s within the province of Quebec and their white anglophone counterparts within the rest of the country over one Canada made of ten provinces or one Canada made up of nine provinces whose closest and newest neighbour is the sovereign state, Quebec.
The battle over difference reached one of its highest points in 1995 when a separatist government in Quebec, which had secured a provincial referendum on a sovereign state, narrowly lost. The Quebec Premier at the time, an eloquent an uncompromising separatist, Jacques Parizeau, declared, disparagingly, after the loss, that it was the “Ethnic vote” which caused defeat. Monsieur Parizeau was pointing to Canadians other than Anglophones who were not franchophones. By a strange process of exclusion, these other Canadians, the ethnics, had to be differentiated from franchophones. Many of these ethnics who arrive in Canada as non-native immigrant users of English or French and wish to learn an official language under auspices of the L.I.N.C. programme in Quebec are obliged to learn French. It is to L.I.N.C. programmes across Canada that I direct my attention, so that I might be able to continue making a Frierian case.
L.I.N.C. was instituted by a Canadian Federal Agency, The Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, in 1962, for the purpose of facilitating the settlement and immigration of newcomers to Canada. Learners are assigned to various levels of language instruction, on the basis of their performance on assessment procedures, the Canadian Language Benchmarks Assessment tool, geared to account for their communicative competence. This competence is promoted in learner centered classrooms where students are assisted to participate more fully in Canadian society, to integrate successfully into a new country.
One vital basis to the assistance is a set of curriculum
guidelines made up of themes, topics, and learning outcomes reflective of multiculturalism and devised in accordance with principles of communicative language teaching. What is crucial to L.I.N.C. programmes is integration. This is, of course, integration within the bilingual framework of multiculturalism, a framework that is not devoid of linguistic imperialism. Further, learners, several of whom were oppressed and victimised by such practices as conquest and cultural invasion and are the objects of manipulation in globalisation, have no say in devising either the guidelines or assessment tools.
CONCLUSION
I believe I have made a very strong case for a Frierian infusion to communicative language teaching. I shall bring closure to my work by offering an analysis of what Frierian foundations to communicative language teaching should look like. What is central to the examination is setting up an alternative multicultural framework to that which exists in Canada. It is within this structure that European, vernacular, as well as, non-European national languages will be acquired as second and foreign languages.
My reference point for setting the framework is the discourse from Marable (1996, pp. 119 - 124 ) on versions of multiculturalism, three of which I shall outline. They are corporate multiculturalism, liberal multiculturalism, and radical democratic multiculturalism. It is the last which I find relevant to the goal of implementing a different approach to communicative language teaching. I am fully aware that Marable’s discourse on multiculturalism is applied to the U.S.A. I am also cognisant that the global setting is
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。