ESL/EAL/ELL hmmmm moment

Does the ‘S’ in ESL stand for Second or Subsequent?

Does the ‘A’ in EAL stand for Additional or Acquired?

Which term is politically correct? Do they all mean the same thing? Which one should I use? And for goodness’ sake, why do they keep changing the abbreviation?!

EAl lang tree

These are some of the questions that I have asked myself many times since becoming a student in the Faculty of Education. In the past few years, all things ESL/EAL/ELL have become much-discussed topics. As future teachers, we hear “Your classrooms will include high percentages of immigrant students for whom English is not their first language” so often, it is no wonder that this is on our minds! The shifting focus of ‘person-first’ language in regards to students with special needs has made me think about the language we use to define these students who have a language other than English as their first.

Here was the thought that popped into my head last night:

ELL = English Language Learner. But some students who are labelled ‘ELL’ have a proficient command of the English language. Comparatively, many people who are raised with English as their first language do not use it properly. So it seems rather unfair to call students who have a differing mother tongue ‘learners’ of the English language when, really, we are ALL English language learners. 

As a self-proclaimed “Grammar Policewoman” and English enthusiast, I am often drawn to online quizzes with titles such as: “These are 100 vocabulary words that high school graduates of today should know. Do you know them all?” and “Can you recognize these common grammatical/spelling errors?” Admittedly, even I (as someone who prides herself in being knowledgeable about English language in general) learn new vocabulary words and obscure grammatical rules. A native English speaker with university education, even I continue to be an English language learner (and I will never cease to be).

So, my question is: Is “English Language Learner” truly the best phrase to define our students who speak other languages before English? I truly believe that all of my students, and all members of society, are English Language Learners. Labelling only immigrant families as ELLs supports a power imbalance, placing native English speakers, “those who have already learned all there is to learn about English,” above those still learning it.

EAL hello

So… Which term do I prefer?

I can understand why we have stepped away from the term ESL, as it was most often taken to mean “English as a Second Language,” which was an unfair representation of students for whom English was the third, fourth, fifth, or higher language in their repertoire. If we change the ‘S’ to instead stand for Subsequent, however, this abbreviation becomes more open-ended.

I would argue that EAL meaning “English as an Acquired Language” would apply to every English speaker out there, as we all had to acquire English at some point (whether at age 1 or 15).

Personally, I believe that “EAL” (English as an Additional Language) is the most fitting way to describe these students. It places both English and the preceding language(s) in a positive light. The word “Additional” carries the connotation that it was another language added into the student’s repertoire: a plus, a bonus. It does not undermine the primary language; English is not the language of utmost importance, but another addition into an already rich background. It does not state whether English is the second, third, fourth, fifth language the student learned, but merely that it was not the first. It is for these reasons that I will use EAL as my abbreviation of choice when referring to my students who have added English to theDVDir list of spoken languages.

Put into metaphorical terms, EAL refers to a student’s known languages much like a DVD, with English being the Additional or Bonus Features on the disc. You don’t originally buy the DVD for the Bonus Features, you buy it for the movie (the primary or first known language)! But the Bonus Features are there as a surprise, a little extra treat. Similarly, we have to value students’ mother tongues first and foremost, as they are the Main Feature in the child’s linguistic package.

What are your thoughts on the ESL/EAL/ELL debate? Please leave me a comment to let me know!

Until next time,


stereotype or not?

I took Indigenous Studies 100 in my first semester and it has really opened my eyes in regards to how the average Canadian views Aboriginal people. As budding teachers, we are told that a large percentage of the classes we teach will be made up of students of First Nation descent, so it is important for us to understand how a typically Westernized curriculum and school environment affects children who aren’t in the “normal,” White middle-class category.

I have found though, that I have more questions than answers after taking the course. Because I now view things so differently, I find myself questioning if certain images and depictions are stereotypical and racist, or historically accurate. And even if they ARE historically accurate, is it wrong to depict things this way because it paints Aboriginal people as incapable of evolving, when really, they dress and look like us on an average day?

For example, in my field experience as part of ECS 100, the teacher had a station that included a doll house with furniture and various dolls to choose from. There were 3 dolls (pictured below) that were clearly meant to be an Aboriginal family, consisting of a father with long hair in traditional dress, a mother with similar animal-skin-looking attire, and a baby, swaddled in the same type of material.

I loved the fact that the teacher had incorporated the Indigenous dolls but then found myself asking if this was giving the children the wrong impression about Indigenous people, who, to my knowledge, don’t generally walk around in animal-skin clothing on a regular day. So even though the attire may have been historically accurate, would these toys be considered as playing into a stereotype?

The reason I ask is because, in our INDG class, our professor brought up an issue about a child’s Halloween costume named “Sassy Squaw,” which of course, automatically sets off an alarm bell in my head because of the derogatory term it incorporates. On top of the name, the costume was rather revealing and short, especially for a child. This blatant depiction of Indigenous females as sexual objects is obviously racist.

But what about other girls who dress up in Indigenous costumes for Halloween (I knew a girl in high school who sported a Pocahontas costume one year, although that costume was also rather risqué)? If they wear traditional attire, is it still a violation of the race’s culture? Or is it just white people who can’t dress up in those costumes because it is something they’re not and would be considered to have a mocking undertone? Or should all costumes of this nature not be allowed because they carry so many misguided ideas thanks to television and films?

This is an issue I really struggle with because I am afraid that if I incorporate images or some other use of Indigenous culture or people in my classroom, that it will be misinterpreted as racist. I hope that in my continuing studies, I will find the answer to these queries.