“For example, couple talk, sibling talk, or friend talk can be seen as language that is used between people have low social distance (and thus is localised) and may not be interpretable to an outside audience. On the other hand, when interacting with people with whom one has a higher social distance, one tends to use a more ‘standard’ or ‘global’ language—one that minimizes ‘local’ uses and is thus less prone to miscommunication. Thus, one cline of language variation can be based on ‘low’ vs. ‘high’ social distance” (Mahboob, 2014, p. 3)

2.      Do you think the following quote is true or false? Do you think that as teachers, we change our syntax, diction, intonation, word choice, way of speaking in general when teaching/talking to EAL students versus non-EAL students?

“Each wave had linguistic implications—that is, the immigrants influenced the way in which English is spoken in Canada to some extent” (Chambers, 2010, p. 12)

What I learned from Ellis is that what I was doing in my internship and what my co-op did was an “extensive” way of presenting grammar because it was many lessons in a short amount of time rather than the same thing over and over. The following passage indicates that intensive is more effective? Would you agree or disagree? Do you think students would learn more of the repetition of the same structures, or bursts of different ones?

“There is little doubt now that intensive grammar lessons can be effective. Though earlier research showed that learners do not always learn what they are taught, especially when learning is measured in terms of spontaneous production (e.g., Kadia, 1987), more recent research (e.g., Spada & Lightbown, 1999) indicates that even if learners are not ready to learn the targeted structure, intensive grammar teaching can help them progress through the sequence of stages involved in the acquisition of that structure. In other words, teaching a marked structure intensively can help learners learn associated, less marked structures even if it does not result in acquisition of the marked structure. Intensive instruction also helps learners to use structures they have already partially acquired more accurately (e.g., White, Spada, Lightbown, & Ranta, 1991)” (Ellis, 2006, p. 94).  

there has been a series of language teaching methods over the ye each being succeeded by a better one until we reach the present." I do find myself agreeing with this point, but to me, a statement of that magnitude (which is later explained quite throughly), begs the question, "Is what we are learning now trivial if every other 'method' has been so far?" Perhaps the author did not intend for this, but it truly made me question just how much of this educational theory translates into individual student successes, and how much of a difference focusing on a new way to inform learning has on the students.

As further said, “Through this framework, racism is described as "endemic in American life" and something that is "deeply ingrained legally, culturally, and even psychologically" (p. 52). Much more than individual acts of hatred, racism is described as a condition of American life. It is "a system of advantage based on race" that benefits whites in the United States as it disadvantages people of color” (Marx, 2004, p. 135). Here, Marx define racism as a condition; a condition can be defined as an “illness or medical problem” (dictionary.com); racism is acquired to social conditioning which leads to similar beliefs among families, communities, and populations. Therefore, if children were taught to respect and seek interest in other cultures, then racism would not be considered a condition, but rather it would not occur or occur less. Do you think there is a way to overstep racial turmoil within a classroom through being open about privilege and teaching about “whiteness”?