TANGLED WEB PDF
TANGLED WEB Val had never forgotten the rush that swept over him the first time he'd seen Rick's picture. Rick Ramone. THE TANGLED WEB A Guide to Securing Modern Web Applications by cittadelmonte.info The Conscious Parent The. The Tangled Web: A Guide to Securing Modern Web Applications If you buy from No Starch, you get complimentary, DRM-free PDF, Mobi, and ePub versions .
|Language:||English, Spanish, French|
|Genre:||Politics & Laws|
|ePub File Size:||19.68 MB|
|PDF File Size:||17.65 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data. Zalewski, Michal. The tangled Web: a guide to securing modern Web applications / Michal Zalewski. p. cm. The Tangled Web sheds light on the security challenges that engineers, developers, and users face on the Web today. Ebook (PDF, Mobi, and ePub), $ Book details Author: Michal Zalewski Pages: pages Publisher: Penguin Random House LLC (No Starch) Language: English ISBN ISBN [PDF] DOWNLOAD The Official eBay Guide: To Buying, Selling and Collecting [DOWNLOAD] PDF Blog.
In this sense, 'global English' as would any other language that found itself in its stead, Halliday adds a trifle apologetically , indeed functions as a 'medium of corporate power' and new technologies, so that "those who are able to exploit it, whether to sell goods and services or to sell ideas, wield a very considerable power" Halliday But at the same time, English is a 'world language' in the sense that it is 'international English' — in many countries it is a medium of literature and cultural expression, and a 'highly-valued international language' with certain 'clearly defined spheres of activity' Halliday Acknowledging the perceived danger of the global spread of English, which has been "expanding along both trajectories — globally, as English, internationally, as Englishes" Halliday Instead, he suggests that its users should try to exploit more substantially the enormous 'meaning- building potentials' of the language, evident in both its 'expansions'.
Namely, both global and international English involve 'semogenic strategies', i. On the contrary, global English has expanded "by taking over, or being taken over by, the new information technology, which means everything from email and the internet to mass media advertising, news reporting and all the other forms of political and commercial propaganda" Halliday It has not changed in any important way, and has not been influenced by different local cultures.
Therefore, Halliday believes that, since "[m]eanings get reshaped, not by decree but through ongoing interaction in the semiotic contexts of daily life", a possible way to resist the global unification and homogenization through global English may be 'claiming ownership' over it by actively trying to exert some influence on it, so that we could 'make it our own'.
Instead of the 'quixotic venture' of trying to resist global English, its 'baleful impact' and dominance, we "might do better to concentrate on transforming it, reshaping its meanings, and its meaning potential, in the way that the communities in the Outer Circle have already shown it can be done" Halliday The acronym conundrum: Halliday discussed above, the terminological distinctions between 'global English', 'international English', 'world English', 'world Englishes', which may appear to be superfluous and even pedantic, actually stem from important differences in the conceptual and theoretical views about the processes of globalization, and about the perceived effects of the global spread and use of English.
In the context of applied linguistics and the practice of L2 learning and teaching, these have resulted in other important terminological differences, recently particularly emphasised. One is the distinction between 'English as a foreign language', and 'English as a Lingua Franca'.
The Tangled Web - Parent Directory - Free
The term 'English as a foreign language' EFL was traditionally used to refer to the study and use of English by non-native speakers around the world, in those cultural, social, and historical contexts where English has no formal status, which would correspond to the 'Expanding circle' in Kachru's early model Kachru Still, this distinction, closely related to the one between language learning EFL and language acquisition ESL , was, at least in some periods and in some L2 teaching approaches, neglected or erased.
On the other hand, the more recent term 'English as a Lingua Franca' ELF has been promoted as a way to emphasise the legitimacy of the multitude of varieties of English emerging in international communication, when English is used as a communication tool between Expanding circle speakers.
An important ideological assumption behind ELF is the promotion of a pluricentric rather than monocentric definition of 'acceptability' in language use. Instead of the traditionally promoted Inner circle i.
[PDF] DOWNLOAD The Tangled Web: A Guide to Securing Modern Web App…
The concept of ELF as promoted by authors such as Jennifer Jenkins , or Barbara Seidlhofer , implies that the varieties used by Expanding circle speakers should be included in the term 'World Englishes', since they are as legitimate as those of the Outer circle speakers.
Furthermore, these authors Jenkins ; Seidlhofer ; Modiano believe that, like any other variety of English, or like any of the World Englishes, ELF should be described and codified, as, for instance, Modiano describes the ELF varieties of 'Euro Englishes' as 'real' emerging varieties.
Mabel Victoria believes that this as an attempt to "legitimise [ELF] as a language in its own right, not as a deficient approximation of English as spoken by its native speakers" Victoria However, other authors do not believe that 'Euro English' or any other ELF form should or could be codified and described as a language variety.
Victoria, for instance, states that "lingua franca English defies description and codification", primarily due to its "highly variable and context-dependent nature" Victoria She illustrates this viewpoint by Canagarajah's work , who argues that ELF emerges only through interaction in real time Canagarajah That is why Canagarajah introduces yet another term — 'Lingua Franca English' LFE , to point out that, when investigating international communication, we should focus not on the codification of the ELF 'variety' as a 'linguistic system', but rather on pragmatics and communication.
LFE is hybrid in nature: This view, that meaning is constructed in intercultural — and any other — communication through social interaction, in specific situations, in specific contexts, and in real time is the underlying idea behind the research we present here. Yet, we do not accept the accompanying terminology. Namely, since the research presented here focuses on the educational context, i. Also, since we do not endorse the view that 'English as a Lingua Franca' ELF can be regarded, described, and codified as a linguistic variety, we do not endorse this term either.
Therefore, we choose the term 'English as a foreign language' EFL to highlight the fact that we refer to the context in which Serbian L1 speakers learn and use English in formal educational settings, within the Serbian formal educational system.
Formal contexts are assumed to be, by their nature, the most conservative and slowly changing ones, unlike 'real-life' international communication, which is characterized by dynamic and quick-paced interaction. Therefore, it can be hypothesised that the problems discussed above would have little effect on EFL teaching within formal educational curricula. However, in formal-setting EFL teaching and learning, too, global changes have brought the same questions into focus, and EFL is struggling to redefine both its goals and its methodologies.
Formal EFL educational contexts, too, have to consider issues of identity construction, of diverse and multiple social and cultural identities, of social and cultural contexts of language learning and language use, and of meaning construction in social interaction. All these issues have become necessary, vital, and pressing in formal-setting EFL learning and teaching, and the importance of developing intercultural communicative competence has become immediate for a rapidly growing number of young educated people.
In the following chapter, therefore, we turn to the issues of intercultural communication and intercultural competence, and to the question of what the endorsement of ICC as a goal of foreign language learning and teaching entails. In most L2 learning contexts, and particularly in formal educational settings, the notions of culture and communicative competence are still viewed in fairly traditional terms, and ICC is still a concept too abstract and elusive for teachers and learners to fully endorse.
The reason probably lies in the complexity and evasiveness of the very idea of ICC. It encompasses three concepts, which are themselves inherently complex, dynamic, and difficult to define — culture, communication, and intercultural interaction. The vague, changing, and dynamic nature of each of these elements makes it very difficult to define ICC, and to understand how exactly it should figure in L2 learning and teaching.
In this chapter, we present some of the commonly encountered views of culture, communication, intercultural interaction, and particularly the role of language in intercultural communication. We discuss several theoretical models of cultural differences and ICC, focusing particularly on the ideas they share despite their differences. In the same vein, Jennifer Fortman and Howard Giles discuss the "tendency for individuals and, perhaps more importantly, scholars to interpret culture through their own particular lens": Moreover, as observed by Clifford Geertz almost half a century ago, "[t]he term 'culture' has obtained a certain aura of ill-repute [ Indeed, the very number of definitions of culture offered in social sciences and humanities in the past century alone can be discouraging.
Sandra Faulkner and her colleagues Faulkner et al. The authors identified seven such "themes" or types of definitions: However, Hecht and colleagues do not believe that these different perspectives offered through various definitions of culture can be simply 'integrated', because the nature of culture is too complex, and such a 'compiled' definition would only further 'blur' the truth Hecht et al.
Based on the communication theory of identity, this model proposes that culture, like any form of identity, is experienced at different layers or levels: Culture is subjective and objective, individual and collective, and we must take into account "all the various levels at which culture is reflected and created" Hecht et al.
Moreover, culture is 'alive', because the layers "interpenetrate each other" and "manifest themselves in each other" Hecht et al. An example of this could be the cultural identity of a nation, which is not "simply a handed-down set of elements, a heritage, but rather an active process of defining and redefining through communication" Hecht et al.
Indeed, what is emphasised in most contemporary definitions is the dynamic, constructivist view of culture as a process in which individuals' identities are discursively constructed through communication and interaction. This is particularly evident in intercultural encounters, where the participants' cultural similarities and differences affect the way they interpret and construct their mutual communicative reality.
Therefore, most theoretical frameworks and models formulated to account for cultural differences especially highlight the dynamic, interactional and communicative nature of culture. Culture and communication The idea that culture and communication are inseparable has always been put forward in one form or another, in the fields of both communication and culture studies.
Just as an illustration, in his early discussion of how the field of communication can be defined within social sciences, George Gerbner concludes that understanding communication involves an understanding of: Adding that communication study should focus on areas where 'problems of communication lie', Gerbner actually stresses the importance of cultural backgrounds, as 'given frameworks of knowledge', for the success of communication.
Similarly, in his much more recent discussion of this topic, Craig Calhoun states that communication study, as a field currently characterized by 'diversity and creative chaos' Calhoun Another example of the view that culture and communication are indivisible is Fred Jandt's Introduction to intercultural communication: Identities in a global community Jandt Moreover, because communication is 'a cultural element', not only the way people communicate, but also the way communication is defined varies from culture to culture.
For instance, Jandt compares different models of communication, and shows how those offered within the Western paradigm differ from the Eastern models. Therefore, he points out that culture and communication must be studied together: Most importantly, of the ten components of the communication process in a model he describes, which comprises the source, encoding, message, channel, noise external, internal or semantic , receiver, decoding, receiver response, feedback, and context Jandt He states that "[c]ulture is also context" Jandt Understanding the communication context, therefore, is crucial for successful intercultural communication.
Not only the authors whose starting point is in communication studies, but also those who rather set themselves within the field of 'culture studies' express the idea that culture and communication are inseparable. Frameworks and models of cultural differences almost invariably put emphasis on communication and interaction. Similarly, in Edward T. Hall's anthropologically based framework, the complex concept of culture is also seen as interaction-based, and as a form of communication.
In The Silent Language Hall explicitly equates culture with communication, stating that "[c]ulture is communication and communication is culture" Hall In The hidden dimension Hall , the interactional component is also central, since what is emphasised are the shared experiences of a cultural group. This is crucial for intercultural communication, to which Edward Hall and Mildred Hall turn in Understanding cultural differences.
However, they add another aspect to this shared 'program for behavior', and that is information. This view is condensed in Hall's notion of the context Hall However, cultures differ with respect to how much the context influences the meaning. A culture can occupy any place in the span from high-context cultures, in which much information is contained in the context, to low-context cultures, in which very little information is 'understood' from the context and taken for granted, while the messages are coded explicitly Hall Therefore, the difference between high-context and low-context cultures is crucial for understanding intercultural interaction, because miscommunication results from our different assumptions about the information contained in the communicative context.
Put forward from the perspective of ethnology and social anthropology, Raymond Firth's view of culture as an 'aggregate' of society, community and culture, which all 'involve one another' Firth Firth views culture as 'the way of life' of a society or community, together with the content of its social relations, that is, as "the aggregate of people and the relations between them" Firth However, when observing a culture, we have to make inferences about social relationships and the meaning of activities from observing physical acts Firth In this process of interpretation, the key factor is 'contextualization', because it is through adequately apprehending the context that we interpret the observed behaviours, 'attach values' to them, and infer the quality of the relationships between actors Firth In this sense, we could say that any instance of intercultural communication can be compared to what Firth describes as anthropological and ethnographic observation.
Our mutual understanding and the success of our intercultural communication depend on contextualization, too — on attaching values, interpreting relationships, and recognizing the relevance of certain elements of the communicative context. A similar idea, though not in the foreground, can be identified behind the notion of 'symbols' as used by Clifford J. Geertz in the field of cultural and symbolic anthropology. The Interpretation of Cultures Geertz defines culture as "a historically transmitted pattern of meaning embodied in symbols", that is, as "a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life" Geertz In Geertz's view of culture, the construction of meaning is central: The importance of the context in understanding both culture and communication was also stressed by Dell Hymes, particularly in his most widely cited work, Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach For him, language is an essential part of culture, but communication and cultural identification are the result of a complex interplay of linguistic and non-linguistic aspects.
The central concept is that of a 'speech community', a group "sharing knowledge of rules for the conduct and interpretation of speech", including the knowledge of "at least one form of speech" and its patterns of use Hymes Therefore, language is an important factor in 'delineating' cultural communities. However, the language code is but one component of communicative events, and only a careful study of particular events could reveal the way in which the "code enters into communicative purposes and cultural life" Hymes In many different ways, language is crucial for "enculturation, transmission of adult roles and skills, interaction with the supernatural, personal satisfactions, and the like" Hymes Therefore, Hymes believes that 'comparative ethnography' as well as 'the formal comparison' of language codes could offer deeper insights into the "relations between code and communicative context" Hymes What we should investigate and explore are "[n]ot codes alone, but whole systems of communication, involving particular needs and alternative modalities" Hymes In other words, he suggests that ethnographic studies of communication should be used as a framework for studying both languages and cultures.
What makes Hymes' point particularly relevant for the topics we discuss here is his insistence that the same kind of 'functional relativity' is found in international intercultural communication and within what is thought of as 'monolingual' communities — "the functional relativity of languages is general, applying to monolingual situations, too" Hymes Therefore, differences should be observed in contexts involving not only 'acculturation', and 'bilingualism', but also 'standard languages', that is, 'monolingual' and 'monocultural' communities.
This links to another question important for the study of intercultural communication, namely, what counts as 'intercultural' in different communicative situations. Definitions of culture discussed above all agree that it is 'shared' by a group of people, be it 'society', Geertz' 'community', Hymes' 'speech community', or Hall's 'cultural group'. James Lull , for instance, states that "cultural experiences of individuals are becoming increasingly individualized, complex, dynamic and expansive" Lull The unprecedented development of information industries and easily accessible micro-communication technologies has opened the way for 'ever more diverse and mobile symbolic forms', and a unique 'empowerment' of many people.
Instead, he believes that culture should be seen as "a self-conscious repertoire of styles that are constantly being monitored and adapted", or as "a polyphony of ways of speaking" Chaney All these views point in the same direction as Ron Scollon, Suzanne Scollon, and Rodney Jones' conclusion that there is a serious 'problem' with the notion of culture today.
Instead, they propose that it is best to think of culture "not as one thing or another, not as a thing at all, but rather as a heuristic", or a 'tool for thinking' Scollon et al. The definition of culture they settle on is that it is "a way of dividing people up into groups according to some feature of these people which helps us to understand something about them and how they are different or similar to other people" Scollon et al.
But they immediately add that this definition "points to the trickiest aspect of the notion of culture", that is, the question: Therefore, instead of 'intercultural communication', Scollon and colleagues propose the framework of 'interdiscourse communication', i. It evokes Hymes' idea of the sociolinguistic 'functional relativity' of any language and all languages, emphasising the need to re-define whose culture we are looking into in any particular instance of 'intercultural' communication.
Implicitly, the framework of 'interdiscourse communication' also evokes Hall's and Firth's views of the importance of interpreting intercultural communication in the specific context in which it takes place. Finally, placing the notion of 'discourse' in the centre of their proposed framework, Scollon and colleagues turn the spotlight to language and its role in the discursive construction of meaning in specific communicative situations, particularly those that we see as 'intercultural'.
In many of these frameworks, which we discuss in some more detail in the following section, language and language-related skills are highlighted as especially important. However, a recurring fundamental idea is that the linguistic aspect of communication is inextricably intertwined with all the other aspects, including all the non-verbal and even non-linguistics aspects of the communicative context.
One excellent example of this is the work of John J.
Gumperz , who often pointed out that the aim of this investigation was to explain how "culture through language affects the way we think and communicate with others of different background" Gumperz His central concept is that of 'conversational inference' Gumperz , which is partly "a matter of a priori extra-textual knowledge, stereotypes and attitudes", but is also "to a large extent constructed through talk" Gumperz Thus, Gumperz' views of culture and communication emphasize the importance of both the context and the interactional construction of meaning, through both non-linguistic and linguistic means.
Similar views are shared by several other authors. In addition, as socially constructed historical patterns, i. A similar point is highlighted by Helen Spencer-Oatey , too, although she focuses more narrowly on 'rapport management', i. She explores how differences in language use can affect rapport management, and the way people assess each other in intercultural communication Spencer-Oatey Finally, the same kind of perspective is visible even in discussions that look into broader issues of intercultural communication research.
They criticize linguistically based studies of intercultural communication, and remind that in applied linguistics and linguistics, the study of intercultural communication emerged as a distinct sub-discipline three decades ago 'largely out of contrastive analysis, error analysis, and interlanguage studies'. Therefore, they tend to be too narrowly focused on linguistic and applied linguistic questions. Linguistic dimensions of cultural diversity are interesting precisely because they are not narrowly national.
In other words, in communication, language and its contexts of use are inseparable. That is why Gert Rickheit and Hans Strohner point out that Hymes understood the dichotomy of linguistic competence vs. In this respect, many of the authors in intercultural communication research can be said to share Hymes' belief that linguistic competence and performance come to life together, unified in specific communicative situations, when we observe how language is used by real people, in real communicative contexts.
Cultural difference and intercultural competence In the study of cross-cultural interaction, many theoretical frameworks, models, and conceptualizations have been proposed to systematize and explain the ways in which cultures can differ. Given the complexity of the notions of both culture and communication, it is understandable that different models should focus on different aspects of cross-cultural communication.
Reviewing a number of such models, Helen Spencer-Oatey and Peter Franklin's show that those proposed in the fields of social and cross-cultural psychology tend to observe fundamental cultural values, as do Geert Hofstede Hofstede or Shalom Schwartz Schwartz Therefore, such theoretical frameworks, formulated as models of cultural difference and not explicitly of intercultural communicative competence, also aim to account for the possibilities and challenges of intercultural communication.
As an illustration, the model proposed by Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner systematizes cultural differences in terms of different 'orientations' to the key 'dimensions' such as time, space, human relations, or relationship with nature. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner believe that our awareness of the main dimensions of cultural difference can greatly contribute to successful intercultural communication. Therefore, this model implies three components necessary for successful intercultural communication — awareness of how cultures can differ, self-awareness i.
In addition to such conceptualizations of cultural difference, various theoretical frameworks focus specifically on intercultural communicative competence.
In contemporary conceptualizations, ICC is viewed as a very complex construct, encompassing various aspects and components. As an illustration, the definition offered by Young Yun Kim Kim's definition highlights three crucial aspects: Although different models stress different aspects of ICC, they all represent an attempt to single out its most important components.
The presented models of intercultural competence are classified into five categories. Also, they vary in categorical complexity and the number of proposed conceptual elements.
The aim of our chapter is not to give a detailed account of the many existing models of intercultural competence. Namely, Spitzberg and Changnon's analysis identified over three hundred elements, i. Thus, they conclude that it would be necessary to develop 'more parsimonious', synthetic and integrated models ibid. Commenting on the very number of proposed conceptual models of ICC, the authors state that it may be "tempting to argue that the variety of models is a sign of postmodern diversity and that cultural diversity itself may require a parallel range of models" ibid.
However, their analysis showed that some common theoretical categories run across most models, suggesting that this 'postmodern diversity' could be collapsed and integrated around a much simpler 'common core' of conceptual categories. As proposed earlier in Spitzberg and Cupach , and also in Spitzberg , five conceptual categories can be said to constitute this common core of ICC components: Spitzberg and Cupach expand this core by two more conceptual categories — context situation, environment, culture and outcomes perceived appropriateness, perceived effectiveness, satisfaction.
This 'core' could be further enriched, as proposed in developmental and relational models, by the time component, i. Indeed, most models of ICC commonly referred to in the fields of education and L2 learning illustrate this observation.
A successful intercultural communicator is the one who has respect for other cultures, and tolerance for cultural differences. These abilities are modelled by Chen and Starosta as three main components of ICC — intercultural sensitivity, as the affective component, or the ability to acknowledge and respect cultural differences; intercultural awareness, as the cognitive component, or one's self-awareness, the understanding of one's own cultural identity and awareness of cultural variation; and intercultural adroitness, or the behavioural component, which includes language and communication skills, flexibility, interaction management, and social skills.
The ethnorelative outlook is the one in which we are aware that our own beliefs and behaviours are "just one organization of reality among many viable possibilities" Bennett These include foreign language competence, 'cultural distance', self-awareness, knowledge, skills, motivation, appropriateness, effectiveness, contextual interactions, and a factor they label 'intercultural affinity' Kupka et al.
The model rests on a number of theoretical concepts from well-known theories, such as the social construction of reality, social learning, cultural identity, identity management, and anxiety and uncertainty management theories.
Therefore, the Rainbow model, in a way, does represent an attempt to 'synthesize' and 'integrate' the conceptual categories proposed in several earlier models. Kupka and colleagues adopt two components from the Integrative model of ICC proposed by Brian Spitzberg — appropriateness and effectiveness.
Spitzberg's integrative model comprises three levels — individual, episodic, and relational Spitzberg However, since "any given behaviour or ability may be judged competent in one context and incompetent in another", competence cannot "inhere in the behavior or ability itself", but must be viewed "as a social evaluation of behavior" Spitzberg Appropriateness and effectiveness are the two main criteria on which we base this 'social evaluation of behavior': Appropriateness means that the valued rules, norms, and expectancies of the relationship are not violated significantly.
Effectiveness is the accomplishment of valued goals or rewards relative to costs and alternatives. With these dual standards, therefore, communication will be competent in an intercultural context when it accomplishes the objectives of an actor in a manner that is appropriate to the context and relationship Spitzberg Intercultural communicative competence, therefore, involves one's understanding of the 'conditions', and choosing an appropriate and effective course of action in the given situation.
Therefore, it can be said that Spitzberg's addition of the concepts of appropriateness and effectiveness to the 'common core' of intercultural competence components follows the same line of thought identified in our previous discussion of different views of culture, communication and intercultural interaction.
In a way, it reflects and continues the ideas argued by Hymes , Hall , and Geertz , observing intercultural communicative competence not as an abstract 'competence' but as a potential realized in specific situations and specific communicative contexts, which include 'a social evaluation of behaviour', as well as a context-based construction of meaning through interaction.
To sum up, conceptual frameworks of ICC assume that it comprises a common core of at least three crucial components. Finally, the behavioural component implies knowing how to act effectively and appropriately in intercultural communication.
These three basic conceptual categories, together with Spitzberg's additional elements of context and outcomes the criteria of appropriateness and effectiveness represent the essence of intercultural communicative competence.
In the light of all the complexities the notions of culture, communication, and ICC entail, the task of L2 teachers seems almost impossible. Trying to translate theoretical concepts into the practice of EFL teaching, we may choose to completely disregard their fine details and observe intercultural communicative competence only as a three-component core of attitudes, skills, and knowledge. Even so, it remains an immensely complex and complicated target.
ICC takes time and effort to develop, as well as a curriculum that would be, as a whole, devoted to this goal.
A necessary pre-requisite would be a reform of both L2 curricula and L2 teacher education to help them gain the necessary knowledge and skills to teach for ICC. These are the issues we discuss in Chapter If intercultural communication is understood in this way, as 'interdiscourse communication', then we must agree with Kenneth Cushner and Jennifer Mahon that all teacher education and development programs should place ICC at their centre. Developing intercultural or 'interdiscourse' competence means developing the ability to 'decentre' Byram et al.
Developing intercultural communicative competence means learning how to step out of this 'envelope' of the familiar discourses and engage with different 'others' in creating new discourses through communication. In the next chapter, we discuss the issues of 'complex and multiple identities' and identity construction in the EFL context.
From early explorations in psychology and sociology, to contemporary considerations in critical discourse analysis and interactional approaches, the concept of identity has been widely discussed and explored from different perspectives. In this chapter, we look into some questions related to identity construction, particularly the notions of shifting, multiple and hybrid identities.
As closely linked to issues of identity, we also discuss language attitudes, which play an important part in the way we see others and ourselves. The focus is on communication and language attitudes, because they represent a sphere in which stereotypes and ideologies greatly influence social evaluations in intercultural interaction. After a brief discussion of some theoretical concepts related to identity and attitudes, and a presentation of different authors' views on some key questions, we present a review of selected empirical research into language attitudes, illustrating the different approaches and methods used in attitude study.
As in previous chapters, the discussion places the issues of identity and language attitudes primarily in the context of intercultural communication and EFL learning and teaching. Discussing the notion of identity as a factor in intercultural competence, Young Yun Kim states that an individual's 'global self-identity' comprises 'both personal and social dimensions', and that such a 'holistic' view has characterized much work in social science research Kim This is because identity is defined as a construct that guides "the general self-other orientation of an individual", and represents the 'routinized way' in which an individual responds to the external world ibid.
Therefore, as the 'core of personhood', identity crucially influences our interaction with others, Authors state that identity is the key word of our contemporary society from different perspectives. For instance, from the standpoint of social psychology, Judith Howard observes that the notion of identity has changed substantially with the changes in our social circumstances. Earlier, 'when societies were more stable', identity was primarily 'assigned', while today it is created, constructed, selected, or adopted: Therefore, within deconstructionist, postmodernist approaches, identities are seen as "multiple, processual, relational, unstable, possibly political" Howard Howard concludes that when studying social identities we should 'see people as a whole', not only in terms of "gender, racial, ethnic, sexual, and class identities", but as "multiple identities of whole people, [ Although the view of identity as negotiated and constructed has acquired a new significance in our world, the idea itself is not new.
To look at just some examples, the ideas of Symbolic interactionism and particularly Frederik Barth's view that social groups are social constructs, in which group members actively create both their symbols and their boundaries, lies at the root of Howard's view that "identities locate a person in social space by virtue of the relationships" with others Howard The symbolic meanings we attach to other people and ourselves are developed through interaction Howard The degree to which an individual would identify with a group depends on a particular context and the perceived need to compare that group with other groups.
In the same vein, but focusing on culture rather than ethnicity or society, Geertz states that both one's unique individual identity and one's negotiated social identity are constantly being re defined.
This re- definition happens within culture, as the system of symbols, and language, as the system of meaning, which mark the boundaries of the 'imaginary universe' within which our actions are 'symbolic signs' Geertz What is more, the meaning carried by symbols with which group members identify is also dynamic, changeable, and actively questioned and re- constructed through interaction Geertz Hall also believes that we need to understand identities as "produced in specific historical and institutional sites", and constructed "only through the relation to the Other" Hall The modern 'problem of identity' was how to construct an identity and keep it solid and stable, the postmodern 'problem of identity' is primarily how to avoid fixation and keep the options open Bauman This dynamic nature of identity construction, most authors agree, has become the crucial feature of the contemporary world, in which identities are growing more and more dynamic, shifting, and unstable.
The age of globalisation has opened the way for new forms of identity re-construction, and innumerable possibilities for individuals to construct their identities as unique combinations of the global and the local cf. One identifies simultaneously with a number of small groups with whose inmembers one shares all or just some of the cultural elements and symbols, including the language or languages one speaks. After all, as pointed out by Edward Said Said The notions of dynamic, hybrid multiple identities inevitably bring into focus issues of language and communication.
The proposed framework is based on five 'principles'.
The third principle of this framework, that of indexicality, describes the mechanism through which identity is constituted, i. Therefore, this principle states that "identities may be linguistically indexed through labels, implicatures, stances, styles, or linguistic structures and systems" ibid.
They also introduce a much broader range of relations relevant for 'forging' identities, in addition to 'sameness-difference', traditionally considered in relation to identity.
With the changes in the contemporary world, the role of language in constructing, articulating and expressing our personal, social and cultural identities has also become very complicated.
On the one hand, as an objective marker of identity, as a medium through which our identity is expressed, affirmed, and, as put by Buchholtz and Hall, constructed, language has long been recognized as one of the crucial elements that we identify with when identifying with a culture, it is what makes one culture 'our own'.
As discussed in two previous chapters, the role played by the English language in the life and social interaction of its speakers has changed, too, binding firmly together issues of identity, intercultural communication, and foreign language learning and teaching. It would be wrong to assume that in EFL learning in formal educational settings outside the 'inner' or 'outer' circles students' sense of identity is any less affected by these changes.
In our students' lives, English has a place which no longer depends mainly or only on what we teach them 'at school'. The role of English in students' various social relationships, in the networks and communities they connect with, in all the different contexts in which they use English as one of their languages, affects their sense of who they are, and who different 'others' are. Therefore, the issues of identity in the context of L2 learning and teaching are particularly closely related to the issue of language and communication attitudes, as well as to the role of language ideologies and stereotypes, which we turn to in the following section.
Language attitudes The field of language attitude research has a long tradition, originating primarily from sociolinguistics and experimental social psychology. Therefore, the concept of attitude used in language attitude research is rooted in psychology, and based on definitions such as Allport's , that attitude is 'a learned predisposition to think, feel and behave towards a person or object in a particular way', or the more elaborate definition by Fishbein and Ajzen , which states that attitudes are 'general predispositions' or 'tendencies', which do not necessarily lead to any specific behaviour, but rather represent "a set of intentions that indicate a certain amount of affect toward the object in question" Fishbein and Ajzen Oppenheim defines an attitude as a 'tendency to respond in a certain manner when confronted with certain stimuli', and adds that most of an individual's attitudes are "usually dormant and are expressed in speech or behaviour only when the object of the attitude is perceived" Oppenheim An important characteristic of an attitude is its 'evaluative nature' pro — con, pleasant - unpleasant Ajzen Accordingly, language attitudes are judgements we make about a particular language or language variety.
They are sets or bundles of strongly held and readily expressed opinions, beliefs, feelings, and 'predispositions to act'. Peter Garret highlights several properties of language attitudes that follow from the definition of the concept and are particularly important for studying them. One is that attitudes are complex constructs, with a very complicated interrelationship of components. Ajzen ; Edwards The cognitive component comprises our beliefs and thoughts about the attitude object, or, as put by Garret , our "beliefs about the world, and the relationships between objects of social significance for example, judgements of standard language varieties tending to be associated with high status jobs " Garret The affective component is our emotional reaction to the attitude object, involving, again in Garret's terms, "a barometer of favourability and unfavourability, or the extent to which we approve or disapprove of the attitude object" ibid.
Garret also points out that the positive or negative 'directionality' of attitudes can be assessed as the attitude 'intensity', e. Finally, the behavioural or conative component is our 'predisposition' to act in accordance with our thoughts and feelings, that is, it comprises either overt behaviours or just intent to act, or a 'tendency' to act in a certain way.
What makes attitudes very complex to observe and explain is the fact that these components may or may not be in accord with one another. Gallois and colleagues point out that attitude components are correlated, but not necessarily linked. For instance, we may have an affective reaction to another social group, but not have clear beliefs to support that affective reaction.
Particularly problematic is the behavioural component, because research findings are very controversial when it comes to predicting behaviours based on identified attitudes. Garret states that this is one of the important issues in the field of language attitude research, and proposes that cognition, affect and behaviour should be seen "more in terms of causes and triggers of attitudes" Garret Garret also observes the following tendency in the way we speak about attitudes, very revealing of this problem: It is perhaps telling that we tend frequently to talk in terms of the 'relationship between attitudes and behaviour' as if taking it for granted that attitudes are primarily related to cognition and affect combined, with a tendency to work together independently of behaviour much of the time Garret As social evaluations of objects, people and events, they are formed through the process of socialization, and affected by all agents of socialization.
Peter Garret specifically singles out two 'sources of attitudes' — personal experiences, and the social environment. Although various processes are involved in language attitude development, including observational learning, instrumental learning, the role of primary agents of socialization such as the family or school, Garret particularly stresses the role of the media, as the "focal point for the shaping, reinforcement or change of attitudes" Garret An important line of research in the field of language attitudes deals with attitude formation and change, and many researchers look into the factors and agents that influence attitude change.
The 'stability' of attitudes is one of the particularly frequently debated issues, because attitudes have traditionally been viewed as very 'stable' constructs, resistant to change even in the face of much evidence against one's beliefs. In more recent, particularly discursive and constructivist approaches, attitudes are viewed as much more context-dependent constructs, which can be influenced by specific circumstances, or negotiated and constructed in social interaction cf.
For instance, Schwarz and Bohner analyse how the understanding of the concept of attitude has changed over time in social psychology.
A Tangled Web
In more recent definitions, it is mainly the evaluative, judgemental aspect of attitudes that is emphasised, as, for instance, in Eagly and Chaiken's definition of an attitude as "a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor" Eagly and Chaiken's People may have stable attitudes, but express them differently under different circumstances.
Also, people may hold multiple or controversial attitudes about the same object, and express different ones in particular circumstances. Some attitudes may be more stable, while some others may be 'created on the spot' and easily changed under certain conditions. Therefore, we believe that the most important point made by Scwartz and Bohner is that in order to understand the true nature of attitudes, we need to investigate the processes underlying the way they are expressed, and the circumstances under which they are expressed.
Speaking from the standpoint of Language and Social Psychology LSP which we present briefly in Chapter 6 , Gallois and colleagues also state that in contemporary communication attitude research, theoretical underpinnings are adopted that take into account the importance of the context for the attitudes expressed. In other words, attitudes towards language varieties are easily translated into attitudes towards their speakers.
Varieties different from the 'standard' tend to be associated with sociocultural and socio-economic characteristics of the region in which they are used, so people's attitudes towards language varieties are shaped by social, economic and cultural factors Hudson ; Holland McBride Because they act as "filters through which social life is conducted and interpreted" Garrett et al.
Affecting communication at all levels, individual and interpersonal, intra-group and inter-group Stainton Rogers Linguistic profiling As part of their evaluative component, language attitudes almost invariably involve a strong feeling that certain varieties of language are 'right' and 'correct', while others are 'wrong' and 'incorrect'. This is closely related to language ideologies, primarily the idea about the difference between 'standard' and 'substandard' varieties Edwards This feeling is also closely linked with some common stereotypes, positive or negative, about certain language varieties, and, proving that attitudes are essentially social evaluations of others, about the speakers of these varieties.
Therefore, it could be said that spoken communication comprises one important social aspect which we may label linguistic profiling. In this sense, it would underline the fact, often pointed out in sociolinguistic and sociophonetic research, that phonetic properties of speech index social meanings, social roles and identities, and are constantly perceived as indexing them in our "everyday sense-making practice" Anderson The term 'linguistic profiling' also highlights the role played by deeply rooted pre-conceptions, stereotypes, and ideologies in shaping our language attitudes.
Stereotypes, as overgeneralised and simplified ideas about types or groups of people, involve our beliefs about what certain different 'others' are like. As any other kind of ideology, involving "processes and practices at several levels of consciousness, of different scope and scale, and with different effects" Blommaert Both language attitudes and language ideologies have become especially important in the context of the role and status of English es today, and the context of EFL learning and teaching, where varieties are not yet felt to be quite 'equal' in terms of their 'correctness', 'prestige', desirability, 'closeness', or even 'pleasantness'.
For instance, Ellis explicitly states that "levels of proficiency in the L2 are not determined by variables such as age, sex, social class, or ethnic identity, but rather by the attitudes and social conditions associated with these factors" Ellis However, like many other issues, this one has acquired a new significance in contemporary circumstances.
While, as discussed above, the legitimacy of the multitude of world Englishes is almost unanimously recognized, the fact remains that the choice of models, standards and aims in EFL, in terms of the varieties to be taught and used, is still among the most fervently debated, and, from the teachers' point of view, probably most annoying issues.
Abandoning the native-speaker 'yardstick' Jenkins Many EFL learners and teachers have ambivalent and even contradictory attitudes towards different inner, outer, and expanding circle English varieties. EFL learners' language attitudes, as well as their social evaluations of various other speakers of English, also seem to depend on the specific communicative contexts and situations.
Although focused on the perceptions of dialectal variations of English by the native speakers, and not on the international context, Dennis Preston's theory of 'folk linguistics' , , can also be enlightening in our attempt to understand the complex attitudes of EFL users. The other reason is that it is based on years of original research - including, of course, my Browser Security Handbook I think it is simply unmatched when it comes to the breadth and the quality of the material presented.
It outlines dozens of obscure but remarkably important security policies, governing everything from content rendering to frame navigation - and affecting your applications in more ways than you may expect. Mark Dowd: Tavis Ormandy: Dave Aitel Immunity: What I did not expect was that I would not want to put it down. Ben Rothke: Packet Storm review: It is the sort of book that should be required reading for every web developer.
Chris Rohlf Matasano: Chris John Riley Catch There's no other way to say it. Kristian Erik Hermansen: Zalewski's new book is impressive and should be read by anyone working in the web space that cares about security -- whether an attacker or defender.
Devon kearns Offensive Security: Elie Bursztein Stanford Security Lab: Adam Langley Chrome: Nasko Oskov Microsoft: Ruben Santamarta: Bob Ippolito Python hacker: Chapter 3 is available for download here. In addition, an excerpt from the introduction to the Kindle version can be read on Amazon click the cover if it doesn't load automatically.
The following is a rough, top-level table of contents for the book; you can download a more detailed but non-annotated version here. Security in the World of Web Applications Kindle excerpt The goals of security engineering in the age of web apps.
The chapter includes a sketch of the history of browser technologies, and the unique problems their architecture created today. The chapter also covers IDNA, character set handling, and a classification of commonly used network protocols. Hypertext Transfer Protocol download The inner workings of HTTP, including proxy requests, caching, conflict resolution, and chunked transfers.
The chapter outlines the antics of character set and newline handling, the problems with Content-Disposition parsing, and much more.
- WEBER GRILL REZEPTE PDF
- WEB DESIGNING TUTORIALS EBOOK
- ICEFACES 1.8 NEXT GENERATION ENTERPRISE WEB DEVELOPMENT PDF
- GOOGLE BOOK WEBSITE
- GUIA DEFINITIVO DA DEEP WEB PDF
- WEBERS GRILLEN REZEPTE FUR JEDEN TAG PDF
- HIGH PERFORMANCE WEBSITES STEVE SOUDERS PDF
- WEB DESIGNING COURSE IN URDU PDF
- KONVERSI FILE PDF KE WORD
- ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK PDF ITA
- PDF MULTIPAGE IMPORT OS X
- SUNDARAKANDA PARAYANAM IN TAMIL PDF