, in the sense that for him speaking English well has to do with making yourself
understood when speaking in the language, complying with standard rules of grammar, and
pronunciation. Thus, for this group, the most important thing in order to speak English well is
communication, and in order to communicate your ideas it is necessary to have good
grammar, good pronunciation, and good vocabulary.
Hence, similar to the previous groups of participants, science university students based
their beliefs regarding “speaking English well” based on an ideal of the English language and
on sociopolitical principles, as they believe that in order to speak well, they need a “good
grammar”, “good pronunciation” an certain lexical richness, which basis lies on the idea of
the Standard English canon as the correct and best form to follow as learners of English
language.
3.3.3 “Native speaker”
For H1, a native speaker is the one who feels comfortable speaking in his mother
tongue, in a natural way, and who at the same time masters the language, having wider
vocabulary knowledge. M1 claims that a native speaker is the one that was born and raised
50
with the language, being one’s mother tongue. For H2, a native speaker is someone who has
been speaking a language for a long time in a country, and not necessarily someone who was
born in that place.
All things considered, science university students express different notions of what a
native speaker is. Although one of the participants claimed that is not necessary having born
in a English speaking country in order to be a native speaker, their notions agree with
Medgyes, 1999, as straightforward definitions of native speaker such as “someone who is
born in an English-speaking country, who has learned English during childhood”, “someone
who speaks English as a first language”, being capable of producing spontaneous or natural
speech in English.
Therefore, in a similar way of English university students, this group of participants
follows the same notions of the “native speaker” based on an ideal of it, being someone
undetermined, but perfect in his or her performance.
3.3.4 “Good pronunciation”
Concerning pronunciation, H1 stated that is mastering English vowels and phonemes,
achieving a native speaker accent, since for this participant a native accent is the ideal level of
pronunciation, and stating that a British accent was the best one. M1 believes that a good
pronunciation means knowing how to pronounce or knowing the difference between writing
and pronouncing a word. H1 claims that it is pronouncing similarly to an average on every
English speaking country. Thus, for science university students a good pronunciation involves
knowing how to pronounce words in English according to the standard pronunciation. In
addition, it is considered, in this particular group, that a British accent is superior to the
others, agreeing with the notion of Cruttenden, 2001 regarding RP, which carries a social
prestige.
All these assumptions regarding pronunciation are based first, on an ideal of the
“native speaker”, which is a relative notion. Furthermore, the preference of the British accent,
as the Standard and the “best” form reveals the influence of power and political matters
playing a central role on these beliefs that are accepted by these participants.
3.3.5 “Error”
This cultural model did not come up in the focus group, and was only mentioned by
one participant in a personal interview, expressing that a high level of grammar was needed to
avoid “errors”. Thus, he considers error in grammatical terms, meaning not following
51
standard rules. This conception is based on the error analysis approach in which errors are
considered as a deviation from language itself (Khansir, 2012; Zhang and Province, 2006).
This particular notion is considered by Leech as a prescriptive approach to grammar, as the
speaker only considers its use, but not how people really use grammar and language (2007).
Following these lines, it can be stated that, as the two others groups of social actors,
Science university students conceive their assumption regarding “error” based on a relative
conception of the notion, and on a political phenomenon where the Standard English is the
canon.
3.3.6 “Fluency”
Being fluent, according to H1, is having a clear idea of what and how you are going to
express an idea, without dwelling on it. Following that line, M1 conceives fluency as an
exchange of information without hesitations, specifically, ones regarding thinking how you
are going to say something. At the same time, H2 focuses on pauses, as a fluent interaction is
speaking fast without thinking how to construct an utterance. Hence, science students
conceive fluency when a speaker expresses his/her ideas clearly, avoiding hesitations and
pauses to think how to elaborate them, following the same conception of pauses expressed by
Skehan, 1997. This suggests that the speaker must be aware of English grammatical and
syntactic rules in order to express his/her ideas fluently.
Likewise previous groups, this group of participants base their assumptions regarding
fluency on an idealization of native speakers rather than linguistic ones. Being fluency a
relative concept is not possible to evaluate a person’s proficiency in L2 by measuring pauses,
hesitations, or speed, as a speaker might still be able to communicate effectively. In addition,
the idea of communicating without pausing nor hesitating is based on the idea that native
speakers do not stop to think how to construct his/her sentences, which may not be the case in
reality.
3.3.7 “Good communication”
Regarding this cultural model, H1 primarily explained how to achieve a good
communication instead of defining what it is. On the one hand, he claimed hand, in a face to
face conversation, we additionally may support our speech with gestures and non verbal
communication. Although having a poor level of English, one can achieve a good
communication using gestures and non verbal communication. On the contrary, M1 expressed
that a good communication is when two people engaged in a conversation have to be able to
52
understand what the other one is saying, being capable, at the same time, to give feedback or
answering according the context and the conversational topic. Moreover, H2 claimed that a
good communication occurs when the speaker’s message during the interaction is not
ambiguous, but clear, so the listener understands almost the same idea the listener is trying to
express. Therefore, they believe that a good communication is to understand each other’s
ideas when engage in a conversation or in an interaction.
Hence, Science university student’s beliefs regarding “good communication” implies
that, as the two previous groups of participants, there are levels of communication, where
there are some features needed to achieve them, as fluency and pronunciation. In this light,
this notion is not clear and is based on other cultural models that are founded on sociopolitical
basis, since they presuppose following the Standard English canon. Therefore, this cultural
model has not to do with linguistic explanations, but with and ideal of communication and the
English language, based on sociopolitical principles, which have been spread from different
social actors to them, so they replicate these ideas on their discourse without questioning it.
3.3.8 “Lexical richness”
This particular cultural model was not an important aspect to take into account for this
group when referring to Alexis’ use of English. However, M1 expressed that Alexis’s
vocabulary could be considered basic since he always used the same simple words during his
speech, such as “it was difficult”, “the team”, “the family”, etc. being considered a poor level
of English, since Alexis never goes further into his explanations using more complex words
and constructions. Therefore, lexical richness would be having and using complex words
without repeating the same lexical items. This way of conceiving lexical richness agrees with
the forms of measuring it from which it is suggested that this notion means not repeating the
same amount of words, and these words should be more complex (Vermeer, 2000; Daller et
al, 2003). Therefore, Science university student beliefs regarding lexical richness agree with
those of the two previous groups, since this notion is not based on linguistic assumptions, but
on political bases.
3.3.9 “To improve”
For M1 to improve implies that Alexis should learn how to construct his ideas, using
the English grammar used in the country he is in order to communicate correctly, since he is
a public figure. Then, H2 claims that as Alexis made some mistakes regarding English rules
i.e. he used Spanish grammar and syntax. Thus, for this group, improving means to learn and
53
use English grammar and syntax according to the Standard English rules without any
interference from his mother tongue, Spanish.
Hence, as in the two previous groups, science university students conceive the English
language and communication as an ideal system and phenomenon, where speakers should
express themselves using “the appropriate” form of the language, i.e. the Standard English
variant, since they believe that using that form it is possible to achieve a “good
communication” or communicating “correctly”. All these assumptions are founded on a
prescriptive approach of the language, and on political reasons, which presuppose only one
dialect as the appropriate one, taking the others as unsuitable forms.
3.3.10 “Good grammar”
For H1, a speaker has good grammar when he or she has acquired the rules by heart or
intimately, being able to construct one’s ideas and express them without investing too much
effort and time into it. Thus, a good grammar is achieved when a speaker masters the rules of
a specific language in order to express the ideas easily, being, at the same time, a natural
process. Then, M1, for instance, refers to a good grammar as knowing how to construct
sentences properly based on a specific language rules form a specific country. And finally, for
H2, a good grammar has to do with recognizing and following the grammatical rules of the
language, mastering them so as to being able to construct and reconstruct different
grammatical sentences. Thus, for this group, a good grammar means to know and following
the standard grammatical rules of a specific language and mastering them being able to
construct grammatical sentences easily and naturally.
Therefore, this notion suggests that for these participants, the standard form is the
norm and best and ‘correct’ way of using a language. These ideas suggest a prescriptive
approach, which denies the existence of dialects and language variation. These beliefs are
based on political matters, which are more clearly ingrained in these participants.
3.4 Theoretical and methodological implication on teaching English as a second
language in Chile
The existence of cultural models found in this study, such as “speaking English well
or bad”, “native speaker”, “error”, “fluency”, “good pronunciation”, “good grammar”, etc.
render account of how we see and conceive English language. First of all, there is an
idealization of the language, therefore Chileans believe that the use of English by Chileans
should be perfect, respecting the rules of the standard variety of English, been the native
54
speaker a role model. Moreover, these beliefs are not based on linguistic justifications, but on
political bases.
Thereby, these social representations, previously described and analyzed, are the
foundation in which the teaching of English is based on, substantiating and motivating the
way the English language is taught, given that professors of English, students of English, and
students without linguistic awareness, largely share similar cultural models and beliefs about
them. As Bruthiaux in Groves, (2010) proposes, that the teaching of English is meant to
reflect local identities, incorporating norms, which are based on cultural models of such
communities. In this sense, it is suggested that the same cultural models and beliefs in a
specific community are transmitted between different social actors, creating a common and
community identity. Thus, the cultural models and social representations found in this study
are probably spread by the authorities and educational programs of the country, which are
inherited by professors, and consequently, by students. In this way, it is possible to observe
how social representations are shared by these three social actors.
Likewise, in different countries of the world, such as Singapore, Philippines or
Nigeria, teaching norms presented by the educational system are based on a standard, which
has naturally evolved as a result of ongoing linguistic contact and the use of such variety in
multicultural contexts (endonormative standard). At the same time, these teaching norms are
rooted on their respective national identities and common beliefs (Kachru, 1986; Kirkpatrick,
2007). However, in Chile, the situation greatly resembles the case of Hong Kong, in which
idiosyncratic features tend to be evaluated negatively against a context of discourse of ‘falling
English standard’ (Groves, 2010), in the sense that social actors conceive, through different
cultural models, the Standard English as the norm, and any deviation from this norm as an
“error” or “poor level of English”.
Therefore, the cultural models of a specific community are, consequently, shared and
promoted by educational institutions and the government, such as MINEDUC, which spread
such ideals, beliefs or social representations regarding English through its curriculum and
different programs such as Programa Inglés Abre Puertas (English opens doors). Hence, these
programs and policies are determining theories and methodologies concerning the teaching of
the language in schools and universities in Chile.
55
3.5 Discussion
Due to the fact that language is pervaded by culture, a particular discourse of an entity
of power is accepted and reproduced by a speech community as naturalized and
institutionalized norms. Therefore, it is possible to see these norms reflected on cultural
models, ideologies or social representations of such community.
Thereby, the cultural models found in this study regarding Chilean society, which are
not based on linguistic grounds but on political matters, highlight our beliefs concerning
English as a dominant language, being so a tool of power and social control.
This social reality is reflected on the teaching of English as a foreign language in our
country. First of all, as the results indicate, the cultural models of professors and students of
English significantly resemble, revealing a reproduction of a norm or a specific discourse.
The same happens with Science students, which without having linguistic awareness, unlike
the previous groups, they still share most of their cultural models, being so more categorical.
This implies that in schools also exists a reproduction of the same norms regarding the
teaching of English, which probably come from authorities, and programs and curricula
proposals in the educational system, as suggested by Pérez de Arce and Lagos (2014; 2016).
Second of all, this social reality is reflected on English language students at
Universidad de Chile and their formation, which share similar cultural models with the social
actors studied, as it was made evident in the pilot of our study (see Table 8). Moreover, these
social representations are also influenced by the formation these receive from the program, in
which the Standard English variety is considered for evaluation and teaching of English.
Therefore, the question that rises is how much not following the established or Standard
variety affects communication.
This discussion intends to create awareness when conceiving English language and the
teaching of it, keeping in mind that it is not a better language than others, and that there are
many existing varieties of it, which belong to countries with English as a second language,
due to globalization, and not following the Standard English variety should be considered a
cultural feature and not seen negatively. Hence, we propose a more descriptive and critical
look towards the teaching of a language, and above all, English as a foreign language, being
aware of the status quo transmitted through it.
56
CHAPTER IV:
CONCLUSION
57
For English university professors, Alexis has a basic usage of English, because of his
simple grammar, not “good pronunciation”, and limited vocabulary, using only content words
related to football, making “errors” in each mentioned aspect. Furthermore, in order to
understand what he was saying a degree of “willingness” to understand him was needed by
the professors. However, when Alexis speaks, he was “fluent” because he did not stop to
think what to answer. This “poor level of English” is inconsistent with the context and time of
“immersion” of Alexis in England, due to the fact that in such immersive circumstance, he
should have a better level of English.
In the case of English university students, Alexis also presents a “poor level of
English”, because of his grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation were basic. However, the
participants gave more emphasis to grammar, considering such aspect the most important one
for communication, unlike pronunciation. Nonethless, they still considered important
following the rules of the Standard pronunciation. In addition, they conceive the “native
speaker” as an intimidating model, who represents the norm and ideal of the use of English.
Moreover, this group highlights the reason why our society conceives English as a language
of status, questioning our beliefs and actions regarding the English language.
For Science university students, Alexis has a “poor level of English” because he was
not so “fluent” and his grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary were basic. At the same time,
it is stated that the level of English Alexis presented will never be as good as a “native
speaker” level, which is considered as a norm and as an admiring figure, conceiving the
British accent as a perfect one. Additionally, pronunciation has greater importance than
grammar in order to be understood or to communicate. Likewise, this group of participants
seem to be more categorical when evaluating or judging Alexis’s use of English, reflecting, at
the same time, on Chilean society and the reason why Alexis speaking English on an
interview came to be a relevant piece of news.
Consequently, the three groups of participants agree that Alexis is “fluent” in general
terms, but his use of English is basic, mainly because of his grammar, pronunciation, and
vocabulary use are basic as well. Nontheless, these three social actors present differences as
well. In this manner, professors raise more predominantly the existence of “errors”, primarily
grammar related, as a deviation of a Standard language or as an interference of the mother
tongue. Moreover, professors conceive “immersion” as a context that should facilitate the
learning of a language. Nevertheless, they question the fact that Alexis does not respond to
this assumption, for he maintains the same “poor level of English”, in spite of the time he has
been living in an English speaking country, and affecting, at the same time, communication.
58
Thus, for this group of participants “willingness” is very important, because having that
feature makes possible to understand what Alexis wishes to convey in English. Unlike
professors of English, English university students and Science university students do not
emphasize “error”, but the idealization of the “native speaker” strongly emerges, considering
it a norm model, which intimidates English students, and is admired by Science students,
concieving the British accent as the perfect use. Therefore, both groups expressed a reflection
on the Chilean culture, in which English is highly valued as a tool of power that grants status,
for English students, and the fact that a Chilean football player, with Alexis’s social status, is
able to speak English becomes so relevant for the media, in the case of Science students. In
this way, a more critical thinking regarding English and Chilean culture is evidenced in
students of English and Science.
Thus, the similarities or agreements found in most of the cultural models related to a
“poor level of English”, by these three social actors, sustains the idea that Chileans’ social
representations towards Alexis Sanchez’s use of English and English itself are shared (as it
can be seen below in Table 7, as a summary of the results). Addionally, all these shared
cultural models that emerged in each social actor are not based on linguistic foundations, but
rather on an idealization of the language and the “native speaker”, which has its roots on
political justifications.
Therefore, it is possible to see how these social representations influence public
policies, and consequently, theories and methodologies of teaching English in the Chilean
educational system, being underpinned on an exocentric approach, in which the idea that the
English language grants status and power is promoted, and where idiosyncratic aspects of
Chileans are discriminated.
Hence, we suggest that learners of English, or any other language should be taught
language awareness from a critical perspective, so that students could learn to identify
patterns of social and cultural variations transmitted through a language.
59
Table 7
Cultural models arose from focus groups and interviews in each group of social actors
Social Actor
Cultural models
English university professors
“Poor level of English”, “Good communication”, “Error”,
“Fluency”, “Good pronunciation”, “Lexical richness”, “To improve”,
“Conversation”, “Willingness”, “Immersion”, and “Speaking English
well”
English university students
“Poor
level
of
English”,
“Native
speaker”,
“Good
pronunciation”, “ Error”, “Fluency”, “Good communication”, “Lexical
richness”, “To improve”, “Good grammar”, “Culture”, “Power”, and
“Speaking English well”
Science university students
“Poor
pronunciation”,
level
of
English”,
“Native
speaker”,
“Good
“Error”, “Fluency”, “Good communication”, “Lexical
richness”, “To improve”, “Good grammar”, “Speaking English well”, and
“Culture”
60
CHAPTER V:
LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
61
First of all, in terms of limitations, it was difficult for us to contact our participants
and managing to get them all together for the focus groups. That is why accesing a social
group out of the academic context would have been more difficult, for it is a more time
consuming process, in which more resources are required.
Second of all, for further research, we suggest increasing the number of participants
for each social actor. Additionally, it would be fruitful to extend the array of social actors to
parents or people outside the academic context, and taking into account other sociolinguistic
variables such as gender or age, in order to identify their respective social representations
towards English as a foreign language.
62
References
Abhakorn, R. (2003). Education and language choice in Southeast Asia. Babel or Behemoth:
language trends in Asia, 2, 77-10.
Andreou, G., & Galantomos, I. (2009). The native speaker ideal in foreign language
teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(2), 200-208.
Arnaud, P. J.L. (1984). the lexical richness of L2 written productions and the validity of
vocabulary tests. In: Culhane, T., Klein-Braley, C. and D. K. Stevenson (eds.):
Practice
and problems in language testing. University of Essex Occasional
Papers No. 29, 14 - 28.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.), (2006). Developing Literacy in Second-language
Learners, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). Clevedon ;
Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
Blommaert, J. (2006). Language policy and national identity. An introduction to language
policy: Theory and method, 238-254.
Broeder, P., Extra, G. and R. van Hout. (1993), Richness and variety in the developing
lexicon.
In: Clive Perdue (ed.), Adult Language Acquisition. Volume II: The
Results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 145-163.
Bruthiaux, P. (2003). Squaring the circles: Issues in modeling English worldwide.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 159-178.
Bourdieu, P. (1998) Acts of Resistance: Against the Tyranny of the Market (translated by R.
Nice), New York: New Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Thompson, J. B. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University
Press.
Chambers, F. (1997). What do we mean by fluency? System 25(4): 535-544.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the
accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of second language writing, 12(3),
267-296.
Connerton, P. (1976). Critical sociology: Selected readings. England: Penguin Books.
Corder, S. P. (1967) 1974. The significance of learner's errors. IRAL-International Review of
Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(1-4), 161-170.
Cruttenden, A. (2014). Gimson's pronunciation of English. Routledge.
Cummins, J. (2009). Bilingual and immersion programs, in M. Long and C. Doughty (eds)
The handbook of language teaching. Oxford: Blackwell.
Daller, H., Van Hout, R., & Treffers‐Daller, J. (2003). Lexical richness in the spontaneous
speech of bilinguals. Applied linguistics, 24(2), 197-222.
De Costa, P. (2011). Using language ideology and positioning to broaden the SLA
learner beliefs landscape: The case of an ESL learner from China. System,
39(3), 347-358.
Del Valle, J. y Gabriel-Stheeman, L. (2002). "Nationalism, hispanismo and monoglossic
culture". En J. Del Valle y L. Gabriel-Stheeman (Eds.), The Battle over Spanish
between 1800 and 2000 Language ideologies and Hispanic intellectuals (pp. 113).London: Routledge
Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Durkheim, E. (1895). Las reglas del método sociológico. México: Fondo de cultura
Económica, 1986
Eagleton, T. (2001). La Idea de cultura. Barcelona [etc.]: Paidós.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University.
63
Episcopo S. A. (2009). Non-native speaker attitudes towards non-native English accents.
Thesis disartation. Austin: Univeristy of Texas
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. The critical study of language. Language in
social life series.
Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage.
Figueroa M. (2007). Prestigio de las variantes de [tr] en la comuna de Concepción. Estudio
sociolingüístico. En Actas del XVII Congreso de Investigación y Enseñanza de la
Lingüística [http://www2.udec.cl/sochil2007/figueroa.pdf, fecha de consulta: 15 de
agosto de 2011].
Fiske, J. (1994). Media matters. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.
Foley W A (1997). Anthropological Linguistics: An Introduction. Blackwell, Malden, MA
Fowler, R., & Hodge, B. K. G. & Trew, T.(1979). Language and control. London: Routledg
& Kegan Paul
Fowler, R. (1996). On critical linguistics1. Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse
analysis, 1.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an
indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis.
Scientific studies of reading, 5(3), 239-256.
Garrett, P. (2010). Attitude to language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). “Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture”, in: The
interpretation of cultures: selected essays. New-York/N.Y./USA etc. Basic Books, pp.
3-30
Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond left and right: The future of radical politics. Stanford University
Press.
Gramsci, A . (1971). Selections from the prison notebook of Antonio Gramsci. In Q. Hoare &
G. N. Smith. (Eds.). London, England: Lawrence and Wishart. Chat Conversation End
Groves, J. (2010). Error or feature? The issue of interlanguage and deviations in non-native
varieties of English. HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies, 14(1), 108-29.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic (p. 136). Arnold: London.
Höijer, B. (2011). Social Representation Theory: A new theory for media research. Nordicom
Review. 32(2), 3-16
Hymes, D. H. (1963). Notes toward a history of linguistic anthropology. Anthropological
linguistics, 59-103.
Jie, X.(2008).Error Theories and Second Language Acquisition.US-China Foreign
Language.6,35-42.
Iyer, R., Kettle, M., Luke, A., & Mills, K. A. (2014). Critical applied linguistics. The
Routledge Companion to English Studies, 317-332.
Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English. Oxford: Pergamon.
Khansir, A. A. (2012). Error analysis and second language acquisition. Theory and practice in
language studies, 2(5), 1027.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and
English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ, 311(7000), 299302.http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299
Hodge, R. I. V., & Kress, G. R. (1979). Language as ideology. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Kroskrity, P. V., & Field, M. C. (Eds.). (2009). Native American language ideologies: Beliefs,
practices, and struggles in Indian country. University of Arizona Press.
Kroskrity, P. (2004). Language ideologies. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic
anthropology (pp. 496-517). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
64
Kroskrity, P. V. (2010). Language ideologies – Evolving perspectives. In J. Jaspers, J.-O.
Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Society and language use (pp. 192–211).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lagos, C. (2011). Construcción discursiva y representaciones sociales de los
mapuches urbanos en torno a su lengua nativa. Lenguas Modernas, 36, 13-32.
Lagos, C. (2012). Mapudungún en Santiago de Chile: representaciones sociales
en los mapuches urbanos. RLA, 50(1), 161-190.
Lagos, C. y Espinoza, M. (2013). La planificación Lingüística de la lengua mapuche
en Chile a través de la historia. Lenguas Modernas, 42, 47 – 66.
Lagos, C., M. Espinoza y D. Rojas. (2013). Mapudungun according to its speakers: Mapuche
intellectuals and the influence of standard language ideology. Current Issues in
Language
Planning 14:403-418.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2013). Techniques and Principles in Language
Teaching 3rd edition. Oxford university press.
Leech, G., Deuchar, M., & Hoogenraad, R. (2007). English grammar for today. Macmillan.
Lindemann, S. (2005). Who speaks "broken English"? US undergraduates' perceptions of
non- native English1.International Journal Of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 187212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00087.x
Lindemman, S. (2002). Listening with an attitude: A model of native-speaker comprehension
of
non-native speakers in the United
States. Lang.Soc., 31(03). http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0047404502020286
Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral
narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190 - 208.
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. A. (2002). Sex and age effects on
willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation
among junior high school French immersion students. Language learning, 52(3), 537564.
McBride, Kara. (2009). Percepciones estudiantiles sobre las técnicas utilizadas en la
enseñanza del inglés como lengua extranjera. Universum (Talca), 24(2), 94112. https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-23762009000200006
Medgyes, P. (1999). The non-native teacher. Ismaning: Hueber.
Mora, M. (2002). La teoría de las representaciones sociales de Serge Moscovici. Athenea
Digital, 2. Disponible enhttp://blues.uab.es/athenea/num2/Mora.pdf
Morales, S., Ferreira, A. (2008). La efectividad de un modelo de aprendizaje combinado para
la enseñanza del inglés como lengua extranjera: estudio empírico. RLA, 46(2), 95-118
Moscovici, S. (1961). El psicoanálisis, su imágen y su público. Buenos Aires: Huemul, 1979
Moscovici, S. (1973) ‘Foreword’, pp. Xiii in C. Herzlich: Health and Illness. A Social
Psychological Analysis. London: Academic Press
Moscovici, S. (1988) ‘Notes Towards a Description of Social Representations’, European
Journal of Social Psychology 18: 211-250
Niedzielski, N. A., & Preston, D. R. (2003). Folk linguistics (Vol. 122). Berlin & New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Oswalt, Wendell H. 1986. Life Cycles and Lifeways: An Introduction to Cultural
Anthropology. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
Paveau, M.-A. (2011). “Do non-linguists practice linguistics? An anti-eliminative approach to
folk theories”. AILA Review, 24, 40–54.
Pérez de Arce, F. & Lagos, C. (2014).Language ideologies in chilean education programmes :
the case of english and mapudungun as second languages. Universidad de Chile.
Disponible en http://www.repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/115685
65
Pérez de Arce, F & Lagos, C. (2016). Ideologías linguisticas y representaciones sociales en
orno a la eneñanza del inglés y del mapudungún en los actores del sistema educativo
chileno: Un esudio de caso en el Instituto Nacional. (Master’s Thesis). Universidad de
Chile
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Piller, I. (2002). Passing for a native speaker: Identity and success in second language
learning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(2), 179–206.
Rampton, M.B.H. (1990). Displacing the “native speaker”: Expertise, affiliation, and
inheritance. ELT Journal, 44(2), 97–101.
Razfar, A. (2005). Language ideologies in practice: Repair & classroom discourse.
Linguistics & Education, 16 (4), pp. 404-424
Razfar, A., & Rumenapp, J.C. (2011). Developmental context(s): Mediating learning
through language ideologies. Human Development, 54(1), 241-269.
Razfar, A. & Rumenapp, J. (2012). Language ideologies in English learner classrooms:
critical reflections and the role of explicit awareness. Language Awareness,
21(4), 347-368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2011.616591
Richards, B. J. (1987). Type/token ratios: What do they really tell us? Journal of Child
Language 14, 201-9.
Richards, J.C. (1971). A Non-Contrastive Approach toError Analysis. Journal of ELT.
25,204-219.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. SEAMEO Regional
Language Centre.
Rojas, D. (2012). Actitudes lingüísticas de hispanohablantes de Santiago de Chile: creencias
sobre la corrección idiomática. Onomázein: Revista de lingüística, filología y
traducción de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, (26), 69-93.
Rojas, D. (2014). Estatus, solidaridad y representación social de las variedades de la lengua
española entre hispanohablantes de Santiago de Chile. Literatura y lingüística, (29),
251-270. https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0716-58112014000100014
Rojas, D, Lagos, C. & Espinoza, M. (2016). Ideologías lingüísticas acerca del mapudungun
en la urbe chilena: El saber tradicional y su aplicación a la revitalización
lingüística. Chungará (Arica), 48(1), 115-125. Epub 22 de agosto de
2015.https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-73562015005000034
Rubin, D. (1992). Nonlanguage factors affecting undergraduates' judgments of nonnative
English-speaking teaching assistants. Research In Higher Education, 33(4), 511531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00973770
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching, 10(1-4), 209-232.
Siegel, J. (2006). “Language ideologies and the education of speakers of marginalized
language varieties: Adopting a critical awareness approach. Linguistics And
Education”, 17(2), 157-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2006.08.002
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on
foreign language performance. Language teaching research, 1(3), 185-211.
Spolsky, B. (1998). Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stern, H.H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Todolí Cervera, J., Labarta Postigo, M., & Dolón Herrero, R. (2006). What is Critical
Discourse Analysis?. Quaderns de Filologia-Estudis Lingüístics, 11, 9-34.
Tévar, J. (2014). “A native accent is always attractive”: Perception of british varieties by EFL
Spanish students.Lenguas Modernas, 43, 45-77.
66
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & society, 4(2),
249-283.
Vermeer, A. (2000). Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data.
Language
Testing, 17(1), 65-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026553220001700103
Wachelke, J. (2012). Social representations: a review of theory and research from the
structural
approach. Universitas Psychologica, 11(3), 729-741.
Waseem, F., & Asadullah, S. (2013). Linguistic domination and critical language
awareness. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 799-820.
Williams, J. (1990). Another look at yes/no questions: Native speakers and non-native
speakers. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 159-182.
Wittig, F. (2009). Desplazamiento y vigencia del mapudungun en Chile: un
análisis desde el discurso reflexivo de los hablantes urbanos. RLA, 47, 135-155.
Zechmeister, E. B. et al. (1993). Metacognitive and Other Knowledge about the Mental
Lexicon: Do We Know How Many Words We Know? Applied Linguistics 14 (2), 188
– 206
Zhang, M., & Province, H. (2006). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Focus, 1, 85-94.
Chicago
Zimny, A. (2014). Adquisición y aprendizaje del artículo español por niños y adultos polacos
en
el entorno de inmersión. Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la
Enseñanza de Lenguas, (16).
67
Appendix
Table 8
English university students’ cultural models emerged in the pilot focus group
Cultural models
Focus groups
“Poor level of English”
M2: “súper básico, súper básico”
“Speaking English well”
M1: “…habla súper mal en términos formales…”
“Good grammar”
H1: “…Pero carecía mucho de gramática y de orden”
“Error”
H1: “…Entonces, ese error te instaba a decir…”
“Good communication”
H2: “…comunicarse con los demás puede que esa sea
su limitación”
“Good pronunciation”
M2: “…pero igual pronunciaba con todas las vocales
chilenas”
“Lexical richness”
M2: “…a pesar de que usa las mismas palabras…”
“To improve”
M2: “…dudo que él tenga mucho interés en mejorar
así como su pronunciación”