English as a Lingua Franca - A critical view

15

MA TEACHING ENGLISH TO SPEAKERS OF OTHER LANGUAGES
MA TESOL
2016-17

LANGUAGE AND LEARNING: DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS (7TESL003W.1)
UNIT 1
Student: Vitória Prochet Student number: 160823571
NAME OF LECTURER MARKING THE ESSAY: Richard PATERSON






CRITICALLY EVALUATE THE IDEA OF ENGLISH AS AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE (EIL) AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING.

Nowadays it is very common to have contact with English even in countries where it is not considered the first language. English has entered the business world, tourism, academia, and international organizations, so the number of Non-native Speakers (NNS) of English has been impressively increasing (Selvi and Yazan, 2013; Kachru, 1990). According to Crystal (2003) the number of non-native speakers of English in the world was three times the number of Native English speakers in 2003, with a tendency to continue growing along with the importance of English in the world. Thus, he recognizes the importance of a world language. To him, it "presents us with unprecedented possibilities for mutual understanding, and thus enables us to find fresh opportunities for international cooperation" (ibid:xiii).
For this reason in the past few years researchers have been dedicating themselves to the study of English as an International Language (EIL). Seidlhofer (2005) defines EIL as "a way of referring to communication in English between speakers with different first languages" (ibid:339). With the appropriation of the language by non-native speakers, EIL is now being perceived as a language independent of a country and impossible for anyone to claim ownership over it (Crystal, 2002; Dewey, 2006). Therefore, new approaches to the teaching of English must be discussed, differentiating EIL from English as a Second Language (ESL) or English as a Foreign Language (EFL) (McKay, 2003).
However, since English is now seen as being detached from a specific country, it is difficult to define which variety of English is the most appropriate one when it comes to teaching. Some researchers believe received pronunciation should be used in the classroom, and defend that English should be taught by Native or Nativelike speakers. Yet, the research about EIL and the new arising varieties of English in the world believe native speakers should not be perceived as a standard model for the teaching of English anymore, considering that most interactions nowadays are given between NNSs.
Although researchers like Kachru have started research on this topic in the 1980's, this type of view towards language was marginalized by applied linguists for many years. Only in the 2000's EIL came to surface again, this time with more strength and more theorists analysing it (Crystal, 2003; Dewey, 2006; McKay, 2003; Selvi and Yazan, 2013) Thus, it is important to analyse and contribute with the existing body of research about new EIL approaches for teaching. In order to do that, this essay is divided in three parts. Firstly, a theoretical and critical discussion about EIL will be presented, through literature review about the topic. Secondly, a discussion about the importance of EIL in the world nowadays will take place. Finally, the implications of EIL for English pedagogy will be brought to light.
In order to best define EIL, it is necessary to observe where, why, and by whom it is spoken. Kachru (1990) posits the expansion of English can be seen into three concentric circles: the Inner Circle, which is the smallest one, containing the countries where English is spoken as a native language, such as the U.S.A., Australia and the U.K. Around it there is the Outer Circle, representing countries where English is spoken as a second language, such as India, Singapore and Nigeria. The biggest circle is called the Expanding Circle, where countries which do not speak English as a native or second language, such as Brazil, Japan and China are placed. From this representation it is possible to perceive how English is spreading around the world.
This spread is what gives English the title of a global language. Crystal (2002) argues that a language cannot be seen as global considering only the countries where the language is official, but to obtain global status, non-native speaking countries "must decide to give [the language] a special place within their communities, even though they may have few (or no) mother-tongue speakers" (ibid:4), which, nowadays, is the case of English. According to Selvi and Yazan (2013:2), "today English is used on all seven continents, is an official or second language in more than 100 countries, and is used as an official language in more than 85% of international organizations."
Based on the importance and power English has acquired in the modern world, Crystal (2002) described some characteristics that can be analysed to help define what a World Language is. The first characteristic is to check the importance the language is given as the official means of mass communication and official government settings, that is, in how many countries it is made the official language. Another characteristic is if the language is seen as a priority for foreign language learning in countries where it is not the official language. English is not only the most adopted official language, being official to over seventy countries in the world, but also it is the most taught foreign language in more than one hundred countries.
Consequently, in the last five decades most research done related to Second Language Acquisition (SLA), Sociolinguistics, Translation and Applied Linguistics have been directed towards English, which characterizes it as the "major language of our time" (Kachru, 1990:180). Kachru (ibid) adds that English has been "creating a class of people who have greater intellectual power in multiple spheres of language use unsurpassed by any single language before". Thus, to him, English is the language of instruction, academia, and higher social hierarchy people.
However, with globalization, it is possible to watch how English moved from being a higher level language to everyday language. Selvi and Yazan (2013) posit that this movement has brought "an unparalleled global interest in the teaching and learning of English" (ibid:3). In addition to that, Crystal (2002) believed the rise of English into its global position, and also the implementation of the internet, which was one of the causes for the "proliferation of new linguistic varieties" (ibid:ix), made the 1990's a revolutionary decade for the research about world Englishes.
Yet, Seidlhofer (2004) argues that the term EIL can be misleading. To her, it implies that there is only one variation of International English, which she does not believe to be the case. The use of English by so many people, with different social and cultural backgrounds brought the language "a unique cultural pluralism, and a variety of speech fellowships" (Kachru, 1990:181), which cannot be disregarded. Crystal (2002) claims that anyone who learns the language "has a share in it" (ibid:2), and so they can use it in any way they want. As Dewey (2006) perceived, students of English as a foreign language tend to produce language differently from formal standards, however, it does not influence communication. This pluralism can be seen as the responsible for the rise of several English languages (McArthur, 1987).
Although there is some disagreement towards the use on the term Englishes, in the plural, Dewey (2006) explains why it is possible to consider English a set of different varieties of language. According to him, it is seen "firstly as a general term to describe all varieties of English worldwide, and secondly it can be used more specifically to describe the indigenized or nativized varieties spoken in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, such as Indian English, Singapore English, and so on" (ibid:12). From this point of view, it is possible to see these varieties of English as languages on their own, considering there are native speakers.
There are some hypotheses concerning the reason why English has become a global language. Crystal's (2002) refutes the idea that it could be due to English being easier to learn, with simpler structures and grammar. He arguments that Latin was once a world language even though it had complex grammar. Instead, he postulates that English is a global language because of "the power of its people – especially their political and military power" (ibid:9). Also, he mentions the importance of economic power and industries, international business, mass media and culture for turning English into a world language. What happened with English was that its main speaking countries, the U.K. and the U.S.A., have been dominating economy, trading and cultural fields of the world for a very long time (Dewey, 2006; Crystal, 2002; Selvi and Yazan, 2013, Jenkins, 2009).
Although English is the most spoken language in the world, it is not unusual to perceive restlessness in non-native speakers when the matter is learning it. Crystal (2002) posits that although non-native speakers feel the pressure to learn the language and be able to communicate in many spheres, they are still demotivated because it is difficult to learn and, even though some learners manage to get to a fluent level, they still feel disadvantaged when compared to speakers of English as a first language.
For this reason Kachru's (1990) before mentioned concentric circles model has been target to much criticism. According to Dewey (2006), Kachru denominates the circles in a rather exclusive way, placing the native English speaking countries in the middle, as if native speakers were the centre of a language, and excluding those which are located in the periphery. When it comes to EIL, this concept is not true. Dewey (2006) believes this view "undermines any attempt by L2 speakers to appropriate the language for their own purposes of expression and identity" (ibid:11).
The criticism towards Kachru's (1990) concentric circles theory is promoting a shift in view. There is a discussion about the preciseness of the terms ESL and EFL being related to the outer and expanding circles. According to Dewey (2006), it is clear that EFL is correctly connected to the expanding circle, however, the term 'foreign' "is usually only challenged with regard to outer circle use of English, but not brought into question in relation to expanding circle countries" (ibid:20). Smith (1983) adds that the term EIL should be a new way of describing both, ESL and EFL, considering that the patterns of interaction in English have now changed, and interaction is now given mostly between NNSs and NSs. He understands English to be now used in so many different settings and in so many different countries that it is impossible to call it a foreign language. So the question of ownership of the language is, once more, being questioned.
Smith (1983) also believes NSs who will be interacting with NNSs should study EIL in order to train their linguistic skills and avoid miscommunication. He posits that these miscommunication issues arise as results of two false common beliefs: the first one is the necessity of native knowledge of grammar, vocabulary and phonology for a conversation to flow; the second one is the belief that all English speakers speak the same way. There have been studies about the influence of L1 in different varieties of English (Jenkins, 2006; Seidlhoffer, 2004). The studies found that there are four main levels in which these varieties differentiate: "pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, and discourse styles" (Selvi and Yazan, 2013). These studies are helpful for teaching not only non-native speakers, but also for training native speakers to interact with a range of different varieties of English.
Moreover, Howatt and Widdowson (2004) posit that the spread of English around the world is shifting the perception of both, teachers and students towards the language. He believes that now the teaching of language should not take into consideration only native speakers of English anymore. With globalization, most interactions which use English as a medium of communication happen between two or more NNS, so the preoccupation with accuracy is not considered the most important aspect of teaching and learning English. This view "allows us to describe the language more from the viewpoint of those who are going to learn and use it" (Dewey, 2006:10). In other words, EIL considers comprehensible output and communication the key points of English teaching, rather than grammar.
Smith (1986) proposes that this shift in perception of EIL must impact in three levels: affective, structural and rhetorical. In the affective level a shift is needed in the way teachers and students perceive NS and NNS teachers. The rhetorical level considers style and phonological features. The researcher believes that the model should not be based on NS English anymore. Instead, it should take context into consideration, prioritizing mutual intelligibility rather than norms and rules of the language. These three levels affect the way English is taught versus the way it should be taught nowadays. Even though Smith proposed these changes in 1986, applied linguists are still reluctant to change the terms referring to EIL.
Based on Smith's (ibid) previous idea of EIL, Seidlhofer (2005) debated the approaches to teaching of English and syllabi development as having considered a standard language, which is not appropriate anymore. According to her, "there is still a tendency for native speakers to be regarded as custodians over what is acceptable usage" (ibid:339). However, with the shifts in use of the language, a shift in pedagogy should also take place, not considering only the L1 varieties of English anymore, but expanding it into the target the student wishes to achieve in terms of language awareness and use (Selvi and Yazan, 2013).
Although the discussion towards ownership of English is expanding, there is still the question of what is Standard English. Dewey (2006) acknowledges that even though there is an immense amount of Standard Englishes, student choices are usually only introduced to two: British or American. According to him, the choice will not only involve rules or language, "it will also involve the way in which the language is `packaged' by national institutions and organisations" (ibid:24). In other words, the culture behind the language is also a very important factor when it comes to choosing a variety.
Thus, in the context of EIL this belief can be challenged. Selvi and Yazan (2013) agree that a reconsideration of ownership of the language must take place. They add that a trend of moving away from focusing only in the two main varieties of English (British and American) has been taking place, and students are now being presented with multiple varieties "determined by learners' needs and goals in learning the language." (ibid:4) According to Seidlhofer (2005:339), "English is being shaped at least as much by its non-native speakers as by its native speakers." Thus, if English is now seen as an international language and is owned by different people, with different cultural backgrounds, it is not possible to attribute the language to a specific culture anymore (ibid). So, according to her, culture should not be seen as relevant to the teaching of English in the current context of the language.
However, McKay (2003) sees user's cultural content as one of the most important factors for EIL pedagogy, alongside with appropriate use of English. To her, "intelligibility (recognizing expression), comprehensibility (knowing the meaning of the expression) and interpretability (knowing what the expression signifies in a particular sociocultural context)" (ibid:52) are now central in the pedagogy of English and presented as a contrast to standard varieties. Selvi and Yazan (2013) emphasize that "this development increased the ever-existing reliance on teachers as agents of curricular reforms and decision-makers who are cognizant of learners' needs, local dynamics, global contexts, and realities of EIL" (ibid:6). Therefore, the research about new approaches to the teaching of EIL is important to understand and achieve students' objectives in learning the language, making the class more student-centered.
These studies have been bringing some consequences to teaching EIL. With base on Kachru's (1990) circles, it is possible to define some terms regarding the teaching of English. Dewey (2006) defines the teaching of English as a Second Language (ESL) the English that is taught in countries where "the language serves as a medium of communication intranationally, usually for official and institutional functions, as well as being used to refer to the learning of English by minority language groups and immigrant populations in countries such as the UK and the USA" (ibid:10). Therefore, the countries in the inner and outer circles. The term English as a Foreign Language (EFL) is used in countries in the expanding circle, where English is not used as an official language. This notion is vital for understanding the importance of EIL to English teaching nowadays.
Although in applied linguistics the terms EFL and ESL are still widely used, based on all the research about EIL there seems to be a tendency for EIL to substitute both, English as a foreign and second language. It is very common to see very multicultural classrooms, with students who come from all over the world, with all kinds of different linguistic and cultural backgrounds together for the same objective: learning the modern world language. As Jenkins (2006:161) explains,
anyone participating in international communication needs to be familiar with, and have in their linguistic repertoire for use, as and when appropriate, certain forms (phonological, lexicogrammatical, etc.) that are widely used and widely intelligible across groups of English speakers from different first language backgrounds.

However, all these students have different needs in terms of skills and pedagogy.
Fortunately, scholars have been studying the systematicity regarding learner's errors (Dewey, 2006; Odley and Selinker, 1993; Jenkins, 2000). These types of research can help the teacher predict what errors students from different linguistic backgrounds can have, and consequently focus on which learner output items to reformulate or correct in class. Jenkins (2006) states that "ELF does not at all discourage speakers from learning and using their local variety in local communicative contexts, regardless of whether this is an inner, outer, or expanding circle English" (ibid:161).
On her corpus-based research, Jenkins (2006) understands that, although English language materials have been much based on standard English varieties, such as British and American, in the last fifteen years there has been a "small but growing availability of corpora that include outer circle Englishes, with expanding circle corpora in the pipeline" (ibid:163). Now EIL teachers can count on dictionaries and grammar books which include words from different outer and expanding circles varieties of English.
However, Jenkins (2006) identifies standard English prevalence among teachers of English today. She believes that although there is a growing debate about the ownership of English, it is still implied that the language belongs to those in the inner circle, such as British and American, and teachers and students still prefer standard English to other varieties. According to her, "with standard American or British English being the only varieties considered worth learning in many parts of the world, then equally, those considered best-placed to teach English in those places are its native speakers" (ibid:172).
Jenkins (2006) also brings a serious problem in the world of English teaching nowadays, which is the lack of training of English teachers. The search for standard English variations in countries of the outer and expanding circles has brought a certain elevated social status for NS teachers. Most of these teachers teach English abroad without any training in teaching and rely on their "nativeness" to teach the language. The researcher explains that "employers continue to argue that they are obliged to provide the (native speaker) teachers that learners (and in many cases, their parents) prefer" (ibid:172). This spotlight on native teachers has been outshining NNS who have proper English teaching training, but are marginalised for not being NS.
However, with recent research on EIL, the importance of NNS teachers is being made clear, once there is a growing necessity of learning not only one, but many different varieties of English in order to succeed (ibid). As Jenkins (ibid:174) states, "this exposure is likely to encourage learners' confidence in their own English varieties, and in turn reduce the linguistic capital that many learners still believe native-like English to possess." Thus, it is believed that the contact with other NNS is beneficial to students' confidence in their own linguistic abilities and, therefore, beneficial to the process of learning.
Moreover, when it comes to approaches to teach EIL, Jenkins (ibid) believes "it is considered more important for speakers of WEs and ELF to be able to adjust their speech in order to be intelligible to interlocutors from a wide range of first language backgrounds, most of whom are not inner circle native speakers" (ibid:174). She also states the necessity of an accommodation for intercultural communication. In other words, to her communication is the key word for English teaching in the EIL context. It leads to the discussion about the communicative approach.
In summary, EIL teachers should be aware of characteristic errors students with different linguistic backgrounds may have in order to make the correct decision about what interventions to make while teaching English. Also, an important point is the flexibility a language teacher should have when it comes to accepting different linguistic cultures in students' speech. Another important issue is whether to teach or not the standard varieties of English when it comes to grammar and vocabulary. These issues match the description of the communicative approach. According to Richards (2006:2), "Communicative language teaching sets as its goal the teaching of communicative competence." This perception fits EIL teaching profile, considering it focuses more on communication goals rather than grammatical standard variation language teaching.
Finally, it is undeniable that English has become a world language and the growing body of research on the topic proves its importance for the modern world. English has been touching the lives of people from all Kachru's circles for at least the last two decades. Thus, it should be treated as it belongs to the world, rather than to NS only. However, the ongoing discussion on EIL is recent and, therefore, more study about the topic is necessary.
Also, the matter of teaching EIL is an important topic. An EIL teacher should be able to admit different cultural backgrounds in the classroom and focus mainly on communicative skills rather than grammar of a standard English. Although there are many teachers with different cultural backgrounds who are trained to deal with these differences in the classroom, one of the main issues suffered by NNS teachers nowadays is the belief that only NS teachers, even though with no formal teaching and pedagogy training, can deliver the proper standard language. Thus, even though there are many benefits to having a NNS teacher, these are still being marginalized, which is not fair, considering they have understanding of approaches to teaching EIL.
Thus, the growing demand for EIL nowadays portray a necessity for more research in the field, considering students' needs and cultural background. Also, more approaches to teaching EIL should be discussed, as well as the belief of superiority of NS to NNS teachers. Students' goals and needs have changed in recent years, and so should the obsolete pedagogy used for teaching English everywhere.
Word count: 3767


Bibliography
Crystal, D. (2003) English as a global language. 2nd edn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dewey, M. (2006) English as a Lingua Franca: an empirical study of innovation in lexis and grammar. PHD Thesis thesis. London. .
Howatt, A.P.R. and Widdowson, H.G. (2004) A history of English language teaching. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA.
Jenkins, J. (2000) The phonology of English as an international language. New models, new norms, new goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2006) 'Current Perspectives on Teaching World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca', TESOL QUARTERLY, 40(1), pp. 157–181.
Jenkins, J. (2009) 'Who Speaks English Today?', in World Englishes. A Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge, pp. 15–24.
Kachru, B.B. (1990) 'World Englishes and applied linguistics', World Englishes, 9(1), pp. 3–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-971x.1990.tb00683.x.
McArthur, T. (1987) 'The English languages?', English Today, 3(03), p. 9. doi: 10.1017/s0266078400013511.
McKay, S.L. (2003) 'Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and perspectives', The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 7(1).
Odlin, T. and Selinker, L. (1993) 'Rediscovering Interlanguage', Language, 69(2), p. 379. doi: 10.2307/416543.
Richards, J.C. (2006) Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seidlhofer, B. (2004) '10. Research perspectives on teaching Englishas a Lingua Franca', Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24. doi: 10.1017/s0267190504000145.
Seidlhofer, B. (2005) 'English as a lingua franca', ELT Journal, 59(4), pp. 339–341. doi: 10.1093/elt/cci064.
Selvi, A.F. and Yazan, B. (2013) 'The Global Spread of English and the Need for EIL Pedagogy', in Teaching English as an International Language. TESOL International assossiation, pp. 2–10.
Smith, L.E. (1983) Readings in English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.