Moving Towards ‘Us-Others’ Reciprocity: Implications of Glocalisation for Language Learning and Intercultural Communication

Abstract

Learning new languages potentially gives people vital skills to build more successful relationships, and understanding the social influences at work today may help us to know which type of language education is most beneficial. This article explores three social influences – globalisation, localisation and glocalisation – from the perspective of their effect on language use. It is suggested that glocalisation provides the most useful term to describe the reality of social interaction at the start of the 21st century and that language education should be shaped by the impact of this social influence on language use.

Te akoranga o ngā reo hou ka pakari te tangata ki ngā puukenga taketake, hei hanga whanaungātanga whai hua, me te mohio hoki ki nga tini āhuatanga e paa ana ki te mahi o te ao nei, ā, ka whai awhi tātou ki te mohio ko tēhea te momo whakaakoranga reo te mea tino manako. Ko tēnei tuhi pānui e rangahau ana i ngā āhuatanga e toru. Ko te ao, te taiwhanga, me te ao taiwhanga, mai hoki te aronga o ngā otinga mo ngā mahi reo. E mea ana ko te ‘ao taiwhanga’ te wāhanga tino pai ki te whakaaturia atu te ngako o te whakawhitwhiti, mai te tīmatatanga o te rautau rua tekau mā tahi, me te whakaaro kia whakaritengia ano te whakaakoranga reo mai te papātanga o ngā tini āhuatanga e pā ano ki ngā mahi reo.

Keywords:

• globalisation
• glocalisation
• languages
• language learning
• language teaching
• self-identity

Notes

1. It may be argued that a claim to link identity primarily to L1 is an oversimplification. Skutnabb-Kangas (2004) acknowledges, on the one hand, the special significance of L1 to identity, but recognises, on the other, that people have ‘multiple identities, often conflicting and contradictory, varying in salience according to circumstances’ (p. 128). The notion of ‘multiple identities’ is expounded by others (for example, May et al., 2004; Pennycook, 2001). May (2004) articulates a ‘widespread view’ that ‘language does not define us, and may not be an important feature, or indeed even a necessary one, in the construction of our identities, whether at the individual or collective levels’ (p. 39). This paper takes as its starting point, however, the notion that ‘[n]othing stays longer in our souls than the language we inherit’ (Paulus Utsi, cited in Skutnabb-Kangas, 2004: 132).

2. Carr acknowledges that in many respects globalisation is not a new social phenomenon, although the pace of globalisation is accelerating.

3. It is hard to see the relevance, for example, in one English teacher's lesson, for Chinese speakers in Changzheng Middle School, that looked at how to use the train system in the UK (Blythe, 2001c: 14) – although to be fair this was only a snapshot of an entire lesson which may well have gone on to explore a wider range of language relevant to a variety of contexts.

4. I am grateful to one reviewer who, in the context of positively challenging my thinking at several points, noted the following additional communicative aims for L1 speakers of English: teaching English-L1 students (who are sometimes much more difficult to understand than L2-speakers of English) not only to speak so that they are understandable to others, but also how to speak effectively through interpreters.