ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING IN PESANTREN ... - icssis

Prosiding The 4th International Conference on Indonesian Studies: “Unity, Diversity and Future”

ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING IN PESANTREN INSTITUTIONS IN INDONESIA: FROM COLONIAL TO GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

Diding Fahrudin Faculty of Humanities, University of Indonesia [email protected]

Abstact English Language Teaching has spread to most institutions in Indonesia, including pesantren institutions. This spread has resulted in certain cultural and political conflicts due to the fact that English has its culturally western values with to some extent contradiction to those of pesantren institutions which have their own typical traditions with Islamic values. To globalize themselves, it is no doubt that these institutions need English badly for various purposes. This paper will try to present how these conflicts in English Language Teaching in the pesantren institutions are managed in harmony by pesantrens. Regarding this fact, the paper will also present the arguments of how English Language Teaching in pesantrens is tactfully shifted from colonial to global perspectives. Keywords: pesantren institutions, cultural and political conflicts, globalize, arguments, perspectives.

Introduction Globalization has led the countries in the world to become borderless and this has made English a lingua franca for many purposes in many fields (Phillipson, 1993: hal. 41-42; Crystal, 2003: 11-14, 28-48, 106-110; Jenkins, 2010; Mckay, 2009: 14, 15, 19). The importance of English language is also strongly felt in pesantrens as typical Islamic boarding schools with kiais, ustadzs, santries and unique teaching and learning systems (Dhofier, 2011) to face globalization. The development of English Language Teaching (ELT) in pesantrens causes culturalconflictsbetween English with Western values and pesantrens with their uniqueness which need to be well managed for global pesantren imrovements in the near future. The roles of kiais in pesantrens are so fundamental regarding the language planning and policies. These aspects are the fundamental reasons why such title of the research is used. This paper tries to depict cultural conflicts regarding English Language Teaching in pesantren instiututions and to propose what these institutions believe culturally relevant issues. Maxwell (2001) depicts how culture works. Culture is considered as a starting point of then number of narratives of individuals or institutions. Culture works as the basic foundation of identity narrations in daily life. Culture consists of and forms the settlement in which we live. In addition, culture has worked in our memory since we were born, from our early recognation and collective memory in sports, child births,

261


dances, workers and love of the community. Culture also works in traditions as cultural heritage sources. Culture is a complicated concept. (Williams, 1976; Worsley, 1985; dan Walker, 1984) explain to mean culture. Culture is a number of values with high etiquette in arts and limited merely to the elite. Culture is considered a way of life and an encouraging spirit for human beings and is associated to a number of values imposed by the majority with their power. Culture is considered as the way how a community with different individual backgrounds live together in harmony. English Language Teaching (ELT) has spread to many areas and fields, including pesantrens in Indonesia, with various methods and approaches from grammartranslation method to Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), from teacher-centred approachto learner-centred approach.An important point regarding ELT is that the values of English is different from those of the learners. English is full with western cultures; pesantrens, on the other hand, are loaded with the values of pesantrens basically grounded by Islamic perspectives and this contradiction leads to cultural, political and ideological conflicts. On the field, the research found some interesting issues regarding ELT in pesantrens.To start with, the stake holders of pesantren institutions, in particular English teachers in these schools, face dilematic situations: ”Should these teachers fully teach English on the basis of Inner Circle/Core/Centre perspectives (British English or American English) or should they do this in accordance with pesantrens’ consideration or should they do this by mixing the values of Western and pesantrens?” In this case, the English teachers should negotiate this issue with the Kiais who has their power in connection with language planning and language policies of the pesantrens. The second issue is that if English is taught according to the culture and ideology of the learners or teachers, the question is ”Is this way of teaching ’accepted’ academically?” The last is that if the fact that the local content of the learners is used in ELT in pesantren in connection with transcultural flows (Pennycook, 2007) is accepted in the periphery or expanding circle countries, are these new Englishes considered accepted for international communication? Pesantrens are the oldest Islamic institutions which have become the strongest Islamic institutions, the centres for Islamic propation and for Islamic development in Indonesia. The word ’pesantren’ stems from Tamil language which means ”Islamic the trainer of Qur’an reading”. Other resources state taht the word stems from an Indian language Shastri originally from shastra, meaning ’sacred books, books on religion, or books on knowledge’. Outside of Java islands, this word refers to surau (in WestSumatra Barat), dayah (in Aceh), and pondokin other areas (Ensiklopedi Islam Jil.4, 1994: 99 – 105). Pesantrens as knowledge institutes have typical teaching and learning which are different from those of other institutions. In Java, pesantrens are identical with padepokanorkombongan, meaning a housing complex whose houses are divided into small rooms for their santris (Mastuhu, 1994: 11).Pesantren traditions are traditional Islamic frames in Java island which have become the research objects to learn Islam in Indonesia. The objectives of pesantren teaching are not only giving the lessons to the santris, but also to improve morality, train and encourage the santris to live in simple life, appreciate humanity values, and help them to do good deeds (Qomar, 2005: 20). 262


Pesantrens are generally divided into two categories (Dhofier, 1984: 41): salafi and khalafi. SalafiPesantrens maintain the teaching of kitab kuning (old manuscripts)as the main teaching. Madrasa systems are applied to make it easy to implement sorogan systemsused in the teaching of Qur’an with the old system, like Lirboyo and Ploso Pesantrens in Kediri, Maslakul Huda Pesantren in Pati, and Tremas Pesantren in Pacitan. Khalafi Pesantrenhave accepted general knowledge into their currucula of the madrasa this type of pesantrens manage, or they have established the general schools which accept public schools. Pondok Modern Gontoror Persatuan Ummat Islam pesantrens both do not teach kitab kuning(old manuscripts) or classical Islamic books anymore. Well-known Pesantren institutions, like Tebuireng and Rejoso Pesantrens in Jombang, have owned Junior High Schools, Senior High Schools and Higher Education and have still maintained the teaching of kitab kuning (classical Islamic books). Pesantrens have lately developed into certain types depending on their different tendencies This development is actually interesting to discuss and then influences the whole pesantrens’ traditions, regarding social, religion systems, ways of life, both microcosmicand macrocosmic perspectives. Cultural and religion homogenities decrease in accordance with variety and complexity of the modern Indonesian development (ibid: 42) and this can actually be seen from how culture, politics and ideology influence English Language Teaching in pesantrens in Indonesia. The research coverage includes how ELT is implemented with regard of the perceptions of kiais, ustadzs, English teachers in pesantrens, santris, santris’ parents and alumny of pesantrens. This limitation is expected to map the key issues regarding the ELT in pesantrens. The assumption is that he English tachers in pesantrens face a difficult situation which can disturb the comprehensive plan of the teaching and learning process of ELT in line with pesantrens’ values. Language and Culture Language and culture cannot be separated because culture is a big umbrella, while language is one of the elements of culture. Both language and culture are often discussed and semantically support each other. There is a similar perspective between the idea of Berger (1990 dan 1991)and antrophological ideas regarding how language is perceived as an objective reality. The symbolic antrophologicalthought studied by Clifford Geertz andSpardley considers culture as a symbolic knowledge filled with concepts, theories and recipes as tools for human beings to understand and interpret their environment, experiencesand as a basic frame to implement behavior patterns. The culture filled with a knowledge system created from the cyclical relation between deductive and inductive principles with continuous processes responding all stimuli in human beings’ life is a language phenomenon (Spardley, 1976 and Geertz, 1992). In the context of Berger’s sociological context (1990 and 1991), language is considered as a dialectic result (stimuli and respond) between subjects and internal sociological world. Dialrectic lasts in a three-step simultinuos process, from externalization, objectivation, and internalization. Externalization is a human orientation as a subject to its environemnet. Objectivation is a result of human orientation which then becomes a distanced reality, while internalization is an objective reality ftransformation as a part of subjective awareness. Through externalization, both language and community become human beings’ products; meanwhile, through 263


objectivation, language and community become a real. Consequently, through internalization, community and language (such objectivity!) become powerful and force for each individual wherever they live and this force can be seen from the procedure and social control system on the implemented system. In the language context as a system, language legitimation means to order language patterns which actually mean a way of thinking. This can be seen how English Language Teaching (ELT) takes place in pesantrens in Indonesia and this teaching still uses old paradigm prepared by the legitimate, Department of National Education. It is an idea that the teaching and learning of English for Junior and Senior High Schools are the teaching model prepared by the Department; meanwhile, pesantrensare really unique institutions which need the uniqueness of language treatments. The ELT books are those which are different from Islamic values as typical values of pesantrens. There is a tendency that those who have written ELT books appear to have an idea that the ELT books are highly recommended with the cultures of the Core/Inner Circle countries. English Language Teaching: from Colonial to Global Perspectives In English Language Teaching (ELT), whether it is in pesantrens or others, there are two terminologies to discuss Coreand Periphery (Phillipson, 1993: 17-30). Corerefers tothe countries of Britain, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand whose people are the native speakers of English; periphery, however, is associated tothe countries who use English as an international language for international purposes, such as Scandinavia and Japanand the countries once colonized by English speaking countries. Peripheryalso covers the countries who have intention to using English as those who are native speakers of English. The periphery countries to accept anything from difference had led English to be colonially taught, meaning that the core countries impose their ideas to be accepted by periphry countries. This is closely related to the term linguistic imperialism as further expalined by Phillipson (ibid: 47) that English linguistic imperialism is that the dominance of English is asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of strutural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages. Linguistic imperialism is actually included in linguicism (ibid: 47), that is a structural identityand the activities used to institutionalize, make it effective to reproduce power and sources without balance from language perspectives. This imbalance is strongly felt in ELT in pesantrens who tend to follow cultural, political and ideological factors of the core countries which then follow the ideas of the Core and tend to forget their own cultural values as local genius (Fahrudin, 2000). Historically, English is considered a colonial language starting from the version of Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe in 1910 who taught Man Fridayto speak English (Phillipson, 1993). Stone (1957:17) states that The Life and Adventures of Robinson Crusoefull of British values started to dominate reading texts in Europe and this had the widest influence among others (Phillipson, 1993: 109). Cook (1998) agrees that this book illustrates linguistic imperialism. Phillipson (1993:109) critisizes that the relationship between Cruseo and Friday is a community racial structure, that is why Crusoe did not learn Friday’s language, but Cruseo insisted on teaching English to 264


Friday. Brantlinger (1990) consideres an epitomeof power and an irrational construction to Other. Liddell (1910: xi) in Cook (1998) argues that: We enjoyed the stolid, business-like way in which Crusoe sets to work to make, and succeeds in making, the best of a very bad job, and as Britons we like to think of him as a typical of the Britons who, before his time and since, have by pluck and perseverance planted colonies all the world over, and turned howling wilderness into regions of prosperity and plenty.

Two things are considered in the above illustration: Crusoe as a model for rationalization and dedicated to reconstruct Britain and her colonization. For further illustration, the following dialog is good to know: Master: Well, Friday, and what does your nation do with the men they take? Do they carry them away and eat them, as these did? Friday: Yes, my nation eats mans up too; eat all up.

The above dialog depicts the relationship between SelfandOtherconstructed by colonialism through English language. Friday is unable to speak in his own language but he was constructed to express his ideas in English (Cook, 1998). Cook (ibid) argues that an important dimension related to colonialism is actually connected to cultural colonialism rather that politics or economics. Thomas (1994: 2) states the following idea: Colonialism is not best understood primarily as a political or economic relationship that is legitimized or justified through ideologies of racism or progress. Rather, colonialism has always, equally importantly and deeply, been a cultural process; its dicoveries and trespasses are imagined and energized through signs, metaphores and narratives; even what would seem its purest moments of profit and violence have been mediated and enframed by structures of meaning. Colonial cultures are not simply ideologies that mask, mystify or rationalize forms of oppression that are external to them; they are also expressive and constitutive of colonial relationships in themselves.

Cook urges that cultural imperialism in connection with English teaching is imposed to the local culture. In other words, how imperialism produces European culture.It happened how Malaysia and Singapore officially legalized English forced by Britain. Makerere Report (1961:2) in Phillipson (1993) illustrates how colonial values depicted in 5 Tenets exist in ELT as follows: 1. English is best taught monolingually, 2. The ideal teacher of English is a native speaker, 3. The earlier English is taught, the better the result, 4. The more English is taught, the better the result, dan 5. If other languages are uesd much, standards of English will drop.

265


Tenet 1 is actually contradictory with UNESCO (1953:47) states below: ’On educational grounds we recommend that the use of the mother tongue be extended to as a late stage in education as possible. In particular pupils should begin their schooling through the medium of the mother tongue, because they understand it and because to begin their school life in the mother tongue will make the break between home and school as small as possible.’

 

Phillipson (1993) critisizes these tenets as depicted in the following staements: The policies of these tenets in connection with ELT are strongly felt with the perception of the Core/Centrecountries, All tenets contain linguistic imperialism, i.e. the domination continously maintained for the sake of core countries’ advantages,

Historically, the influence of English is not that a big deal. Globalization, however, has led Indonesia to need English more. Globalisation is defined to illustrate a global reality which forces the physical borders among the countries. In other word, globalization can mean as a power to fulfill a standard and create an order to treat any countries equally (Javis, 2007). Steger (2003) states that globalisation consists of a multidimensional process empowering the social interdependence for international communities. The role of English in the global village has shifted significantly from a colonial language to a global language with the decolonialization peocess and multicultural perspectives. In the past, the following schema illustrates the colonialization (Phillipson, 1993): periphery

core Scheme 1 Britain and America as the core countries can impose antything, such as culture, politics and ideology to periphery countries, in which Indonesia is included. This is the colonial format. Crystal (2003) illustrates further that basically the Inner Circle countries force the Outer Circle and Expanding Circle to follow what the Inner Circle intend to have.

266


Expanding Circle

Outer circle

Inner circle

Scheme 2 Illustration 3 depicts how the Core (Inner Circle) countries colonially impose the Periphery countries. perihery

core/centre

Scheme 3

Mufwene (2002) explains that English is the first language in most and considered as the key issue to determine social-economic conditions. The more global the country is, the more English language is (Brutt-Griffler, 2002), and this language is even reconstructed by the globalization process. English language, therefore, multiculturally belongs to its speakers with their own cultural backgrounds (Herther, 2009). The shifting paradigm of ELT from a colonial language to a global language has been mostly discussed. Many books present the relevant discussion, such as Language and Discriminationby Roberts, Davies and Jupp (1992), Linguistic Imperialism by Phillipson (1993), The , for example Cultural Politics of English as an International Langugae by Pennycook (1994), English and The Discourse of Imperialismby Pennycook (1998), Ideology, Politics and Language Policies: Focus on Englishby Ricento (ed.) (2000), English-Only Europe: Challenging Language Policy oleh 267


Phillipson (2003), English as a Global Languageby Crystal (2003), Discourse and Power in A Multilingual Worldby Blackledge (2005), World Englishes: Implications for International Communication and English Language Teachingby Kirkpatrick (2007), Global Englishes and Transcultural Flowsby Pennycook (2007), Just A Phrase I’m Going through My Life in Language oleh Crystal (2009). Generally, these books try to discuss ELT, identities and global perspectives. Pesantrens with their typicality have actually done this global shifting in ELT. Smith notes some information with regard to international culture and language as follows: 1. Learners do not need to follow the cultures and norms of the native speakers; 2. The ownership of international language becomes ’de-nationalized’, and 3. The purpose of the language learning is to help the learners to express their own culture and ideas using English. Brutt-Griffler (2002) further states that (1) an international language is an ethnocultural product for international purposes; (2) an international language tends to develop itself side-by-side with other languages; (3) an international language is studied by anyone. At the moment, these ideas belong to English language. Language and culture in ELT have shifted in some ways. Kramsch (1993) states that learning a language does not mean that we accept the culture of the language learned. Learning English as an international language does not mean that we have to practice the culture of English, but tetapi mendorong leads the learners to understand pragmatic differences which influence their international communication. Byran (1998) differentiates ’knowing’ which is close to ’interculturalism’ and ’accepting’ other culture as ’biculturalism’. ’Interculturalism’ is defined as knowledge about other cultures without accepting it in daily life practices,while ’biculturalism’ means that someone knows other’s culture and accepts it as daily practices. The issues of culture learning into an international teaching are agreed by many experts. Gonzales (1995) and Brutt-Griffler (1998), Brown (1986) and Brown (1990) all agree that teaching a language cannot be separated from the culture of the language. Brown (1986: 121) reminds us that ’it is virtually imposible to teach a language without teaching cultural content’and (ibid: 45) argues that ’it is really an integral part of the interaction between language and thought. Cultural patterns, customs, and ways of life are expressed in language; culture-specific world-view are reflected in language.’ Othert experts question this issue. Mckay (2009: 85)questions which part of English culture should be included in teaching the language. Richard (1995) and Prodromou (1988:76) found some examples of how the cultre of an international language made the learners frustrated because the learners felt far away from their own cultures. Prodromou (1988:76) presents one of the finding regarding this issue: Appealing to a world market as they do, they cannot by definition draw on local varieties of English and have not got very far in recognizing English as an international language either. What were they about? They were mostly about situations which were not only imaginary.... but vacuous, empty of life. Even when the textbooks went technicolour, they were still marketing a black-and-white cardboard cut-out world.

Prodromou (1998: 80) states that when the learners entered the classroom: 268


They leave their three-dimensional humanity outside and enter the plastic world of efl textbooks; textbooks where life is safe and innocent, and does not say or do anything. Our modern books are full of speech acts that don’t act, don’t mean anything..... Most terxtbooks project an Anglo-centric, male dominated, middleclass utopia of one kind or another.

Cortazzi and Jin (1999) divide three information types with regard the textbooks:  source culture materials’inserting learners’ culture into the teaching content;  ’target culture materials’using the culture of a country where English is used as the first language,  ’international target culture materials’using the cultures of various English speaking countries and those who do not use English as an international languaghe. Mckay (2009) illustrates two contexts in which the target cultre can be introduced with regard as English as an international language as follows: Target CultureTarget Culture Textbook

Teacher

Textbook

Teacher

Teacher

Student

Source CultureSource CultureTarget Culture Source Culture

Scheme 4 The left triangle shows that the teacher has the same cultural background with the learners’ but different bacgrounds with the textbook’s. The above illustration shows that the content of the target culture is not interesting. International CultureInternational Culture Textbook

Teacher Target CultureSource

Textbook

Learner CultureSource

Teacher Culture

Learner Source Culture

Scheme 5 269


Scheme 5 shows that the triangle on the left with the teacher is from target culture as a native speakerwith the learner from different cultural background. Mckay (2009) critisizes that the imported books to the outer space and expanding circle countries still show the dominance of the inner Circle countries. The shifting of ELT from colonial to global perspectives influences the view how an ELT textbook is considered. The word ’international’ contain the bilingual learning. Mckay (2009) even suggests that the aspects of pedagogy not connected to those of inner circle countries. ’Culture of Learning’is defined as follows (Cortazzi dan Jin, 1990): Much behaviour in language classrooms is set within a take-for-granted framework of expectation, attitudes, values and beliefs about what constitutes good learning, about how to teach or learn , whether and how to ask questions, what textbooks are for, and how language teaching relates to broader issues of the nature and purpose of education. In many classrooms both teachers and learners are unaware that such a culture of learning may be influencing the process of teaching and learning. A culture of learning is thus part of the hidden curriculum.

It can be concluded that English Language Teaching is strongly advised to ’listen’ to the local culture whereever it takes place. It is true that this ’listening’ process can harmonize the cultures of English Language Teaching with those the learners’ cultural backgrounds. The following are some examples of how pesantrens deal with English Language Teaching. In pesantren institutions, kiais, ustads, santris, and their alumny hand and hand to harmonize these conflicting values for the purpose of betterment of such institutions. They strongly and carefully select the teaching materials, teaching techniques, and other classroom activities with Islamic perspectives. Here are some examples. The teaching materials are extra-carefully selected with Islamic perspectives. When they find some contents which are contradictory, they change them with another ’sound’ Islamic one. The ustadz who teaches English will insert certain expressions which do not exist in English Language Teaching materials. Another way is that the ustadszs try to compare ELT cultures with those of Islam, meaning that this leads to learn to understand the cultures of others. Teaching techniques are also well selected. In term of groupwork, the studends are divided into small groups according to the gender perspectives. They are never groupped without considering this gender issue. The students themselves group them on the basis of gender. When groupping is done, they automatically find their friends in a group with the same gender. Eye contact is alo another thing to discuss. In English Language Teaching on the perspoectives of the West, the teacher-and-student communication or student-student communication is strongly advised to have good eyecontact; however, in pesantren institutions such eye-contact is highly advisable to be avoided due to the fact that eye contact leads to jinnah which we are strongly banned to be nearby such condition. The Proposed English Language Teaching in Pesantrens The English Language Teaching in pesantrens should be selectively built and developed according to pesantrens’ perspectives. Therefore, pesantren institutions have proposed the colonial perspectives to be adapted with equal considerations as follows: 270


From perihery

core/centre

Scheme 3 to perihery

core/centre

Skema 6 Sceme 6 illustrates an equal treatment regarding English Language Teaching (ELT) in pesantrens and this shows win-win solution as written in the abstract of this research. Conclusion English Language Teaching in global perspectives which tries to harmonize the culture of English Language Teaching and that of its learners is a new approach in this context. Selecting, adapting and contrasting the culture of ELT and the one of its learners are actually the efforts that English as a global language with multicultural perspectives should well consider. These efforts lead to treat the cultures of both parties equal, meaning that the foreign language learners learn the culture of the language they learn and at the same time they empower their own local culture.

271


References Abdullah, Taufik. 1987. Islam danMasyarakat: PantulanSejarah Indonesia, Cetakan I. Jakarta: LPES. Abdurrahman, Moeslim 1995. Islam Transformatif. Jakarta: Pustaka Firdaus. Adaskou, K., D. Britten and B. Fahsi.1990.’Design decisions on the cultural content of a secondary English course for Morrocco.’ ELT Journal 44/1: 3-10 Alatas, Syed Hussein. 1971. Thomas Stamford Raffles, 1781-1826: schemer or reformer?. Sydney: Angus & Roberttson. Ali, Mukti. 1991. “Pondok Pesantren dan Pengembangan Ilmu Pengetahuan Islam”, ceramah di InstitutPendidikan Darussalam, Pondok Modern Gontor, 8 – 9 Juni, hal.1-3. Almond, Gabriel A. and SidneyVerba. 1980. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes Angus, Ian and SutJhally. 1989. “Introduction,” Cultural Politics in Contemporary America, 2. Bachman, L. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press Bamgbose, A. 1998.’Torn between the norms: innovations in world Englishes.’World Englishes 17/1: 1-14 Banjo. L. A. 1971. “Towards a definitions of ‘standard Nigerian spoken English”’ in Actes du 8e Congres de la SocieteLinguistique de l’Afrique. Abidjan: Universited’Abidjan: 165-175 Berger, Peter, L. 1990. TafsirSosialAtasKenyataan, Risalah Tentang Sosiologi. Bickerton, D. 1975. Dynamics of a Creole. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Bratlinger, P. 1990. Crusoe’s footprints: cultural studies in Britain and America. New York: Routledge. Britten, D. 1985. ‘Teacher Training in ELT.’Language Teaching, Part 1, April 1985: 112-128; Part 2, July 1985: 220-238. Brown, H. D. 1986. ‘Learning a second language’ in Valdes, J. M. (ed.): Culture Bound. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press: 33-48 Brown, H. D. 1990. ‘Cultural values: the interpretation of discourse.’ELT Journal 44/1: 11-24 Brown, H. D. 1994. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. Brutt-Giffler, J. 1998. ‘Conceptual questions in English as a world language: taking up an issue.’ World Englishes 17/3: 381-392. Brutt-Giffler, J. 2002.World English: A Study of its Development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Brutt-Griffler, J. 2002. World English: A study of its development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

272


Brwon, G. 1990. ‘Cultural values: the interpretations of discourse.’ELT Journal 44/1: 11-24 Burke, Peter. 1992. History and Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press. Byram, M. 1998.’Cultural identities in multilingual classroom’ in Cenoz, J. and F Genesee (eds): Beyond Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters: 96-116 Canagarajah, A.S. 1999. ‘Interrogatingthe ‘native speaker fallacy’: non-linguistic roots, non-pedagogical results’ in Braine, G. (ed): Non-native Educators in English Language Teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eralbaum Associates: 77-92. Carson, J. C. 1992.’Becoming literate: first language influences.’Journal of Second Language Writing 1/1:37-40 Cortazzi, M. and L. Jin. 1999. ‘Cultural mirrors: materials and methods in the EFL classroom’ in Hinkel, E. (ed.): Culture in Second Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press: 169-206 Crystal, David. 2003. English as Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davies, A. 1991.The Native Speaker in Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Oxford University Press.Skutnabb-Kangas, T Dhofier, Zamakhsyari. Jakarta: LP3ES.

1984.

TradisiPesantrenStuditentangPandanganHidupKyai.

Dhofier, Zamakhsyari. 1994. Tradisi Pesantren: Studi tentang Pandangan Hidup Kiayi. Jakarta: LP3ES. Dye,Thomas. 1999. Politics in America 4/e. Effendi, Bachtiar. 1985. “NilaiKaumSantri” dalam M. DawamRahardjo (ed.), PergulatanDuniaPesantren. CetakanPertama. (Jakarta: P3M), page 49. Ensiklopedi Islam, Ijl.4. 1994. “Pesantren”. Jakarta: PT IchtiarBaru van Hoeve, cet. 3. Faerch, C dan G. Kasper (eds.). 1983. Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. Harlow: Longman. Faerch, C dan G. Kasper (eds.). 1987. Introspection in Second language Research. Clevedon.Multilingual Matters. Fahrudin, Diding. 2000 (unpublished). “Issues of Linguistic Imperialism at English Language Teaching in Indonesia.” Presented at TEFLIN Seminar 2000.Hotel Cempaka, Jakarta. Fakih, Mansour. 2003. “Pesantren, Mau Kemana?” Makalah pada cara Semiloka Pengembangan Pendidikan Berbasis Nilai-Nilai Pesantren (PP Annuqoyah, Guluk-Guluk, Sumenep, tanggal 3 – 4 Maret). Firth, Raymond. 1973. Symbols Public And Private. Ithaca: Cornell University. Fishman, JA. 1977. ‘The Spread of English as a New Perspective for the Study of “Language Maintenance and Language Shift”’ IN Fishman, JA, Cooper, RL, Conrad, AW (eds). The Spread of English. Rowley, Mass: Newburry House, pp. 108-135. 273


Flowerdew, J. and L. Miller. 1995.’On the notion of culture in second language lectures.’TESOLQuaterly 29/2: 345-74 Galtung, J. 1980. The True Worlds.A Transnational Perspective. New York: The Free Press. Gass, S. and L. Selinkedr (eds) 1983. Language Transfer and in Language Learning. Rowley, Mass. : Newbury House. Geertz, Clifford. 1992. TafsirKebudayaan, Agama danPolitikKebudayaan. Gonzales, A. 1995.‘The cultural content in English an an international auxiliary language (EIAL); problems and issues’ in Tickoo, M. L. (ed) Language and Culture in Multilingual Societies. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre: 54-63 Gray, J. 2000.’The ELT coursebook as cultural artifact: how teachers censor and adapt.’ELT Journal 54/3: 274-83 Herther, N.K. 2009.The changing language of search. Searcher: The Magazine for DatabseProffesional, February, 42-50. Holliday, Adrian. Hyde, Martin andKullman, John. 2006. Inter-cultural Communication: an Advanced Resource Book. New York: Routledge. Hunter, James Davison. 1996 “Introduction,” Survey if American Political Culture. Hyde, M. 1994. ‘The teaching of English in Morocco: the place of culture.’ELT journal 48/4: 295-305 Hymes, D. 1972. ‘On communicative competence’ in Pride, J. B. and J. Holmes (eds): Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin; 269-293 Jarvis, P. 2007. Globalization, lifelong learning and the learning society: Sociological Perspectives. London: Routledge. Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Jenkins, Jennifer. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kachru, B. B. 1985. ‘Standards, codification and sociolinguistics realism: the English language in the outer circle’ in Quirk, R and H. G. Widdowson (eds): English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridges: Cambridge University Press: 11-30 Kachru, B. B. 1986.The Alchemy of English. Oxford: Pergamon press. Kachru, Braj. 1988. The Sacred Cows of English. English Today, 16, 3-8. Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krashen, S. 1981. Second language Acquisition and Second language Teaching. Oxford: Pergamon. Kress, G. 1985. Linguistics Process in Sociocultural Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

274


Kubota, R. 1999. ‘Japanese culture constructed by discourses: implications for applied linguistics research and ELT.’ TESOL Quaterly 33/1:9 – 36 Kuntowijoyo, Paradigma Islam Interpretasi Untuk Aksi. 1991 (Bandung: Mizan), hal.253. Linguistics 1959: 11-19.Richard Maxwell, “Why Culture Works,” in Maxwell, ed., Culture Works: The Political Economy of Culture (2001), 1-2. LoCastro, V. 1996. ‘English language education in Japan’ in Coleman, H. (ed.): Society and the Language Classroom Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 40-58 Makerere Report. 1961. Report on the Conference on the Teaching of English as a Second Language. Entebbe: Commonwelth Education Liaison Committee. Mastuhu. 1994. Dinamika Sistem Pendidikan Pesantren: Suatu Kajian tentang Unsur dan Nilai Sistem Pendidikan Pesantren. Jakarta: INIS. Matheson, C., dan Matheson, D. 2000. Educational Spaces an. TeologiPembebasan: Sejarah, Metode, Praksis, danIsinyad Discourses. In C. Matheson & D. Matheson (Eds.) Educational Issues in the learning age (pp. 1-2). London. Continum. Maxwell, Richard. 2001. “Why Culture Works,” in Maxwell, ed., Culture Works: The Political Economy of Culture, 1-2. Mckay, Sandra Lee. 2009. Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meyer, Thomas. 2002. Demokrasi Sosial Modern: Globalisasi dan Regionalisasi. (?) Miller, T. 1995.’Japanese learners’ reactions to communicative English lessons’. JALT Journal 17/1:31-53 Ministry of Education, 23 March 1956. Report on the Official Committee on the Teaching of English Overseas. London: Ministry of Education. MOE. 2010. English Language GCE Ordinary Level (Syllabus 1127). Diunggah 28 September 2009 dari http://www.seab.gov.sg/oLevel/syllabus/1127_2010.pdf. Mufwene, S.S., 2000. Colonization, globalization and the future of languages in the twenty-first century.MOST Journal on Multicultural Societies, 4 (2).(Electron version.) Nitiprawiro, Fr. Wahono. 2000, CetakanPertama, (Yogyakarta: LKiS, 2000), hal. xiii – xiv. Ohannessian, S. dan G. Ansre. 1975. ‘Some Reflections on the Uses of sociolinguistically oriented language surveys’ in Ohannessian, Fergusson, danPolome (eds.) 1975: 51-70. Pennycook, A. 1998. English and The Discourse of Colonialism. Routtledge: London. Pennycook, A. 2007. Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. London: Routledge. Pennycook, Alastair. 1994. The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. Longman: London. Phillipson, Robert. 1993. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 275


Prodomou, L. 1988. ‘English as cultural action.’ELT Journal 42/2:73-83 Qomar, Mujamil. 2005. PondokPesantren: Dari Transformasi Metodologi Menuju Demokrastisasi Institusi. Jakarta: Erlangga. Rahardjo, M. Dawam (ed.) 1985.PergulatanDuniaPesantre: Membangun dari Bawah. Jakarta: P3M, page 9. Rahim, Husni. 2001. Arah Baru Pendidikan Islam di Indonesia, (Jakarta: Logos Wacana Ilmu), page158. Richard, J. C. 1995. ‘Easier said than done: an insider’s account of a textbook project’ in Hidalgo, A., D. Hall, and G. Jacobs (eds) : Getting started: Materials Writters on Materials Writing. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre: 95-135 Riley, Philip. 2007. Language, Culture and Identity. London: Continuum Roberts, Celia., Davies, Evelyn., danJupp, Tom. 1992. Language and Discrimination. Cambridge: CUP. Romane, Suzanne. 1994. Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Said, E. 1978.Orientalism. New York: Random House. Seidlhofer, B. (ed.). 2003. Contraversies in Applied Lingyuistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sholeh, Badrus (ed). M. 2007. Budaya Damai Komunitas Pesantren. Jakarta: LP3ES Siregar, Ashadi. 1989. “SistemPendidikan Kita”, wawancara di MajalahKiblat. Skutnabb-Kangas, T dan P. Toukomaa. 1976. Teaching Migrants Children’s Mother Tongue and Learning the language of the Host Country in the Context of the Socio-cultural Situation of the Migrant Family. A report prepared for Unesco. Tempere: Department of Sociology and Social Psychology. University of Tampere: research reports 15. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 1988.‘Multilingualism and the Education of Minority Children’ in Skutnabb-Kangas and Cummins (eds.) 1988: 9-44. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. dan R. Phillipson. 1985. Educational Strategies in Multilingual Contexts. ROLIG-papir 35. Roskilde: Roskilde Universitscenter. Smith, L. 1976. ‘English as an international auxilry language.’RELC Journal 7/2: 3843. Sperber, Dan. 1988. Rethingking Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Spradley, J. P. 1980, Participant Observation. New York : Holt, Rinehart and winston Spradley, JP. 1972. Culture and Cognition: Rules, Maps, and Plans. San Fransisco:….. Steenbrink, Karel A. 1914). Pesantren Madrasah Sekolah,:Pendidikan Islam dalamKurunModermn. Jakarta: LPES. Steger, M. 2003. Globalization: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Stone, G.W. 1959. ‘The Patterns of language Interests in the MLA’ in Center for Applied 276


Strauss, Claudia dan Naomi Quinn. 1997. A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning. Strevens, P. 1983. ‘What is “standard English”?’,in Smith L. (ed): Readings in English an International Language. Oxford: Pergamon Press: 87-93 Tang, C. 1997. ‘On the power and status on nonnative ESL teachers.’TESOL Quarterly 31/3:577-583. Tay, M. 1982. ‘The uses, users, and features of English in Singapore’ in Pride, J.B. (ed.): New Englishes. Rowley, MA: Newburry House: 51-72. Thomas, J. 1999. ‘Voices from the periphery: non-native teachers and issues of credibility’ in Braine, G. (ed.) Non-native Educators in English Language Teaching, mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 5-14. Toukomaa , P. dan T. Skutnabb-Kangas. 1977. The Intensive Teaching of the Mother Tongues to Migrant Children at Pre-school Age. Tampere: Department of Sociology and Social Psychology. University of Tampere: research reports 16A report prepared for Unesco. Tempere: Department of Sociology and Social Psychology. University of Tampere: research reports 15.. Unesco. 1953. The Use of Vernacular Languages in Education. Paris: Unesco. Viswana, Gauri. 1989. Masks of Conquest: literary study and British rule in India. New York: Columbia University Press. Wahid, Abdurrahman. 1988. “ParadigmaPengembannganMasyarakatmelaluiPesantren” dalamJurnalPesantren, (No. 3/vol. V/1988), hal.3. Wahid, Abdurrahman. 1999. “Pondok Pesantren Masa Depan”, dalam Marzuki Wahid, Suwendi dan Saefuddin Zuhri (peny.), Pesantren Masa Depan Wacana Pemberdayaan dan Transformasi Pesantren, (Bandung: Pustaka Hidayah), hal.14. Widdowson, H. G. 1997. ‘The ownership of English.’Tesol Quarterly 28: 377-388 Wirosardjono, S. 1988. “Pesantren and the Role of Islam in Indonesia” dalam Manfred Oepen& Wolfgang Karcher (eds.), The Impact of Pesantren in Education and Community Development in Indonesia, (Jakarta: P3M), hal.63. Wuthnow, Robert (et all). 1993. Cultural Analysis, The Work: Peter L. Berger, Mary

277