Translanguaging

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translanguaging 

 

Translanguaging is the process whereby multilingual speakers use their languages as an integrated communication system. Translanguaging is an extension of the concept of languaging, the discursive practices of language speakers, but with the additional feature of using multiple languages, often simultaneously. It is a dynamic process in which multilingual speakers navigate complex social and cognitive demands through strategic employment of multiple languages. It is believed that the term was first coined in Welsh by Cen Williams as trawsieithu in his 1994 unpublished thesis "An evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingual secondary education."

Translanguaging involves issues of language production, effective communication, the function of language, and the thought processes behind language use. The term is a result of bilingualism, and is often employed in a pedagogical setting, but also has applications to any situation experienced by multilingual speakers, who constitute most language communities in the world. This includes complex linguistic family dynamics, and the use of code-switching and how that usage relates to one's understanding of their own multilingualism.

In an educational setting, translanguaging can be controlled by both the student and the teacher. It maximizes the student's bilingual ability and is being used across the world. For instance, a teacher can develop a lesson plan using English as the medium of instruction and another language as the medium of discussion. This allows the student to use each language for different domains within the classroom.

When talking about bilingualism, some scholars consider translanguaging as opposed to a "double monolingualism." This puts an emphasis on how multilingual speakers use varying language skill levels to communicate fully, rather than emphasizing the concept of equal proficiency between two languages.

Additionally, translanguaging is dissimilar from diglossia because translanguaging practices do not mandate a language hierarchy, nor do they mandate that different language systems are assigned to different domains or functions for the speaker; rather, translanguaging develops the adaptability and cooperation of language systems.

History

Bilingual education is thought to go back as far as 4000–5000 years.

The ideology behind translanguaging emerged from the evolution of multilingual teaching practices, particularly the practices promoted by Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), an international association designed to advance the quality of English language instruction. The beginnings of bilingual education in the United States asserted the primacy of speech and neglected written language learning. The second language instruction of the 1960s and 70s heavily utilized oral–aural drills, and written portions of the courses were mimetic and repetition oriented, and structure, form, syntax, and grammar were given priority status for learners. In this system there was no focus on actual language use, which led to a lack of knowledge about how language and communication work in real practice. 

In the late 1970s and 80s second language education shifted to focus on the importance of communication and language use for participation in particular discourse communities. However, emphasizing language learning as a means to enter a discourse community was also problematic, as it pressured students to surrender their own language practices in order to become practicing members of the new discourse communities.

Translanguaging as a focus of study first emerged in Bangor, Wales, in the 1980s. It is based on François Grosjean's idea that bilinguals are not two monolinguals in one. Cen Williams and his colleagues were researching strategies of using both Welsh and English in a single lesson in a classroom setting. Cen Williams' Welsh term "trawsieithu" was translated into English as "translanguaging" by their colleague Colin Baker.

Scholars argue that translanguaging functions as an emancipation from the adverse second language acquisition pedagogies of the 20th century. They believe that translanguaging gives multilingual students an advantage within educational systems because it (1) promotes a more thorough understanding of content; (2) helps the development of the weaker language for bilingual or multilingual speakers; (3) fosters home-to-school links within language use; and (4) integrates fluent speakers with early learners, thus expediting the language learning process.

Major debates

A prominent argument against incorporating translanguaging into academic contexts is the notion that speakers of International Englishes would have difficulty communicating with one another because of the immense variety of Englishes spoken. However, advocates for translanguaging pedagogy maintain that misunderstandings between speakers of International Englishes who practice translanguaging are not common, and when misunderstandings do occur between speakers they are quickly resolved through other means of negotiation. Advocates argue that speakers of International Englishes can communicate with relative ease because they have a variety of tools for making sense of the language varieties with which they engage. 

Some academics call for the development of corpora of "nonstandard" English varieties to aid with the study of translanguaging.

Barbara Seidlhofer argues that language acquisition programs should not be teaching language with the intention of achieving native-speaker competence, but that they should be "embracing the emergent realistic goal of intercultural competence achieved through a plurilingualism that integrates rather than ostracizes" International Englishes. This pedagogical strategy necessitates translanguaging as a means through which to accomplish such plurilingualism. For Seidlhofer, the incorporation of such International Englishes into educational systems would be more beneficial for second language learners than current dominant language acquisition pedagogies, which emphasize standard American and British varieties of English. Since achieving native-speaker status is nearly impossible without years of study, translanguaging presents students with opportunities to learn language in a more supportive space, fostering their language acquisition in all varieties rather than enforcing the participation in and acquisition of a single dominant variety.

Proponents of decolonizing the English language argue that holding on to particular varieties of English as the only legitimate varieties to use in language acquisition programs is a practice that perpetuates destructive colonial attitudes towards non-English languages and the English varieties of their speakers. Incorporating translanguaging is one means through which such a decolonization of the English language could occur. In this way, decentralizing those particular dominant varieties of English would work towards legitimizing the use of "nonstandard" English varieties at the educational level.

Translanguaging and code-switching

Translanguaging's relationship to the concept of code-switching depends on the model of translanguaging used. Multiple models have been created to describe the cognitive processing of language and how multilingualism functions and manifests within an individual speaker. The unitary model of translanguaging, derived from postmodernism in linguistics, considers code-switching to be a separate phenomenon from translanguaging. This is because the unitary model defines code-switching as a dual competence model, which assumes that the linguistic systems of an individual are separate without overlap. The dual competence model of code-switching directly contrasts with the post-modernist's unitary model, which theorizes that a speaker only possesses a singular linguistic system, thereby making code-switching irreconcilable with translanguaging. On the other hand, the integrated model of translanguaging takes a more centrist position. It considers code-switching to be an aspect of translanguaging alongside other multilingual activities like translation, because an individual's internal linguistic systems are thought to be overlapping but not unitary.

Linguistic postmodernists do not recognize code-switching as translanguaging because they call into question the very idea of discrete languages, arguing them to be inventions created through various cultural, political, or social processes. Postmodernists acknowledge that linguistic differences may exist between "languages," but the concept of a "language" as an abstract and independent entity is considered a social construct. When applied to translanguaging theory, postmodernists argue that an individual's linguistic competence is the sum of their individual interactions with other speakers and overall linguistic knowledge. Each person has an individually distinct linguistic repertoire, or idiolect, because of their unique socialization experience. The internal linguistic system is considered unitary and encompasses all grammatical and lexical systems. Hence, the discrete systems of linguistic competence given by code-switching cannot be considered part of translanguaging in the unitary model.

The integrated model takes a position closer to the center of the two extremes on linguistic systems. The model was developed from critiques to the unitary model, stating that the conclusions from the postmodernists were the product of theory, rather than linguistic data on multilingualism. The model posits that the internal linguistic system for any given individual is constructed with discrete lexical systems for each "language" and overlapping grammatical systems that can share phonetic, morphological, phonological, and semantic features. Linguistic systems are thought to rely on each system's linguistic structuring and whether the structuring can be done with or without cognitive differentiation. The integrated model then conceptualizes theories on code-switching to be aspects of translanguaging itself, because both the integrated model on translanguaging and code-switching assume some shared features and some distinction between cognitive linguistic systems.

Translanguaging in Deaf culture

Translanguaging in Deaf culture focuses on sensorial accessibility, as translanguaging still exists in Deaf culture, it is just different than translanguaging in non-Deaf speakers. An example of translanguaging in Deaf culture is when a "mixed deaf/hearing family communicates at the dinner table using mouthing, sign-speaking, voice, and signs." Translanguaging can be used prescriptively and descriptively and uses a speaker's entire linguistic range with disregard to the social and political sphere of languages. It also can be seen as the language practices of bilingual speakers. An ongoing issue in the Deaf community is the push for signed languages to be considered minority languages, since deaf speakers have a "sensorial inaccessibility to spoken languages." There is also an issue of access to signed languages for deaf children, as for many, this access is compromised. Deaf speakers also face sensorial asymmetries, and theories like translanguaging may threaten the political discourse for sign language rights as signed languages were seen as merely gestures fifty years ago, but not as real languages. Since deaf children use a variation of both signed and spoken languages, they share experiences similar to that of other bilingual children. Translanguaging in the Deaf community is thus unique because they use both visual and gestural, as well as spoken and written language modality.

International translanguaging

Non-native speakers of English around the world outnumber native English speakers of English by a ratio of 3:1. With the current influx of technology and communication, English has become a heavily transnational language. As such, English varieties and International Englishes are becoming standard usage in international economic exchanges, thereby increasing their legitimacy and decreasing the dominance of the standard American and British English varieties.

Translanguaging spaces

In the context of translanguaging, when thinking about space, it is not necessarily considered a physical space, but more of a space in the multilingual individual's mind. Through the processes of translanguaging, individuals create their own translanguaging space. Having said that, there can be many different translanguaging spaces that then get incorporated into a larger social space. For example, a university environment may provide a better translanguaging space due to the greater diversity of students in college than in a typical high school – and this is referring to the individuals life outside the classroom. Moreover, multilinguals can generate this social space where they are free to combine whichever tools they have gathered—ranging from personal history, experience and environment, attitude, belief and ideology, cognitive and physical capacity—to form a coordinated and meaningful performance. Within the translanguaging space that has been formed, the isolation of each individual language is not present. Instead, it provides an environment where all languages merge and results in completely new ideas and practices.

Multilinguals, in their translanguaging space, are continually coming up with new strategies to take advantage of their language knowledge to attain a specific communication effect in their day-to-day lives and experiences. When they become comfortable with the use of each language, creativity begins to flow and the languages become intertwined in ways that can only be understood in that specific translanguaging space. For example, the mix of Spanish and English in Miami, Florida, leads to different translanguaging spaces. The variety among these spaces depends on the Latin country the speakers come from due to the difference in dialects that exist. It is very common to hear Spanglish being spoken in Miami but if someone speaks both Spanish and English, it does not necessarily mean the usage of certain expressions, words, and sentences will be understood.

Translanguaging pedagogy

The development of translanguaging as a part of second language acquisition pedagogy signifies an ideological shift in bilingual and multilingual education systems, wherein bilingualism and multilingualism are no longer viewed as a disadvantage to learning a second language, such as English, but rather as an asset. The incorporation of translanguaging into educational settings signifies the movement of the English language towards a more heterogeneous system of several equally valued English varieties, rather than a system of two enforced varieties (Standard American and British Englishes) contesting with several other depreciated minority varieties. Importantly, translanguaging pedagogy demands that multilingual speakers engaging in translanguaging do not vacillate between language systems arbitrarily, but rather, that they do it with intention and a metacognitive understanding of the way their language practices work.

Translanguaging promotes a deeper understanding of subject matter, by discussing in one language and writing in another. Students will always reference what they already know from their first language when working with a second language. This helps students process the information and improve communication in their second language. When introduced in a Welsh bilingual classroom, translanguaging meant that the input and output languages were often switched. In this type of setting, students are typically asked to read a text in one language and discuss it either orally or in written form in their second language. In the case of the Welsh classroom, the languages used were Welsh and English. This led to an increase of Welsh speakers in primary schools in 2007, with 36.5% of the students being able to speak Welsh, compared to 1987 when only 24.6% of students spoke Welsh.

The goal of including translanguaging as an aspect of second-language acquisition pedagogy is to move beyond sentence-level and grammatical concerns in second-language teaching strategies, and to focus more heavily on discourse issues and on the rhetoric of communication. Students should be focused on the real applications of language that suit their purposes of communication based on the context in which they are communicating, rather than a one-variety-fits-all mode of learning language. Some scholars writing within translanguaging pedagogy argue for a diversified conception of the English language, where the multiple varieties of English exist with their own norms and systems and all have equal status. Such a system will enable a variety of communities to communicate effectively in English. In this conception of English language, it should be treated as a heterogeneous global language wherein standard varieties of English such as Indian English, Nigerian English, and Trinidadian English would still have the same status as the orthodox varieties of British and American English. Reinforcing only one variety of English in academic situations is disadvantageous for students, since students will ultimately encounter many varied communicative contexts, and as society becomes more digitally advanced, many of those communicative contexts will be transnational.

Since translanguaging is not yet a widely sanctioned language practice in educational systems, it is often practiced by students in secret and kept hidden from instructors. The practice of natural translanguaging without the presence of direct pedagogical effort can lead to issues of competence and transfer in academic contexts for students. This issue is why academics call for the inclusion of translanguaging in language acquisition programs, since students need to practice their translanguaging in a semi-structured environment in order to acquire competence and proficiency in communicating across academic contexts. If they are given the appropriate context in which to practice, students can integrate dominant writing conventions into their language practices and negotiate critically between language systems as they engage in translanguaging. For students to be successful at translanguaging in academic and other varied contexts, they must exercise critical metacognitive awareness about their language practices.

Teachers

Making use of translanguaging in the classroom does not require the teacher to be bilingual; however, it does require the teacher to be a co-learner. Monolingual teachers working with bilingual or multilingual students can successfully use this teaching practice; however, they must rely on the students, their parents, the community, texts, and technology more than the bilingual teacher, in order to support the learning and leverage the students' existing resources. As translanguaging allows the legitimization of all varieties, teachers can participate by being open to learning the varieties of their students, and by incorporating words from unfamiliar languages into their own use, serving as a model for their students to begin working with their non-native languages.

The traditionally prohibition of translanguaging in high-stakes writing assignments can prevent multilingual students from practicing their translanguaging abilities, and so it is the responsibility of the instructor to provide safe spaces for students to practice and develop their translanguaging skills. Teachers must plan out the translanguaging practices to be used with their students just as each lesson must be planned out, as translanguaging is not random. By reading bilingual authors and texts, teachers give the students the chance to experience two or more languages together and help compare and contrast the languages for the children.

Importantly, the use of translanguaging in the classroom enables language acquisition for the students without the direct insertion or influence of the teacher. While teachers do not need to become a compendium of the languages or language varieties practiced in their classrooms, they do need to be open to working with these new languages and language varieties to encourage student participation in translanguaging.

Higher education

Many students will use translanguaging in higher education where they are attending a university that does not have their first language as the medium of instruction. The students use their multiple languages as resources in their learning and understanding of subjects and ideas. An environment of multiple languages spoken with various repertoires allows a greater multilingual competence of subjects taught and reviewed in each language available. Bilingual or multilingual students in higher education who study in their native tongue and the medium of instruction used at their institutions are studied to determine how to reform primary and secondary education. This creates room for discussion of primary and secondary school systems and their language(s) of instruction. Translanguaging in higher education has been seen mostly within North America and in the United Kingdom. There are certain countries that are accepting of multilingual policies, such as India. However, places such as the United Arab Emirates are not accepting of adopting languages into their school systems.

International English

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_English

International English
Language family	Indo-European Germanic West Germanic Ingvaeonic Anglo-Frisian Anglic English International English
Early forms	Old English Middle English Early Modern English Modern English
Writing system	Latin (English alphabet)
Language codes
ISO 639-1	en
ISO 639-2	eng
ISO 639-3	eng
Linguasphere	52-ABA

International English is the concept of the English language as a global means of communication in numerous dialects, and the movement towards an international standard for the language. It is also referred to as Global English, World English, Common English, Continental English, General English, Engas (English as associate language), or Globish. Sometimes, these terms refer simply to the array of varieties of English spoken throughout the world.

Sometimes, "international English" and the related terms above refer to a desired standardisation, i.e., Standard English; however, there is no consensus on the path to this goal. There have been many proposals for making International English more accessible to people from different nationalities. Basic English is an example, but it failed to make progress. More recently, there have been proposals for English as a lingua franca (ELF) in which non-native speakers take a highly active role in the development of the language. It has also been argued that International English is held back by its traditional spelling. There has been slow progress in adopting alternate spellings.

Historical context

The modern concept of International English does not exist in isolation, but is the product of centuries of development of the English language. 

The English language evolved in England, from a set of West Germanic dialects spoken by the Angles and Saxons, who arrived from continental Europe in the 5th century. Those dialects became known as Englisc (literally "Anglish"), the language today referred to as Anglo-Saxon or Old English (the language of the poem Beowulf). However, less than a quarter of the vocabulary of Modern English is derived from the shared ancestry with other West Germanic languages because of extensive borrowings from Norse, Norman, Latin, and other languages. It was during the Viking invasions of the Anglo-Saxon period that Old English was influenced by contact with Norse, a group of North Germanic dialects spoken by the Vikings, who came to control a large region in the North of England known as the Danelaw. Vocabulary items entering English from Norse (including the pronouns they, and them) are thus attributable to the on-again-off-again Viking occupation of Northern England during the centuries prior to the Norman Conquest (see, e.g., Canute the Great). Soon after the Norman Conquest of 1066, the Englisc language ceased being a literary language (see, e.g., Ormulum) and was replaced by Anglo-Norman as the written language of England. During the Norman Period, English absorbed a significant component of French vocabulary (approximately one-third of the vocabulary of Modern English). With this new vocabulary, additional vocabulary borrowed from Latin (with Greek, another approximately one-third of Modern English vocabulary, though some borrowings from Latin and Greek date from later periods), a simplified grammar, and use of the orthographic conventions of French instead of Old English orthography, the language became Middle English (the language of Chaucer). The "difficulty" of English as a written language thus began in the High Middle Ages, when French orthographic conventions were used to spell a language whose original, more suitable orthography had been forgotten after centuries of nonuse. During the late medieval period, King Henry V of England (lived 1387–1422) ordered the use of the English of his day in proceedings before him and before the government bureaucracies. That led to the development of Chancery English, a standardised form used in the government bureaucracy. (The use of so-called Law French in English courts continued through the Renaissance, however.)

The emergence of English as a language of Wales results from the incorporation of Wales into England and also dates from approximately this time period. Soon afterward, the development of printing by Caxton and others accelerated the development of a standardised form of English. Following a change in vowel pronunciation that marks the transition of English from the medieval to the Renaissance period, the language of the Chancery and Caxton became Early Modern English (the language of Shakespeare's day) and with relatively moderate changes eventually developed into the English language of today. Scots, as spoken in the lowlands and along the east coast of Scotland, developed largely independent of Modern English, and is based on the Northern dialects of Anglo-Saxon, particularly Northumbrian, which also serve as the basis of Northern English dialects such as those of Yorkshire and Newcastle upon Tyne. Northumbria was within the Danelaw and therefore experienced greater influence from Norse than did the Southern dialects. As the political influence of London grew, the Chancery version of the language developed into a written standard across Great Britain, further progressing in the modern period as Scotland became united with England as a result of the Acts of Union of 1707. 

English was introduced to Ireland twice—a medieval introduction that led to the development of the now-extinct Yola dialect, and a modern introduction in which Hibernian English largely replaced Irish as the most widely spoken language during the 19th century, following the Act of Union of 1800. Received Pronunciation (RP) is generally viewed as a 19th-century development and is not reflected in North American English dialects (except the affected Transatlantic accent), which are based on 18th-century English. 

The establishment of the first permanent English-speaking colony in North America in 1607 was a major step towards the globalisation of the language. British English was only partially standardised when the American colonies were established. Isolated from each other by the Atlantic Ocean, the dialects in England and the colonies began evolving independently. 

The British colonisation of Australia starting in 1788 brought the English language to Oceania. By the 19th century, the standardisation of British English was more settled than it had been in the previous century, and this relatively well-established English was brought to Africa, Asia and New Zealand. It developed both as the language of English-speaking settlers from Britain and Ireland, and as the administrative language imposed on speakers of other languages in the various parts of the British Empire. The first form can be seen in New Zealand English, and the latter in Indian English. In Europe, English received a more central role particularly since 1919, when the Treaty of Versailles was composed not only in French, the common language of diplomacy at the time, but, under special request from American president Woodrow Wilson, also in English – a major milestone in the globalisation of English.

The English-speaking regions of Canada and the Caribbean are caught between historical connections with the UK and the Commonwealth and geographical and economic connections with the U.S. In some things they tend to follow British standards, whereas in others, especially commercial, they follow the U.S. standard.

English as a global language

Braj Kachru divides the use of English into three concentric circles.

The inner circle is the traditional base of English and includes countries such as the United Kingdom and Ireland and the anglophone populations of the former British colonies of the United States, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, and various islands of the Caribbean, Indian Ocean, and Pacific Ocean.

In the outer circle are those countries where English has official or historical importance ("special significance"). This includes most of the countries of the Commonwealth of Nations (the former British Empire), including populous countries such as India, Pakistan, and Nigeria; and others, such as the Philippines, under the sphere of influence of English-speaking countries. Here English may serve as a useful lingua franca between ethnic and language groups. Higher education, the legislature and judiciary, national commerce, and so on, may all be carried out predominantly in English. 

The expanding circle refers to those countries where English has no official role, but is nonetheless important for certain functions, e.g., international business and tourism. By the twenty-first century, non-native English speakers have come to outnumber native speakers by a factor of three, according to the British Council. Darius Degher, a professor at Malmö University in Sweden, uses the term decentered English to describe this shift, along with attendant changes in what is considered important to English users and learners.

Research on English as a lingua franca in the sense of "English in the Expanding Circle" is comparatively recent. Linguists who have been active in this field are Jennifer Jenkins, Barbara Seidlhofer, Christiane Meierkord and Joachim Grzega.

English as a lingua franca in foreign language teaching

English as an additional language (EAL) is usually based on the standards of either American English or British English as well as incorporating foreign terms. English as an international language (EIL) is EAL with emphasis on learning different major dialect forms; in particular, it aims to equip students with the linguistic tools to communicate internationally. Roger Nunn considers different types of competence in relation to the teaching of English as an International Language, arguing that linguistic competence has yet to be adequately addressed in recent considerations of EIL.

Several models of "simplified English" have been suggested for teaching English as a foreign language:

• Basic English, developed by Charles Kay Ogden (and later also I. A. Richards) in the 1930s; a recent revival has been initiated by Bill Templer
• Threshold Level English, developed by van Ek and Alexander
• Globish, developed by Jean-Paul Nerrière
• Basic Global English, developed by Joachim Grzega

Furthermore, Randolph Quirk and Gabriele Stein thought about a Nuclear English, which, however, has never been fully developed. 

With reference to the term "Globish", Robert McCrum has used this to mean "English as global language". Jean-Paul Nerriere uses it for a constructed language.

Basic Global English

Basic Global English, or BGE, is a concept of global English initiated by German linguist Joachim Grzega. It evolved from the idea of creating a type of English that can be learned more easily than regular British or American English and that serves as a tool for successful global communication. BGE is guided by creating "empathy and tolerance" between speakers in a global context. This applies to the context of global communication, where different speakers with different mother tongues come together. BGE aims to develop this competence as quickly as possible.

English language teaching is almost always related to a corresponding culture, e. g., learners either deal with American English and therefore with American culture, or British English and therefore with British culture. Basic Global English seeks to solve this problem by creating one collective version of English. Additionally, its advocates promote it as a system suited for self-teaching as well as classroom teaching.

BGE is based on 20 elementary grammar rules that provide a certain degree of variation. For example, regular as well as irregular formed verbs are accepted. Pronunciation rules are not as strict as in British or American English, so there is a certain degree of variation for the learners. Exceptions that cannot be used are pronunciations that would be harmful to mutual understanding and therefore minimize the success of communication. 

Basic Global English is based on a 750-word vocabulary. Additionally, every learner has to acquire the knowledge of 250 additional words. These words can be chosen freely, according to the specific needs and interests of the learner. 

BGE provides not only basic language skills, but also so called "Basic Politeness Strategies". These include creating a positive atmosphere, accepting an offer with "Yes, please" or refusing with "No, thank you", and small talk topics to choose and to avoid. 

Basic Global English has been tested in two elementary schools in Germany. For the practical test of BGE, 12 lessons covered half of a school year. After the BGE teaching, students could answer questions about themselves, their family, their hobbies etc. Additionally they could form questions themselves about the same topics. Besides that, they also learned the numbers from 1 to 31 and vocabulary including things in their school bag and in their classroom. The students as well as the parents had a positive impression of the project.

Varying concepts

Universality and flexibility

International English sometimes refers to English as it is actually being used and developed in the world; as a language owned not just by native speakers, but by all those who come to use it.

Basically, it covers the English language at large, often (but not always or necessarily) implicitly seen as standard. It is certainly also commonly used in connection with the acquisition, use, and study of English as the world's lingua franca ('TEIL: Teaching English as an International Language'), and especially when the language is considered as a whole in contrast with British English, American English, South African English, and the like. — McArthur (2002, p. 444–445)

It especially means English words and phrases generally understood throughout the English-speaking world as opposed to localisms. The importance of non-native English language skills can be recognised behind the long-standing joke that the international language of science and technology is broken English.

Neutrality

International English reaches toward cultural neutrality. This has a practical use:

What could be better than a type of English that saves you from having to re-edit publications for individual regional markets! Teachers and learners of English as a second language also find it an attractive idea — both often concerned that their English should be neutral, without American or British or Canadian or Australian coloring. Any regional variety of English has a set of political, social and cultural connotations attached to it, even the so-called 'standard' forms.

According to this viewpoint, International English is a concept of English that minimises the aspects defined by either the colonial imperialism of Victorian Britain or the cultural imperialism of the 20th century United States. While British colonialism laid the foundation for English over much of the world, International English is a product of an emerging world culture, very much attributable to the influence of the United States as well, but conceptually based on a far greater degree of cross-talk and linguistic transculturation, which tends to mitigate both U.S. influence and British colonial influence.

The development of International English often centres on academic and scientific communities, where formal English usage is prevalent, and creative use of the language is at a minimum. This formal International English allows entry into Western culture as a whole and Western cultural values in general.

Opposition

The continued growth of the English language itself is seen by authors such as Alistair Pennycook as a kind of cultural imperialism, whether it is English in one form or English in two slightly different forms.

Robert Phillipson argues against the possibility of such neutrality in his Linguistic Imperialism (1992). Learners who wish to use purportedly correct English are in fact faced with the dual standard of American English and British English, and other less known standard Englishes (including Australian, Scottish and Canadian).

Edward Trimnell, author of Why You Need a Foreign Language & How to Learn One (2005) argues that the international version of English is only adequate for communicating basic ideas. For complex discussions and business/technical situations, English is not an adequate communication tool for non-native speakers of the language. Trimnell also asserts that native English-speakers have become "dependent on the language skills of others" by placing their faith in international English.

Appropriation theory

Some reject both what they call "linguistic imperialism" and David Crystal's theory of the neutrality of English. They argue that the phenomenon of the global spread of English is better understood in the framework of appropriation (e.g., Spichtinger 2000), that is, English used for local purposes around the world. Demonstrators in non-English speaking countries often use signs in English to convey their demands to TV-audiences around the globe, for example.

In English-language teaching, Bobda shows how Cameroon has moved away from a mono-cultural, Anglo-centered way of teaching English and has gradually appropriated teaching material to a Cameroonian context. This includes non-Western topics, such as the rule of Emirs, traditional medicine, and polygamy (1997:225). Kramsch and Sullivan (1996) describe how Western methodology and textbooks have been appropriated to suit local Vietnamese culture. The Pakistani textbook "Primary Stage English" includes lessons such as Pakistan My Country, Our Flag, and Our Great Leader (Malik 1993: 5,6,7), which might sound jingoistic to Western ears. Within the native culture, however, establishing a connection between English Language Teaching (ELT), patriotism, and Muslim faith is seen as one of the aims of ELT. The Punjab Textbook Board openly states: "The board ... takes care, through these books to inoculate in the students a love of the Islamic values and awareness to guard the ideological frontiers of your [the students] home lands." (Punjab Text Book Board 1997).

Many Englishes

Many difficult choices must be made if further standardisation of English is pursued. These include whether to adopt a current standard, or move towards a more neutral, but artificial one. A true International English might supplant both current American and British English as a variety of English for international communication, leaving these as local dialects, or would rise from a merger of General American and standard British English with admixture of other varieties of English and would generally replace all these varieties of English.

We may, in due course, all need to be in control of two standard Englishes—the one which gives us our national and local identity, and the other which puts us in touch with the rest of the human race. In effect, we may all need to become bilingual in our own language. — David Crystal (1988: p. 265)

This is the situation long faced by many users of English who possess a "non-standard" dialect of English as their birth tongue but have also learned to write (and perhaps also speak) a more standard dialect. (This phenomenon is known in linguistics as diglossia.) Many academics often publish material in journals requiring different varieties of English and change style and spellings as necessary without great difficulty. 

As far as spelling is concerned, the differences between American and British usage became noticeable due to the first influential lexicographers (dictionary writers) on each side of the Atlantic. Samuel Johnson's dictionary of 1755 greatly favoured Norman-influenced spellings such as centre and colour; on the other hand, Noah Webster's first guide to American spelling, published in 1783, preferred spellings like center and the Latinate color. The difference in strategy and philosophy of Johnson and Webster are largely responsible for the main division in English spelling that exists today. However, these differences are extremely minor. Spelling is but a small part of the differences between dialects of English, and may not even reflect dialect differences at all (except in phonetically spelled dialogue). International English refers to much more than an agreed spelling pattern.

Dual standard

Two approaches to International English are the individualistic and inclusive approach and the new dialect approach. 

The individualistic approach gives control to individual authors to write and spell as they wish (within purported standard conventions) and to accept the validity of differences. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, published in 1999, is a descriptive study of both American and British English in which each chapter follows individual spelling conventions according to the preference of the main editor of that chapter. 

The new dialect approach appears in The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (Peters, 2004), which attempts to avoid any language bias and accordingly uses an idiosyncratic international spelling system of mixed American and British forms (but tending to prefer the American English spellings).

Linguistic imperialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_imperialism

Linguistic imperialism or language imperialism is occasionally defined as "the transfer of a dominant language to other people". This language "transfer" comes about because of imperialism. The transfer is considered to be a demonstration of power; traditionally military power but also, in the modern world, economic power. Aspects of the dominant culture are usually transferred along with the language. In the modern world, linguistic imperialism may also be considered in the context of international development, affecting the standard by which organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank evaluate the trustworthiness and value of structural adjustment loans. Since the early 1990s, linguistic imperialism has attracted attention among scholars of applied linguistics. In particular, Robert Phillipson's 1992 book, Linguistic Imperialism, has led to considerable debate about its merits and shortcomings. Phillipson found denunciations of linguistic imperialism that dated back to Nazi critiques of the British Council (European aristocracy was, at the time, agreeing on the use of English), and to Soviet analyses of English as the language of world capitalism and world domination. In this vein, criticism of English as a world language is rooted in anti-globalism.

Definition

Linguistic imperialism is a form of linguicism which benefits and grants power to the dominating/oppressing language and its speakers. As summarized by linguists Heath Rose and John Conama, Dr. Phillipson argues that the defining characteristics of linguistic imperialism are:

1. As a form of linguicism, which manifests in favoring the dominant language over another along similar lines as racism and sexism.
2. As a structurally manifested idea, where more resources and infrastructure are given to the dominant language
3. As being ideological, in that it encourages beliefs that the dominant language form is more prestigious than others. These ideas are hegemonic and internalized and naturalized as being "normal".
4. As intertwined with the same structure as imperialism in culture, education, media, and politics.
5. As having an exploitative essence, which causes injustice and inequality between those who use the dominant language and those who do not.
6. As having a subtractive influence on other languages, in that learning the dominant language is at the expense of others.
7. As being contested and resisted, because of these factors.

Though it is not easy to determine the intentions of specific policies which have led to linguicism, some scholars believe that intent can be proven by observing whether imperialist practices are continued once their sociolinguistic, sociological, psychological, political, and educational harm of other languages are made aware.

English

Phillipson defines English linguistic imperialism as "the dominance of English... asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages." English is often called a worldwide "lingua franca", but Phillipson argues that when its dominance leads to a linguicide, it can be more aptly titled a "lingua frankensteinia".

Phillipson's theory supports the historic spread of English as an international language and that language's continued dominance, particularly in postcolonial settings such as India, Pakistan, Uganda, Zimbabwe, etc., but also increasingly in "neo-colonial" settings such as continental Europe. His theory draws mainly on Johan Galtung's imperialism theory, Antonio Gramsci's social theory, and in particular on his notion of cultural hegemony.

A central theme of Phillipson's theory is the complex hegemonic processes which, he asserts, continue to sustain the pre-eminence of English in the world today. His book analyzes the British Council's use of rhetoric to promote English, and discusses key tenets of English applied linguistics and English-language-teaching methodology. These tenets hold that:

• English is best taught monolingually ("the monolingual fallacy");
• the ideal teacher is a native speaker ("the native-speaker fallacy");
• the earlier English is taught, the better the results ("the early-start fallacy");^[
• the more English is taught, the better the results ("the maximum-exposure fallacy");
• if other languages are used much, standards of English will drop ("the subtractive fallacy").

According to Phillipson, those who promote English—organizations such as the British Council, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and individuals such as operators of English-language schools—use three types of argument:

• Intrinsic arguments describe the English language as providential, rich, noble and interesting. Such arguments tend to assert what English is and what other languages are not.
• Extrinsic arguments point out that English is well-established: that it has many speakers, and that there are trained teachers and a wealth of teaching material.
• Functional arguments emphasize the usefulness of English as a gateway to the world.

Other arguments for English are

• its economic utility: it enables people to use technology;
• its ideological function: it stands for modernity;
• its status as symbol for material advance and efficiency.

Another theme in Phillipson's work is "linguicism"—the kind of prejudice which can lead to endangered languages becoming extinct or losing their local eminence due to the rise and competing prominence of English.

Other languages

In 1976, Black schoolchildren in Soweto protested against being taught in Afrikaans, which had been pushed by the Apartheid authorities who were concerned about the Black population's growing refusal to speak it. They reasoned that by only having access to Afrikaner resources, the South African government could control them more than by having access to a global language i.e. English. 176 children died for the right to be taught in English. The Uprising became a turning point in the overthrowing of Apartheid years later.

At various times, especially in colonial settings or where a dominant culture has sought to unify a region under its control, a similar phenomenon has arisen. In the Roman Empire, Latin—originally the language of a limited region in central Italy—was imposed first on the rest of Italy and later on parts of Europe, largely displacing local languages, while in Roman Africa Latin was dominant only until it and the native languages were displaced by Arabization.

Anatolia had similar linguistic diversity when it was ruled by small native states. Under the Persian and Hellenistic empires, the tongue of the conqueror served as the lingua franca. The indigenous Anatolian languages disappeared.

In the Far East, Africa and Latin America, regional languages have been or are being coercively replaced or slighted—Tibetan and regional Chinese varieties by Mandarin Chinese, Ainu and Ryukyuan by Japanese, Quechua and Mesoamerican languages by Spanish, Malayo-Polynesian languages by Malay, Philippine languages by Filipino/Tagalog and so on. Arabization has eliminated many indigenous languages in North Africa and restricted Coptic to sacred use.

The English language during the Middle Ages was an object of linguistic imperialism by the French language, particularly following the Norman conquest. For hundreds of years, French or Anglo-Norman was the language of administration (See Law French) and therefore a language of higher status in England. Latin remained the tongue of church and learning. Although many words introduced by the Normans are today indistinguishable by most English-speakers from native Germanic words, later-learned loanwords, copied from Latin or French may sound more "cultured" to a native English-speaker.

Following the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire over much of present-day Germany and Central Europe, the German language and its dialects became the preferred language of many Central-European nobility. With varying success, German spread across much of Central and Eastern Europe as a language of trade and status. This ended with World War II.

French has also expanded. Languages such as Occitan, Breton, Basque, Catalan and Corsican have been slighted in France. This process, known as Francization, often causes resistance amongst the subject peoples, leading to demands for independence. Examples of this can still be found in Brittany and Flanders (Belgium).

Spanish and, to a lesser extent, Portuguese colonization, made these languages prevalent in South America and in parts of Africa and Asia (the Philippines, Macau and for a short time Formosa). In Iberia, Castilian Spanish, as spoken in the kingdom of Castile spread and was imposed on other peoples and territories of Spain, becoming the only official language of the state from the 18th to the 20th century. It was labeled "the companion of the Empire" by Antonio de Nebrija (1492) in the introduction to his Gramática de la lengua castellana.

Russian linguistic imperialism can be seen in Belarus both in the former dispute over the name of the country (Belarus vs Belorussia) and in the common spelling of the name of their president. English transcription has overtaken the Russian form Alexander Lukashenko instead of Belarusian form Alyaksandr Lukashenka.

Critique

Many scholars have participated in lively discussions of Phillipson's claims. Alan Davies, for instance, envisions the ghost of Phillipson haunting the Department of Applied Linguistics in Edinburgh:

'Round up the usual suspects', he cries, outing those who have pretended all these years merely to teach applied linguistics, but who have really been plotting with the British Council to take over the world.

For Davies, two cultures inhabit linguistic imperialism: one, a culture of guilt ("colonies should never have happened"); the other, that of romantic despair ("we shouldn't be doing what we are doing"). Rajagopalan goes a step farther and maintains that Phillipson's book has led to a guilt complex among English language learning and teaching (ELT) professionals.

Davies also argues that Phillipson's claims are not falsifiable: what "if the dominated... wanted to adopt English and continue to want to keep it? RP's unfalsifiable answer must be that they don't, they can't, they've been persuaded against their better interests." It has thus been argued that Phillipson's theory is patronizing in its implication that developing countries lack independent decision-making capacity (to adopt or not to adopt ELT). In the context of Nigeria, Bisong holds that people in the "periphery" use English pragmatically—they send their children to English-language schools precisely because they want them to grow up multilingual. Regarding Phillipson, Bisong maintains that "to interpret such actions as emanating from people who are victims of Centre linguistic imperialism is to bend sociolinguistic evidence to suit a preconceived thesis". If English should be abolished because it is foreign, Bisong argues, then Nigeria itself would also have to be dissolved, because it was conceived as a colonial structure.

Furthermore, the assumption that the English language itself is imperialistic has come under attack. Henry Widdowson has argued that "there is a fundamental contradiction in the idea that the language of itself exerts hegemonic control: namely that if this were the case, you would never be able to challenge such control". Additionally, the idea that the promotion of English necessarily implies a demotion of local languages has been challenged. Holborrow points out that "not all Englishes in the centre dominate, nor are all speakers in the periphery equally discriminated against". Irish English, for instance, could be regarded as a non-dominant centre variety of English. 

Some scholars believe that English's dominance is not due to specific language policies, but rather as a side-effect of the spread of English and American powers through colonization and globalization.

Thus it could be argued that, while those who follow Phillipson see choices about language as externally imposed, the other camp sees them as personal choices.

Response

Those who support the arguments favoring the existence of linguistic imperialism claim that arguments against it are often advanced by monolingual native-speakers of English who may see the current status of English as a fact worthy of celebration.

Those who see the increasing spread of English in the world as a worrying development (which lowers the status of local and regional languages as well as potentially undermining or eroding cultural values) are likely to be more receptive to Phillipson's views. Alastair Pennycook, Suresh Canagarajah, Adrian Holliday and Julian Edge fall into this group and are described as critical applied linguists.

However, Henry Widdowson’s remarks on critical discourse analysis may also be applied to the critical applied linguists:

It ought surely to be possible to say that an argument is confused, or an analysis flawed, without denying the justice of the cause they support. My view would be that if a case is just then we should look for ways of supporting it by coherent argument... And I would indeed argue that to do otherwise is to do a disservice to the cause. For the procedures of ideological exposure by expedient analysis... can, of course be taken up to further any cause, right wing as well as left.... If you have the conviction and commitment, you will always find your witch.

As a response to English linguistic imperialism, de-anglicisation became a matter of national pride in some places and especially in regions that were once under colonial rule, where vestiges of colonial domination are a sensitive subject. Following centuries of English rule in Ireland, an argument for de-anglicisation was delivered before the Irish National Literary Society in Dublin, 25 November 1892; "When we speak of 'The Necessity for De-Anglicising the Irish Nation', we mean it, not as a protest against imitating what is best in the English people, for that would be absurd, but rather to show the folly of neglecting what is Irish, and hastening to adopt, pell-mell, and indiscriminately, everything that is English, simply because it is English." Despite its status as an official language, the Irish language has been reduced to a minority language in Ireland as a result of centuries of English rule, as is the case in North America where their indigenous languages have been replaced by that of the colonists, and continued to decline even after independence.

According to Ghil'ad Zuckermann, "Native tongue title and language rights should be promoted. The government ought to define Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander vernaculars as official languages of Australia. We must change the linguistic landscape of Whyalla and elsewhere. Signs should be in both English and the local indigenous language. We ought to acknowledge intellectual property of indigenous knowledge including language, music and dance."

Appropriation

Some who reject the idea of linguistic imperialism argue that the global spread of English is better understood in the framework of appropriation—that English is used around the world for local purposes. In addition to the example of Nigeria, above, the following examples have been given:

• Demonstrators in non-English-speaking countries often use signs in English to convey their demands to TV audiences around the world. In some cases, the demonstrator may not even understand what the sign he is carrying says.
• Bobda shows how Cameroon has moved away from a mono-cultural, Anglo-centered way of teaching English and has gradually accommodated teaching materials to a Cameroonian context. Non-Western topics are treated, such as rule by emirs, traditional medicine, and polygamy. Bobda argues for bi-cultural, Cameroonian and Anglo-American education.
• Kramsch and Sullivan describe how Western methodology and textbooks have been appropriated to suit local Vietnamese culture.
• The Pakistani textbook Primary Stage English includes lessons such as "Pakistan, My Country", "Our Flag," and "Our Great Leader", which might sound jingoistic to western ears. Within the native culture, however, establishing a connection between ELT, patriotism and the Muslim faith is seen as an aim of ELT, as the chairman of the Punjab Textbook Board openly states: "The board... takes care, through these books to inoculate in the students a love of the Islamic values and awareness to guard the ideological frontiers of your [the student's] home lands."

Such an "internationalization" of English may also offer new possibilities to English native-speakers. McCabe elaborates:

...whereas for two centuries we exported our language and our customs in hot pursuit of... fresh markets, we now find that our language and our customs are returned to us but altered so that they can be used by others... so that our own language and culture discover new possibilities, fresh contradictions.

Tangible symbol systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangible_symbol_systems 

 

Tangible symbols are a type of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) that uses objects or pictures that share a perceptual relationship with the items they represent as symbols. A tangible symbol's relation to the item it represents is perceptually obvious and concrete - the visual or tactile properties of the symbol resemble the intended item. Tangible Symbols can easily be manipulated and are most strongly associated with the sense of touch. These symbols can be used by individuals who are not able to communicate using speech or other abstract symbol systems, such as sign language. However, for those who have the ability to communicate using speech, learning to use tangible symbols does not hinder further developing acquisition of natural speech and/or language development, and may even facilitate it.

Definition

The term tangible symbols was first developed by Charity Rowland and Philip Schweigert, and refers to two-dimensional pictures or three-dimensional objects used as symbols to convey meaning. The items are termed "tangible" because they are concrete items that can be manipulated by the user and communication partner. Symbols can be used individually or combined with other symbols in order to create new messages. Tangible symbols are used as a means of communication for individuals who are unable to understand or communicate using abstract systems, such as speech or sign language.

Properties of tangible symbols include permanency, capacity to be manipulated by both the user and the communication partner, and an obvious relationship between the symbol and the referent. They can represent items, people, activities and/or events, and look or feel similar to what they refer to. For example, a cup can be used as three-dimensional tangible symbol to represent the action: "drink". A photograph of a cup can be used as a two-dimensional tangible symbol to also represent the action : "drink". Two- and three-dimensional symbols are used to fit the cognitive and sensory abilities of the individual, as well as the individual's unique experiences.

Rowland and Schweigert use the term tangible symbols to refer to conceptually tangible items like two-dimensional pictures or three-dimensional objects. However, other authors, such as Beukelman and Mirenda, use the term to exclusively describe three-dimensional physical objects that display concrete properties such as shape or texture.

According to Rowland and Schweigert, "for some individuals, the use of tangible symbols may be used to bridge the gap between gestural communication and the use of formal language systems. For others, tangible symbols may represent an ultimate level of communicative competence."

Level of Communication	Means of Communication
Presymbolic	Body and limb movements, Gestures, Vocalizations
Concrete Symbolic	Symbolic gestures and vocalizations, Tangible Symbols: Objects (three-dimensional) & Pictures (two-dimensional)
Abstract Symbolic	Speech, Sign Language, Printed Language, Braille, Abstract shapes, Abstract graphics

History

Historically, objects and pictures have frequently been used as communication devices. Many authors have also used picture symbols, such as line drawings and photographs to develop language in individuals with little or no speech and/or cognitive disabilities. Tangible symbols emerged from Van Dijk’s work in the 1960s using objects as symbols to develop language in deaf-blind children. In turn, Van Dijk’s work was based on the concept "symbol formation" developed by Werner and Kaplan (1963), who theorized that "symbol formation" referred to the process of developing language by creating symbols in our minds.

Types of tangible symbols

Rowland and Schweigert propose that tangible symbols can be divided into hierarchical categories, ranging from most concrete to most abstract symbols:

• Identical objects are real items that are equal to their referent and are the most concrete type of tangible symbol. An example includes using a toothbrush to represent "brush your teeth". Beukelman and Mirenda includes in this category miniature objects: items that are smaller than what they symbolize, such as having a small toy toilet indicate "toilet".
• Partial/associated objects refers to a portion of the object they represent, and therefore are less concrete than identical objects. For example, a shoelace would symbolize "shoes".
• Symbols with one or two shared features have a resemblance to their referent, like using a mould of a loaf of bread for "bread". This category is sometimes included in the partial/associated objects category.
• Artificial symbols are abstract symbols that do not have a direct resemblance to their referent, such as having a 3D shape (i.e. an apple) that is attached to a cafe door be used as the symbol for "cafe". Beukelman and Mirenda include textured symbols in this category. An example of a textured symbol is using a piece of spandex material to denote "bathing suit".
• Three-dimensional symbols may be identical objects, parts of objects, or associated objects. A three-dimensional symbol will share similar features of the focused object, creating a meaningful symbol.
• Two-dimensional pictures, such as photographs and line drawings, are the most abstract type of tangible symbols. They are commonly used for both expressive and receptive communication, whereas the three-dimensional symbols are often used for receptive only communication (i.e. to cue the individual for upcoming events). 

The type of tangible symbol used is chosen based on the cognitive and sensory abilities of the learner/user. The meaning behind each symbol is not universal, but by using a symbol the individual is familiar with, a meaningful symbol is created. Tangible symbols should be constructed by meaningful and motivating symbols that will provide the individual with the most opportunities to practice using the new system.

Users of tangible symbols

Individuals who can benefit from using tangible symbols include those who may lack the skills to communicate using verbal speech or other various communication systems such as sign language. Users of tangible symbols may include individuals with cognitive disabilities (including developmental delay and intellectual disability), sensory and/or visual impairments (blindness and/or deafblindness), developmental disabilities (such as autism spectrum disorder), and orthopedic impairments. Rowland and Schweigert claim that tangible symbols do not require the use of high demands on the learner’s cognitive abilities, memory, visual perception, and motor abilities because they are:

• Iconic and concrete: they have a clear connection what they refer to.
• Permanent: the user does not need to recall the object, but simply be able to recognize them.
• Manipulable: can be picked up and used by the learner and who s/he is communicating with.
• Tactually discriminable: can be identified by touch.
• May be indicated through a simple motor response: such as eye gazing, touching, or pointing.

Furthermore, simple behavioral responses can be used with tangible items. For example, learners that are unable to speak can simply point, touch, pick up, or look (in cases of severe motoric impairment) at the object to answer a question or make a request. Finally, three-dimensional objects can be distinguished from one another using touch, and therefore they are suitable for people with visual impairments or blindness. A study by Rowland and Schweigert found individuals who were already able to communicate using gestures or vocalizations more readily learned to use tangible symbols than those who did not have intentional pre-symbolic communication skills.

Application of tangible symbols

Presentation format depends on the users visual scanning and motoric ability. The tangible symbols can placed in front of the user within reach, placed on a board for visual scanning, or placed in a book for access.

Typically, tangible symbols are custom made and tailored to the individual child. If pre-made sets are used, it is assumed that the symbols are familiar and motivating for the user. It is important to utilize frequently occurring and highly motivating symbols in order to optimize opportunities for use.

Tangible symbol system offers a manual and DVD as well as an online course. For more information on tangible symbol system instructional strategies, please reference: http://designtolearn.com/products/tangible_symbol_systems.

Universal tangible symbol system

In 2009, Ellen Trief, Susan M. Bruce, Paul W. Cascella, and Sarah Ivy created a Universal Tangible Symbol System. They began by developing a survey to determine which tangible symbols were already in use, new activities and concepts for which tangible systems are needed, and participant preferences for tangible symbols from a pilot study. Participants included teachers and speech-language pathologists from four New York City schools. Following the survey, an advisory board consisting of directors of the New York City schools, speech-language pathologists, the designer and manufacturer of the symbols, a representative from the Perkins School for the Blind, college professors, and a graduate research assistant reviewed and discussed the results. This resulted in the establishment of the 55 universal tangible symbols seen in the chart below. However, this universal tangible symbol system should not replace a system already established for an individual.

Activity	Chosen symbol
Dismissal	Strap with a buckle
Bathroom	White tile with a black edge
Gym	Tennis Ball
Speech	Mouth or lips
Classroom	Doorknob
Literacy	Small, thick book
Circle time	Wooden circle
Outside	Three stones
Music	Bells
Occupational therapy	Three beads
Physical therapy	Squishy ball
Snack	Small, empty snack bag
Cookie	Cookie
Computer	Floppy disc
Art	Paintbrush
Sensory	Small tube of lotion
Rest time	Small square of a blanket
Nurse's office	Large Band-Aid
Toothbrush	Toothbrush
Cooking	Measuring spoons
Orientation and mobility	Tip of a long cane
Arrival	Plastic hands
Math	Unifix cube
Science	Magnet
Vision	Small eyeglasses
Center time	Clothes pin
Drink	Cup
Lunchroom	Spoon
Break	Timer
No	Raised "X"
Community	Piece of a tactile map
Stander	Vinyl square
Orthodics	A half-cup measuring cup with a Velcro strip
Calendar	Piece of a calendar from American Printing House for the Blind
Walk	Shoe or sneaker
Light box	Plastic piece from a light-box kit
More	Piece of red velvet
Games	Spinner
Food	Small plate
Finished	Spool on a cord
Juice	Juice box
Bubbles	Bubble wand
Milk	Milk box
Yes	Raised "O"
"Itsy Bitsy Spider"	Plastic spider
"Twinkle, Twinkle"	Raised, shiny star
"Wheels on the Bus"	School bus
"Alphabet Song"	Raised letters "A," "B," and "C"
Bedtime	Piece of a comforter
Park	Metal chain
Church or temple	Smooth molding in the shape of a roof
Bath time	Small bar of soap
Set the table	Piece of a placemat
Do the dishes	Small dish
Car ride	Car keys or house keys