Skype post:
Ok.. I'm going to openly share a thought b4 I lose it..(non TPOV but something to CHEW on... like a rubber cookie...)
So, to do SFL properly, and to rate it, you need to define norms. And one thing this article notes are Norms on society. Ie. sociolinguistic competence means that when you walk in late, you need to say sorry, and then trigger the lexical language knowledge to say it.
Well... who's to say that you are to say sorry when you are late?
Granted, I agree, but what is going on is that there are some ethical values being injected into the "norm". Now without arguing what is right or wrong, the potential for abuse is then seen - for if 'Competency' includes sociatal responses, and Ss are graded for it according to that norm, who's to then alter that norm? And by so doing, they will force people (they need to demonstrate 'competency') into fitting into a certain social mold. It can easily be a control factor.
Because context is now tied in, exams can be structured to "grade" someone's cultural / societal responses. And if the wrong 'standard' are injected, testing and grading can be used to manipulate people.
The key is: by what standard does one determine the "norm" for behavior in a given setting?
This is clearly an ethical question.
My point: Ethics, values, and morals, cannot be separated from ELL. Not if we are going to start to 'grade' people on their social responses.
It's integral
No comments:
Post a Comment