تلخيص مقال

[Badr Al Duga]

السلام عليكم ابي تلخيص لهذا المقال ضروري

لأن امتحاني الثلاثاء

و احتست فيه


BOOK REVIEW
The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language
by Alastair Pennycook (1994)
Harlow, Essex, UK: Longman Group Limited
This book is about the cultural and political implications of the spread of English
across the globe over the last four centuries. It raises fundamental questions about the
nature of education, language, and culture. Pennycook challenges the traditional views
of English language teaching and applied linguistics has nothing to do with politics. He
underscores how language is always taught in a political context. Teachers who assert
they're "only teaching language" will find it hard to accept many of the ideas in this
book. Throughout this book Pennycook exhorts readers to critically reevaluate existing
concepts, particularly those claiming to somehow be "universal". Pennycook insists
that any academic discipline should be evaluated in terms of the vested interests
supporting it and the historical contexts in which it arose
Many of Pennycook’s statements are a variation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
However, he criticizes Whorf for being too structuralist in his approach and for failing
to explore the concept of social class. Pennycook feels the most fruitful way to consider
language is as a locus of a political struggle. He uses the term 'political struggle' in a
Freireian sense: as an endeavor to ascertain contending values and to establish a
personal worth. Envisioning culture as an "active process by which people make
meaning of their lives" (p. 61), the author portrays cultural politics as a "struggle over
different meanings" (p. 66). He disputes the Marxist tendency to view culture as "a
superstructural phenomenon determined by the socioeconomic 'realities'" (p. 63) as well
as the positivist view of culture as the action of nation-states within a high/low
diametric field.
Pennycook discusses the spread of English in terms of Galtung's (1971) concept of
Center and Periphery. He points outs how English media from 'developed' countries
have penetrated the media of developing nations. This essentially one-way flow of
information erodes the national sovereignty, cultural identity, and political
independence of developing nations. Though institutions considered along the
Periphery tend to become distributors of knowledge received from the Center,
Pennycook emphasizes that the actual situation is more complex. Many institutions in
the third world are more than passive information receptors. Through the process of
'writing back' – of expressing their own values and vision – marginalized populations
can gain dynamic voices. Pennycook concurs with Appadurai's (1990) appraisal that,
"the new global cultural economy has to be seen as a complex, overlapping, disjunctive
order, which can no longer be understood in terms of existing center-periphery models."
(p. 32)
Outlining the global spread of English in recent centuries with the expansion of
Anglo-American power, Pennycook disputes the assumption that its proliferation has
been natural, neutral, or beneficial. He also refutes claims made by Fishman et al.
(1977) that English is not "ideologically encumbered." Every language, Pennycook
maintains, carries the weight of a civilization. The decision to use a certain language
means to support the existence of a given cultural matrix.
Phillipson's (1986, 1988, 1992) notion of "English linguistic imperialism" is
considered in depth. The author concedes Anglo-American expansion has gone
hand-in-hand with the expansion of English and that the American and British
governments have fostered the disciplines of EFL/ESL and organizations such as the
British Council and Peace Corps. Pennycook, however, criticizes Phillipson for not
adequately considering how English can be used in diverse contexts. Although the
author concedes that English is 'the language of international capitalism,' he also
underscores that English is a language of protest. Pennycook points out how writers
such as Achebe, Baldwin, and Lim have had an impact not only on readers in their
homeland, but on readers around the world. Emphasizing the power of human agency
to reshape language in unexpected ways, Pennycook remarks, "it becomes important to
acknowledge [English] . . . not merely as a language of imperialism, but also as a
language of opposition." (p. 262)
A theme considered at length in this book is the nature of education. Instead of
viewing schools as "neutral sites where a curricular body of information is passed on to
students" (p. 297), Pennycook urges readers to think of educational institutions as
"cultural and political arenas" in which different values are in struggle. He agrees with
Giroux (1991) that "teachers need to see themselves as 'transformative intellectuals'
rather than mere "classroom technicians employed to pass on a body of knowledge" (p.
299). For Pennycook, teaching is a process of political engagement and the curriculum
should be based on themes of social relevance to students. He emphasizes that teachers
can empower learners through an amalgam of approaches known as 'critical pedagogy.'
Conclusion
This work was both revealing and recondite. Many of Pennycook's key assertions
are, I maintain, all too briefly outlined and unsupported. His description of the
"metanarratives of modernity" (p. 58), for example, is as terse as it is abstruse.
Moreover, When Pennycook suggests that, "perhaps language – and particularly
English as an international language – should also be replaced by a vision of powerful
discursive formations globally and strategically employed" (p. 64) he doesn't elaborate
what this means.
Pennycook offers no prescriptive list of pedagogic dos and don'ts in this work. Nor
is a clear-cut teaching methodology elucidated. What he provides is an impassioned
vision of personal philosophy, stating how he sees his role in shaping the political
agenda for the next century. Embracing the concept of cultural relativism and
lambasting all claims towards "objectivity", much of this text is thought-provoking.
- reviewed by Tim Newfields
References
Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global economy. Public Culture.
(2) 2.
Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the
repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review. 59 (3), 297-324.
Fishman, J. A., Cooper, R. W., & Conrad, Y. (1977).The Spread of English. Rowley,
Mass: Newbury House.
Galtung, J. (1971). A structural theory of imperialism. Journal of Peace Research. 8 (2),
81-117.
Nirnjana, T. (1992). Siting translation: history, post-structuralism, and the colonial
context. Berkerly: University of California Press.
Phillipson, R. (1986). English rules: a study of language pedagogy and imperialism. In
R. Phillipson & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds). Linguicism rules in education. Roskilde
University Centre, Denmark. pp. 124-343.
Phillipson, R. (1988). Linguicism: structures and ideologies in linguistic imperialism.
In J. Cummins & T. Skutnabb-Kangas. (Eds). Minority education: From shame to
struggle. Avon: Multilingual Masters.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Simon, R.I. (1992). Teaching against the grain: Essays towards a pedagogy of
possibility. Boston: Bergin & Garvey

[Badr Al Duga]

لو كتبتوا اسم الكاتبة و المقال
رح يطلع لكم في قوقل

إذا مو واضح هون

تشكراتي

[Badr Al Duga]

up للأهمية

على الأقل ترجموه لي و أنا بألخصه

لأن كلمات من جد غبية

[Badr Al Duga]

up

للأهمية

[Badr Al Duga]

up

الله يفرج هم اللي يساعدني و الله حايسه بقوة

يــــــــــــــــــارب صبرني

يــــــــــــــــــــا رب غلقت الأبواب و بابك لا يغلق


افتح لي فتحا من عندك و ارزقني العلم و العمل

[Badr Al Duga]

الرجاء الدعاء لي ..

امتحاني اليوم

[جامعية جداوية]

الله يوفقك ويعينك

[الريحانه2]

الله يعافيكم ابي تلخيص لهذا المقال والله محتاجه باسرع وقت ..........

Our world today is faced woth so many major threats.The most dangerous threat of all is"war",especially another world war in which nuclear weapons may be used.With the use of nuclear weapons there is the possibility of the destruction of our entire
planet.Each war starts a particular reason, but there are a number of stepss countries can take to prevent outbreak.


One main reason for war is a difference in ideology.For example,there is always astruggle between communism and capitalism.They usually aid\assist\help other countroes in wars in order to overthrow governments that have not agreed with their principles.


Landownership is another reason that countries declare wars on their neighbors.Usually these conflicts are economic in nature.For example,if oil is found on land in one country but that land can be claimed by another country for historical reasons,the country having historical ties the land may declare wae in order to recover the area containing oil.


Finally,to prevent the destruction of Earth in a nuclear catastrophe,countroes shoud try to resolve (solve)their differences through international organizations such as the United Nations. Thus,all countries need to educatetheir citizens to be more tolerant of their ideologies.After all,the countries that are better off need to give more assistance\help to those countries that suffer severe economic troubles so that economically devastated countries will not try to solve their problems through violence.In conclusion,there are solutions to the world's problema,and they should be put into practice now before it is too late.

[عاشقه الفردوس*]

شكراً لك على هذه الكلمات الرائعة