The impression of the chapter is like a "eye-opening" perspective on socio-cultural aspect of language. The argument is that language is a delivery tool of communicative meaning and the meaning is constructed through the process of societal, interactional, interpersonal and multidimensional human activity.
My understanding is that, there are two meanings; literal meaning and usage meaning. The former is history of the meaning, which has been cumulated and conventionalized to constitute a shared knowledge or information in a speech community. With this, communication is possible. The latter is meaning in practice - one negotiated by interlocutors on site on the assumption that they share a context or contexts.
In this chapter again, like in Pennycook(1989, 2003), Kumaravadivelu(2008), Canagarajah(2006), the bias toward cognitive or mentalist approaches on language research is criticized. Personally I've seen the tendancy of linguistic inquiry mainly focusing on devlopmental aspects of langauge acquisition, not socio-cultural involvement of language use.
It seems clear that it is time to tackle the assumed homogeniety, universality or equality of linguistic data in the application for a better language teaching.
The question is; how can I make myself understood the multidimensional aspects of language and its teaching/learning in multifaceted socio-cultural reality?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment