英语论文网

o interpret the world through the constancy of invention and reinvention. It claims from each person a critical reflection on the very act of knowing. It must be a reflection which recognises the knowing process, and in this recognition becomes aware of the “raison d’etre” behind the knowing and the conditioning to which that process is subject. ( Friere, 1998: p. 100 ) Promoting dialogue is strongly suggestive of relegating - if not condemning - what is anti-dialogical. I must now direct my attention to explicit Frierian condemnation of the anti-dialogical, as a way of strengthening the relevance of liberation in educational practice. Friere ( 1970, pp. 133 - 167 ) identifies four features of the anti-dialogical, all of which, are indicative of imperialist domination. They are conquest, divide and rule, manipulation, and cultural invasion. I shall focus on conquest, manipulation, as well as, cultural invasion. In acts of conquest, the conquerer imposes his objectives on the vanquished and converts them to his possessions. He imposes his own patterns and structures on the conquered who internalise the forms and become ambiguous persons. Manipulation entails ways in which the dominators secure conformity of the oppressed to their objectives of inferiorisation. Cultural invasion involves a narrow interpretation of reality, a stagnant sense of the world, and the imposing of values from the invader who has a fear of abandoning those values. One of its principal signifiers is that decisive positions from which actions affecting the lives of the invaded are taken should be those occupied by the invaders. Invaders are actors who choose; the invaded are followers who have the illusion of acting via the experience of the invaders. Cultural invasion is particularly insidious. Friere regards it as violence, penetration of cultural contexts of the invaded whose prospects for development are demeaned and creativity impeded. Why should Friere’s work be foundational to remedying the communicative approach to target language teaching? There are historical, pedagogical, and sociological reasons for the modification. In the first place, systematic efforts to teach European languages such as French, English, Spanish, Dutch, German, and Italian in colonial possessions have been directly associated with conquest, divide and rule, manipulation, as well as, cultural invasion. European teachers of these languages in conquered territories were the purveyors of cultural superiority. After several of the territories - mostly in Africa and Asia - attained political independence and the European teachers returned to their own societies, one of the very significant changes which occurred in these locations was the emergence of the communicative approach to second and foreign language teaching. Not only did this development take very strong roots in Great Britain, but its growth also emerged from direct influences of J.R. Firth, a British linguist, who, in the words of notable followers, Halliday, McIntosh, and Strevens ( 1964, p. 151) viewed linguistics as the study of “how we use language to live.” And according to Catford ( 1969, pp. 247 - 257 ), another linguist greatly influenced by Firth, the British have distinct preferences for practical matters, applications, rather than theoretical considerations. In keeping with this choice, Firth emphasised “the sociological component” in linguistic studies, the examination of language as part of a socia