Since the term of “Globalization” is widespread all over the world and its influences in different aspects on economically, culturally, technologically and politically are continuously increasing which makes it as a catchword internationally. It is like an umbrella sheltering all over the world. It happens in everywhere with any kind of culture and concepts in sweeping around the world and is so irresistible in spreading. It seems that anything which can be globalized means it has a high competitiveness in the global world. Everyone is joining in the race and turning it to be a global competition rather than a global trend.
Although there are many debates and taxonomy made by different scholars in the world, and various views and theories discussing about “globalization” which is in a way quite difficult for any of each to explain it very completely. However, if we focus on the process of globalization, it is not hard to find that it is also a process of blurring the national boundaries. And the five dimensions of the global cultural flow as Appadurai describes: (1) ethnoscapes (flow of people), (2) technoscapes (flow of machinery), (3) mediascapes (flow of images), (4) ideoscapes (flow of idea) and (5) finanscapes (flow of money) (Appadurai, p.230-238).
As language is acting like a cart carries the “culture” in flowing around the global world. On one hand, English as the global language widely spread among most of the population, taking a heavy role as a medium in communication for academic, travel and leisure, internet and most important on the global economy market. Due to the historical background under colonization, Hong Kong has a long term benefit in connection with English usage and seems that language policy in the education system carried out is taking a leading part for Hong Kong to survive in this global competition. And in the first part of the paper, I’ll still try to apply Appadurai’s five dimensions theory as my platform and main angle of vision for viewing the language policy in the global context focusing on Hong Kong.
On the other hand, I’ll focus to see what kind of language policies had been using in Hong Kong, especially the change before and after the handover to the China government and analysis the impacts and effects to the society, economically and culturally. Various examples of other countries will also be used i.e. Singapore, Mongolia. And Macau, having a high similarity in background with Hong Kong, will be used as the comparative model to discuss and measure about the language policy and the growth of English regarding to Hong Kong. Also, with reference of an online article Not the Queen’s English (Carla Power, Newsweek International), I found that the language-English itself is now initiating the globalization process in facing the change of global needs and the up rising of other languages. Therefore, I’ll be using Hong Kong as a viewing model to analysis the impact of globalization on the world’s language, with particular reference to English language policy in the global context. And of course, pros and cons of different scenarios will also be discussed.
Reference will be used:
Appadurai, David Held and Anthony McGrew, (Editors), 2000, The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate, Policy Press: Oxford, UK, p.230-238)
James Brooke, Mongolian leaders believe that English is the key to economic progress, The New York Times as seen in The International Herald Tribune, 14.2, 2005
HONG KONG, LANGUAGE POLICY Peter Dickson & Alister Cumming, (eds.) National profiles of Language Education in 25 Countries. Berkshire, England: National Foundation for Educational Research. 1996
(http://www.cbs.polyu.edu.hk/ctdso/paper/lang%20in20ED%20HK%20.pdf)
Mark Bray and Ramsey Koo, Postcolonial patterns and paradoxes: language and education in Hong Kong and Macao, Comparative Education, Vol.40, No.2, May 2004
Carla Power, Newsweek International 2006, Not the Queen’s English
(http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7038031/site/newsweek/)
GOLBAL LITERACY – THE ADVANTAGE OF SPEAKING GOOD ENGLISH
(http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2000/sp31032000a.htm)
Cunningham, Denis, Primary Educator, LANGUAGE POLICY A BRIEF GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE, 13244825, 1998, Vol.4, Issue 6
(http://web8.epnet.com.ezlibproxy.levels.unisa.edu.au/citation.asp?)
Language Education
(http://www.e-c.edu.hk/eng/reform/progress/progress03_sec2_eng.pdf)
Education Reform, Language Education
(http://www.e-c.edu.hk/eng/reform/report/sec2.html)
Anita Y.K. Poon, Language policy of Hong Kong: Its impact on language education and language use in post-handover Hong Kong, Journal of Taiwan Normal University: Humanities & Social Sciences, 2004, 49(1), 53-74
(http://140.122.100.145/ntnuj/j49.asp?appl=j491-13.pdf)
but I’ll use Appadurai’s theory on the five dimensions of global cultural flows:-
1. Ethnoscape
2. Mediascape
3. Technoscape
4. Financescape
5. Ideoscape
And with applying his examples on Homogenisation and Deterritorialization (Arjun Appadurai, ‘Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy’) as my platform and main angle of vision for viewing the language policy in the global context.
Also with reference of an online article Not the Queen’s English (Carla Power, Newsweek International), I found that even the language-English itself is now initiating the globalization process. Therefore, I’ll be using Hong Kong as a viewing model to analysis the impact of globalization on the world’s language, with particular reference to English language policy in the global context.
Points of the impact of globalisation included:-
Western Colonisation:
Due to the expansion of the Euro-western countries, i.e. The British, Hong Kong
was occupied by the British as a Crown Colony after a certain defeats of Chinese
in the First Opium War. In which this historical background built a very important
platform for English to be used in the common language and even to the post
handover period, is still be one of the official languages.
Five dimensions in global cultural flow:-
1. Ethnoscape:
2. Mediascape
3. Technoscape
4. Financescape
5. Ideoscape
Homogenisation:
Deterritorialization:
Westernisation (‘McDonaldization’ and ‘Coca-colonization’)
Internationalization:
Language policy held in Hong Kong
Educational:
Government encouragement:
Various scenarios occur:
Pros:
Cons:
1. ….The enhancement in mother-tongue teaching reduces the students’ chance to learn and use English in a wider range with other subjects rather than in the English class only….
2. ….Inavailability of Native English teachers and lack of oral practice provided leads to “Hong Kong English” often thought of as a low standard of English among the local populace with its heavy Hong Kong accent….
3. ….Interjections of Cantonese origin usage in internet among locals are frequent. In addition with instant message English and SMS English are commonly use by students or even among well English educated individuals in formal occasions. Other than regional intimacy and Cantonese –speaking identity expressed, it also turns to be a problem for student to learn proper English….
4. ….The “LPAT” creates high pressure to the English teachers without English language undergraduate degrees. The assessment screened away quite a number of in-service English teachers and even a high number of Native English teachers who are failed in the test….
5. ….Cantonese peppered with English mixed as “Chinglish”….
6.
Recommendation
1. Inspired by the guide book on the use of standard English provided in Singapore….Hong Kong government should have more collaboration with the media to produce more long running programs for the public to act as a guide on the correct use of English….
2.
Cons:
The best way in learning English can not only be taught in formal lessons with gamma and vocabulary. Students also need more chances to practise their oral skill and way of thinking in other language so as to train up their guts and habits in using English. But the enhancement in mother-tongue teaching reduces the students’ chance to learn and use English in a wider range with other subjects rather than in the English class only.
As there is more than one and a half billion population is speaking English which makes it become an international language for communication all over the world. If we see it from the view point of economics, it is not hard to find that English is taking a very important part as the corporate and business language within the international trade. In addition with the transmittion and receiving of international knowledge, making more people are opening their eyes and minds in knowing what’s going on on the world. Therefore, more and more non-native English speaking countries are having different language policies to power up their population strength on manging this second global language so as to get more opportunities for upgrading their economical status in the world.
Since 1980s, the term of “Globalization” is widely spread and be an umbrella term covering series of economic, social, technological and political changes. It also be the infrastructures to allow the international movement of commodities, social, cultural, money, information, the development of technology, organizations, legal systems. As the word carries both technical and political meanings, different groups are having debates on its history, definition and concept.
“Globalization…(is the) flows of trade, capital and people across the globe.” (Held and McGrew, 2000 ‘The Great Globalisation Debate: An Introduction) which only gave us a general scope of concept in seeing that. In general use within economics, it is an increase in the international flow of capital and the international trade which is much more faster than the growth of the world economy. Whereas within the field of cultural, it allows a greater increase in the international cultural exchange by the movement of people within disparate locations.
Fortunately, with Arjun Appadurai’s taxonomy on the five dimensions (Arjun Appadura, ‘Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy’) of the global cultural flow, it serves to show that globalization is much more than economics on a global scale.
The five dimensions are:-
1. Ethnoscape: movements of people, including tourists, immigrants, refugees, and business travellers.
2. Mediascape: the global distribution of media images that appear on our computer screens, in newspapers, television, and radio.
3. Technoscapes: the global movement of technologies and machinary.
4. Fiananscape: the global flows of money which mainly driven by interconnected stock exchanges, currency and commodity markets.
5. Ideoscape: the global spread of ideas and political ideologies.
These above dimensions illustrate his concern about all sorts of flows (flows of people, flows of images, flows of technology, flows of money, flows of ideas) increasingly influence to the global connectivity. But Appadurai also use the term “Suffix scape” to indicate the “the deeply perspectival constructs, inflected very much by the historical, linguistic and political situatedness of different sorts of actors: nation-states, multinationals, diasporic communities, as well as sub-natioal groupings and movements” (Arjun Appadura, ‘Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy’). Apart from his emphasis on the “disjunture” between these flows, he also mentioned and his examples on Homogenisation and Deterritorialization are also helping a lot in explaining the impact cause to our topic.
In the upcoming report, with reference to Hong Kong, I’m going to use Appadurai’s theory as my angle of vision for viewing the language policy in the global context.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment