The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca
The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) provides an accessible, authoritative and comprehensive introduction to the main theories, concepts, contexts and applications of this rapidly developing field of study. Including 47 state-of-the-art chapters from leading international scholars, the handbook covers key concepts, regional spread, linguistic features and communication processes, domains and functions, ELF in academia, ELF and pedagogy and future trends. This handbook is key reading for all those engaged in the study and research of English as a lingua franca and world/global Englishes within English language, applied linguistics and education. Jennifer Jenkins holds the Chair of Global Englishes at the University of Southampton where she is also founding director of the Centre for Global Englishes. Will Baker is Deputy Director of the Centre for Global Englishes and convenor of MA Global Englishes, University of Southampton. Martin Dewey is Senior Lecturer at King’s College London, where he is Programme Director for the MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT. Contributors: Michaela Albl-Mikasa, Nuha Alharbi, Ishamina Athirah Gardiner, Mariko Baird, Robert Baird, Will Baker, Yasemin Bayyurt, Beyza Björkman, Luciana Cabrini Simões Calvo, Suresh Canagarajah, Alessia Cogo, James F. D’Angelo, David Deterding, Martin Dewey, Susanne Ehrenreich, Michele Salles El Kadri, Rinelle Evans, Nicola Galloway, Telma Gimenez, Maria Grazia Guido, Christopher Hall, Luke Harding, Bruce Horner, Juliane House, Julia Hüttner, Niina Hynninen, Masakazu Iino, Jennifer Jenkins, Christopher Jenks, Anne Kankaanranta, Daisuke Kimura, Andy Kirkpatrick, Diane Larsen- Freeman, Constant Leung, Jo Lewkowicz, Haibo Liu, Enric Llurda, Leena Louhiala- Salminen, Tim McNamara, Anna Mauranen, Sonia Morán Panero, Kumiko Murata, Ruth Osimk-Teasdale, Laura Patsko, Kaisa S. Pietikäinen, Marie-Luise Pitzl, Patricia Pullin, Elina Ranta, Chittima Sangiamchit, Barbara Seidlhofer, Tamah Sherman, Elana Shohamy, Nicos Sifakis, Ute Smit, Anna Solin, Ayako Suzuki, Christa van der Walt, Ying Wang, Henry Widdowson, Ursula Wingate, Sue Wright, Melissa H. Yu and Lin Zheng.
Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics
Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics provide comprehensive overviews of the key topics in applied linguistics. All entries for the handbooks are specially commissioned and written by leading scholars in the field. Clear, accessible and carefully edited Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics are the ideal resource for both advanced undergraduates and postgraduate students. For a full list of titles in this series, please visit www.routledge.com/Routledge-Handbooksin-Applied-Linguistics/book-series/RHAL The Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes Edited by Ken Hyland and Philip Shaw The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication Edited by Alexandra Georgakopoulou and Tereza Spilioti The Routledge Handbook of Literacy Studies Edited by Jennifer Rowsell and Kate Pahl The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting Edited by Holly Mikkelson and Renée Jourdenais The Routledge Handbook of Hispanic Applied Linguistics Edited by Manel Lacorte The Routledge Handbook of Educational Linguistics Edited by Martha Bigelow and Johanna Ennser-Kananen The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics Edited by Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson
The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca
Edited by Jennifer Jenkins, Will Baker and Martin Dewey
First published 2018 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business 2018 selection and editorial matter, Jennifer Jenkins, Will Baker and Martin Dewey; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Jennifer Jenkins, Will Baker and Martin Dewey to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record this title has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-85532-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-71717-3 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Swales & Willis Ltd, Exeter, Devon, UK
Contents
List of figures ix List of tables x Acknowledgements xi Permissions xii List of contributors xiii Introduction
1
PART I Conceptualising and positioning ELF
5
1 Conceptualising ELF Anna Mauranen
7
2 English as a lingua franca and intercultural communication Will Baker
25
3 Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca Susanne Ehrenreich
37
4 Complexity and ELF Diane Larsen-Freeman
51
5 English language teaching: pedagogic reconnection with the social dimension 61 Constant Leung and Jo Lewkowicz 6 Cognitive perspectives on English as a lingua franca Christopher J. Hall
74
7 Standard English and the dynamics of ELF variation Barbara Seidlhofer
85
8 Historical perspectives on ELF H.G. Widdowson
101
v
Contents
PART II The regional spread of ELF
113
9 ELF and the EU/wider Europe Tamah Sherman
115
10 English as a lingua franca in the Gulf Cooperation Council states Nuha Alharbi
126
11 The development of English as a lingua franca in ASEAN Andy Kirkpatrick
138
12 Chinese English as a lingua franca: an ideological inquiry Ying Wang
151
13 The status of ELF in Japan James F. D’Angelo
165
14 ELF in Brazil: recent developments and further directions Telma Gimenez, Michele Salles El Kadri and Luciana Cabrini Simões Calvo
176
15 Is English the lingua franca of South Africa? Christa van der Walt and Rinelle Evans
186
PART III ELF characteristics and processes
199
16 Analysing ELF variability Ruth Osimk-Teasdale
201
17 The pragmatics of ELF Alessia Cogo and Juliane House
210
18 Pronunciation and miscommunication in ELF interactions: an analysis of initial clusters Ishamina Athirah Gardiner and David Deterding
224
19 Creativity, idioms and metaphorical language in ELF Marie-Luise Pitzl
233
20 Grammar in ELF Elina Ranta
244
21 Morphosyntactic variation in spoken English as a lingua franca interactions: revisiting linguistic variety Beyza Björkman vi
255
Contents
22 Language norms in ELF Niina Hynninen and Anna Solin
267
23 Uncooperative lingua franca encounters Christopher Jenks
279
PART IV Contemporary domains and functions
293
24 Translingual practice and ELF Daisuke Kimura and Suresh Canagarajah
295
25 ELF in the domain of business—BELF: what does the B stand for? Anne Kankaanranta and Leena Louhiala-Salminen
309
26 ELF in social contexts Kaisa S. Pietikäinen
321
27 Humour in ELF interaction: a powerful, multifunctional resource in relational practice Patricia Pullin
333
28 ELF in electronically mediated intercultural communication Chittima Sangiamchit
345
29 ELF and multilingualism Alessia Cogo
357
30 ELF and translation/interpreting Michaela Albl-Mikasa
369
PART V ELF in academia
385
31 Beyond monolingualism in higher education: a language policy account Ute Smit
387
32 EMI in higher education: an ELF perspective Kumiko Murata and Masakazu Iino
400
33 Written academic English as a lingua franca Bruce Horner
413
34 Transforming higher education language and literacy policies: the contribution of ELF Ursula Wingate
427
vii
Contents
PART VI ELF, policy and pedagogy
439
35 ELF and teacher education Martin Dewey and Laura Patsko
441
36 ELF-aware teaching, learning and teacher development Nicos Sifakis and Yasemin Bayyurt
456
37 ELF and ELT teaching materials Nicola Galloway
468
38 ELF and Content and Language Integrated Learning Julia Hüttner
481
39 ELT and ELF in the East Asian contexts Ayako Suzuki, Haibo Liu and Melissa H. Yu
494
40 Language as system and language as dialogic creativity: the difficulties of teaching English as a lingua franca in the classroom Sue Wright and Lin Zheng 41 English language teachers and ELF Enric Llurda PART VII ELF into the future: trends, debates, predictions
506 518
529
42 English as a lingua franca: changing ‘attitudes’ Robert Baird and Mariko Baird
531
43 ELF in migration Maria Grazia Guido
544
44 Global languages and lingua franca communication Sonia Morán Panero
556
45 Language assessment: the challenge of ELF Luke Harding and Tim McNamara
570
46 ELF and critical language testing Elana Shohamy
583
47 The future of English as a lingua franca? Jennifer Jenkins
594
Index 606 viii
Figures
10.1 19.1 28.1 30.1 35.1 36.1
Map of the Gulf Cooperation Council states Idiom building and re-metaphorization A wolf in sheep’s clothing Bibliometric analysis as at 31 December 2015 Example task created for the input session on ELF The three phases of ELF-aware teacher education
127 237 352 371 447 462
ix
Tables
15.1 Spread of English across provinces 187 15.2 Spread of English across racial groups 187 18.1 Classification of factors that caused the 321 tokens of misunderstandings to occur 227 18.2 Tokens with simplified initial clusters that are not understood 229 18.3 Misunderstood words with changed initial clusters and no simplification 230 21.1 Feature overlap reported in WE varieties and in ELF usage in general linguistic categories 258 21.2 Feature overlap between ELF usage reported in 59 WE varieties 259 25.1 Characteristics of business knowledge as perceived by practitioners 315 25.2 CoP dimensions in relation to the characteristics of and perspectives to business knowledge 317 27.1 Contexts of examples of humour in authentic interactions 335 35.1 IATEFL and TESOL conference sessions with an explicit focus on ELF 452 37.1 Global Englishes language teaching (GELT) 472 40.1 Course content in 2001 512 40.2 Course content in 2016 514 44.1 Example of global languages ranking by L1 population indicator 558 44.2 Example of global languages ranking by internet users 558 44.3 Example of rankings by estimated figures of non-native speaker ‘learners’ 559 45.1 Illustrative studies addressing ELF concerns in language assessment 573 45.2 Features of a purpose-built ELF assessment task 577 45.3 Competence areas for a holistic rubric 578
x
Acknowledgements
The editors would like above all to thank the authors of the chapters of this handbook for committing to this project from the start, and (in most cases!) sending us their contributions in good time. Together they have made this first ever Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca a rich and comprehensive resource that will remain so for years to come. We would also like to thank Louisa Semlyen and Laura Sandford at Routledge for their encouragement and support throughout all stages of the handbook’s development. Jennifer Jenkins Will Baker Martin Dewey
xi
Permissions
The authors, editors and publisher would like to thank the following copyright holders for permission to reprint the following material: Excerpt from ‘Little Gidding’ from Four Quartets by T.S. Eliot. Copyright 1940 by T.S. Eliot. Copyright renewed 1968 by Esme Valerie Eliot. Used by permission of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All Rights Reserved. Evans, Vyvyan, an extract from ‘Does emoji spell the death of language?’, 21stcentury. co.uk, 7 December 2015, reproduced by kind permission of the author and Clifford White, the editor. Galloway, Nicola, a table from N. Galloway and H. Rose 2015, Introducing Global Englishes, Reproduced by kind permission of Routledge. Harding, Luke, two tables from ‘Adaptability and ELF communication: The next steps for communicative language testing?’ In J. Mader and Z. Urkun, eds, 2015. Language testing: Current trends and future needs. IATEFL TEASIG. Reproduced by kind permission of the author. Kirkpatrick, Andy, a set of principles drawn from Kirkpatrick, Andy (2012) ‘English as an Asian lingua franca: The lingua franca approach and implications for language education policy’. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1 (1): 121–140. Reproduced by kind permission of De Gruyter Mouton. Extract from The Kingman Report: Report of the Committee of the Inquiry into the Teaching of English Language. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 1988. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-governmentlicence/version/3/ Every effort has been made to contact copyright holders. Please advise the publisher of any errors or omissions, and these will be corrected in subsequent editions.
xii
Contributors
Michaela Albl-Mikasa is Professor of Interpreting Studies at ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences. Her research and publications focus on ITELF (interpreting, translation and English as a lingua franca), the cognitive foundations of (consecutive) interpreting, the development of interpreting expertise, and medical interpreting. Nuha Alharbi is Assistant Professor at King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. She holds a PhD in Language, Discourse and Communication from King’s College London. Her main research interest is intercultural communication in business settings (Saudi multinational corporations), particularly through the use of BELF. Mariko Baird is a Subject Manager of Language and Literature for International Baccalaureate. Her research interests lie in the areas of language and identification, conceptualisations of language and grounded perspectives on English as a lingua franca. Robert Baird is a Teaching Fellow at the University of Southampton. He is one of the founding members of the Centre for Global Englishes there and is editor of their working papers, ‘Englishes in Practice’. His research interests revolve around complexity and performativity in ELF, intercultural communication, academic literacies and language education. Will Baker is Deputy Director of the Centre for Global Englishes and convenor of MA Global Englishes, University of Southampton. He is co-editor of the book series ‘Developments in English as a Lingua Franca’ and author of the monograph Culture and Identity through English as Lingua Franca (2015; both De Gruyter Mouton). Yasemin Bayyurt, PhD, is a Full Professor of Applied Linguistics at Boğaziçi University, Turkey. Her research focuses on EIL/ELF-aware pedagogy, ESOL teacher education, intercultural communication and mobile language learning. Her publications include articles in international refereed/indexed journals, book chapters and edited books. Beyza Björkman is Associate Professor of English, at the Department of English at Stockholm University, Sweden. Her general research interests include the use of English as a lingua franca for academic purposes, spoken academic discourse in general, academic literacy, linguistic equality, language change and language policy. Luciana Cabrini Simões Calvo is a Professor at the State University of Maringá, Brazil and holds a PhD in Language Studies from the State University of Londrina, Brazil. Her research interests include teacher education, foreign language teaching and learning, communities of practice and English as a lingua franca. xiii
Contributors
Suresh Canagarajah is Erle Sparks Professor of Applied Linguistics and English at Pennsylvania State University. His recent monograph, Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations (Routledge, 2013), has received outstanding book awards from the American Association for Applied Linguistics, British Association for Applied Linguistics and Modern Language Association. Alessia Cogo works as Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at Goldsmiths, University of London. Her current research concerns ELF pragmatic and multilingual practices in professional and academic contexts, and implications for language teaching and teacher education. She is co-founder and co-convenor of the AILA REN on ELF (english-lingua-franca.org). James F. D’Angelo is Professor and Chair of the Department of World Englishes, Chukyo University. He is Editor-in-Chief of Routledge’s Asian Englishes, His work has appeared in World Englishes, English World-Wide, and edited book collections. He holds an MBA from Boston University and a PhD from North-West University, South Africa. David Deterding is a Professor at Universiti Brunei Darussalam where he teaches phonetics, Malay-English translation, forensic linguistics and the history of English. His research has focused on describing the pronunciation of English in South-East Asia and analysing misunderstandings in ELF. Martin Dewey is Senior Lecturer at King’s College London, where he is programme director for the MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT. His research focuses on ELF and the globalisation of communication, particularly exploring the impact of ELF on language teacher education. He has presented and published widely on this work. Susanne Ehrenreich is Professor of Applied Linguistics at the Technical University of Dortmund, Germany. Her research interests and publications about ELF include international business, communities of practice, pragmatics and the pedagogical implications of ELF. She is co-editor of the Journal of English as a Lingua Franca special issue on ‘Teaching (B)ELF and/or Intercultural Communication?’ (2015). Michele Salles El Kadri is a Professor in the Foreign Language Department at the State University of Londrina (Brazil) and holds a doctorate and master’s degree in Language Studies. Her research interests include teacher education, English as a lingua franca (co-teaching, co-generative dialogue) and technologies in the teaching of English. Rinelle Evans is an Associate Professor and Rated Researcher in the Faculty of Education, University of Pretoria (South Africa) and holds a doctorate in curriculum and instructional design. She obtained a master’s degree in teaching English to speakers of other languages from the University of Birmingham, UK and has published several textbooks and support material for English second-language learners. Nicola Galloway is a Lecturer at The University of Edinburgh, where she teaches a course on Global Englishes for Language Teaching. Nicola holds a PhD from the University of Southampton and is co-author of Introducing Global Englishes (Routledge, 2015; with Heath Rose).
xiv
Contributors
Ishamina Athirah Gardiner conducted her PhD research on misunderstandings by Bruneians when talking to people from elsewhere, and much of her research involves analysis of the pronunciation of English in Brunei. She is now an Adjunct Lecturer at Universiti Brunei Darussalam. Telma Gimenez is an Associate Professor at the State University of Londrina, Brazil, and is currently serving as the International Relations Advisor to the President of the university. Her research interests are in the area of globalisation, educational policies and English language teaching. Maria Grazia Guido is Full Professor of English Linguistics and Translation at the University of Salento (Italy), where she is Director of the master’s course in ‘Intercultural and Interlingual Mediation in Immigration and Asylum Contexts’ and the international PhD programme (with the University of Vienna) in ‘Modern and Classical Languages, Literatures and Cultures’. Christopher J. Hall is Professor of Applied Linguistics in the School of Languages and Linguistics at York St John University, where he also leads the Language and Identities in InterAction (LIdIA) Research Unit. Luke Harding is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Linguistics and English Language at Lancaster University. His research interests are mainly in language assessment. He has published on listening assessment, pronunciation assessment, language assessment literacy and diagnostic language assessment. Bruce Horner is Endowed Chair in Rhetoric and Composition at the University of Louisville. His recent books include Rewriting Composition: Terms of Exchange (2016) and the co-edited collections Cross-language Relations in Composition (2010) and Reworking English in Rhetoric and Composition: Global Interrogations, Local Interventions (2014), all published by Southern Illinois Press. Juliane House is Emeritus Professor of Applied Linguistics at Hamburg University and Distinguished Professor at Hellenic American University. She holds honorary doctorates from Finnish and Spanish universities. Besides ELF, her research interests are contrastive pragmatics, discourse analysis, politeness and translation. She has published widely in all these areas. Julia Hüttner is Associate Professor in Applied Linguistics at the University of Southampton. Her main research interests lie in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and English medium instruction (EMI), and teacher cognition. Her publications include a monograph, edited volumes and numerous journal articles (e.g. in Classroom Discourse, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, System). Niina Hynninen is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki. She has published on spoken academic ELF, with particular focus on language regulation (including a monograph with De Gruyter Mouton in 2016). Her current research focuses on the regulation of English-medium research writing.
xv
Contributors
Masakazu Iino, PhD (University of Pennsylvania) is a Professor of Sociolinguistics at the School of International Liberal Studies and the Graduate School of International Culture and Communication Studies, Waseda University, Tokyo. Jennifer Jenkins holds the Chair of Global Englishes at the University of Southampton where she is also founding director of the Centre for Global Englishes. She has been researching ELF since 1988 and has authored three monographs and numerous papers on the subject. She is also founding co-editor of the book series Developments in ELF (De Gruyter Mouton). Christopher Jenks teaches at the University of South Dakota. His research interests are related to the global spread of English. He is currently writing a book that examines race and racism in the ELT profession in South Korea. Anne Kankaanranta, PhD, MSc (Econ), works as Senior University Lecturer at the Department of Management Studies of Aalto University School of Business in Helsinki, Finland. Apart from BELF, her research interests include language matters in MNCs and international corporate communication. Daisuke Kimura is a doctoral candidate at Pennsylvania State University. Having learned, used, and taught English in various international settings, he now explores the global spread of English and its interplay with multilingual and nonverbal resources from qualitative research perspectives. Andy Kirkpatrick is Professor in the Department of Languages and Linguistics at Griffith University. His publications include World Englishes: Implications for ELT and International Communication (Cambridge University Press, 2007), English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN: A Multilingual Model (Hong Kong University Press, 2010) and (with Xu Zhichang) Chinese Rhetoric and Writing (Parlor Press, 2012). He is the editor of the Routledge Handbook of World Englishes (Routledge, 2010), and (with Roly Sussex) English as an Asian Language: Implications for Language Education (Springer, 2012). Diane Larsen-Freeman is Professor Emerita of Linguistics and Education at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and former Director of its English Language Institute. She is also a Professor Emerita at the SIT Graduate Institute. Currently she is a Visiting Senior Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania. Constant Leung is Professor of Educational Linguistics in the School of Education, Communication and Society, King’s College London. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences. His research interests include additional/second language curriculum and assessment, language policy and teacher professional development. He is joint editor of Language Assessment Quarterly. Jo Lewkowicz is a visiting lecturer at King’s College, London, and advisor to Warsaw University’s Council for the Certification of Language Proficiency. Her primary research interest is in language testing and assessment and how these impact on and are impacted by the teaching and learning of languages. xvi
Contributors
Haibo Liu is a college English lecturer in Capital Normal University in China. Before starting her teaching career, she completed a doctorate on language policy and practice from a global Englishes perspective at the Centre of Global Englishes, University of Southampton. Enric Llurda, PhD, teaches at the University of Lleida. He has edited and co-authored five books, and has published several papers and book chapters in applied linguistics. His research interests include non-native language teachers, English as a lingua franca, language attitudes, multilingualism, translanguaging, and language education and policy in higher education institutions. Leena Louhiala-Salminen, PhD, MSc (Econ), works as Senior Fellow and Program Director at the Department of Management Studies of Aalto University School of Business in Helsinki, Finland. Apart from BELF, her research interests include the various genres of business and corporate communication. Tim McNamara is Redmond Barry Distinguished Professor in the School of Languages and Linguistics at the University of Melbourne. He is President of the American Association for Applied Linguistics for 2017–2018. His research interests are in language testing and language and identity. Anna Mauranen is Professor of English at the University of Helsinki. Her research focuses on ELF, spoken language, corpus linguistics and academic discourses. She is co-editor of Applied Linguistics, founding co-editor of JELF and director of ELFA and WrELFA corpora language and brain project ‘Chunking in language: units of meaning and processing (CLUMP)’. Her major publications include Exploring ELF (Cambridge University Press, 2012). Sonia Morán Panero is a postdoctoral member of the Centre for Global Englishes research at the University of Southampton. She recently completed a PhD on symbolic aspects of the spread and variability of English as a global language. She has also taught on MA programmes in Applied Linguistics at the University of Southampton. Kumiko Murata is Professor of English and Applied Linguistics at the School of Education and the Graduate School of Education, Waseda University. Her most recent edited book is Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts (2016, Routledge). Ruth Osimk-Teasdale has published on segmental intelligibility in ELF and the challenges of categorising and annotating ELF data. As a researcher for the VOICE project she co-developed a methodology for a part-of-speech tagged version of the corpus (released 2013) completing her PhD in the topic at the University of Vienna in 2015. Laura Patsko is Senior ELT Research Manager for a major publisher and a former English teacher and teacher trainer. Her research interests are in the fields of English as a lingua franca, pronunciation teaching and teacher development Kaisa S. Pietikäinen has recently submitted her PhD at the University of Helsinki. Her research interests include contextual differences in ELF, multilingualism, conversation analysis, and pragmatic development in long-term ELF contexts. She has previously published on multilingual practices and misunderstandings in social ELF. xvii
Contributors
Marie-Luise Pitzl is Postdoc/Assistant Professor at the University of Vienna. She is one of the compilers of the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE), co-founder of the AILA research network on ELF and member of the JELF editorial board. She has published on many ELF topics, including miscommunication, BELF, creativity, idiom, metaphor, corpus building and intercultural understanding. Patricia Pullin is an Associate Professor at the School of Business and Engineering Vaud, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland. Within the Interdisciplinary Institute for Business Development (IIDE), she is currently working on oral ELF discourse. She has published in journals such as JELF and the Journal of Business Communication. Elina Ranta earned her PhD from the University of Tampere on universal features in the grammar of spoken ELF. She has also published on ELF at school contexts and on the use of corpora in ELF research. Chittima Sangiamchit is a PhD student in Applied Linguistics and English Language Teaching (ELT) and also a member of the Centre for Global Englishes of the Faculty of Humanities, University of Southampton, UK. Her research interests include English as a lingua franca (ELF), intercultural communication, electronically mediated intercultural communication (EMIC) and English language teaching (ELT). Barbara Seidlhofer, Professor at the University of Vienna, is the founding director of the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE) and founding editor of JELF. Her research and teaching focus on ELF, intercultural communication and multilingualism and their implications for teacher education. Tamah Sherman is a researcher at the Czech Language Institute, Czech Academy of Sciences. Her research takes a sociolinguistic approach to multilingual institutions and individuals in the Czech Republic, most recently including foreign-owned multinational companies and Vietnamese immigrants. Elana Shohamy is a Professor at Tel Aviv University where she researches co-existence and rights in multilingual societies within language testing, language policy, migration and linguistic landscape. She edited the Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Volume 7 (Springer, 2009 and 2017); authored The Power of Tests (Longman, 2001); Language Policy (Routledge, 2006); was editor of the journal Language Policy (2006–2014); and currently edits the journal Linguistic Landscapes. Nicos Sifakis is an Associate Professor at the School of Humanities of the Hellenic Open University, Greece and directs its MEd in TESOL programme. He holds a PhD in language and linguistics from the University of Essex, UK. He has published extensively on ESOL teacher education, language teaching methodology and distance education. Ute Smit is Associate Professor at the Department of English Studies, University of Vienna. Her research and recent publications focus on ELF in academia, English-medium instruction in higher education and content-and-language-integrated learning (CLIL). She is co-founder of the AILA Research Network on CLIL and Immersion Education. xviii
Contributors
Anna Solin is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki. Her research to date has focused on discourse studies and genre and particularly the study of genre change. She currently directs a research project entitled ‘Language regulation in academia: The shifting norms of English use’. Ayako Suzuki is an Associate Professor in the Department of English Language Education, Tamagawa University, Japan, where she teaches undergraduate and graduate students English for Academic Purposes, Sociolinguistics and Multicultural Education. Her research interest includes ELF and teacher education, language attitude, and teacher development and study abroad. Christa van der Walt is a Professor in the Department of Curriculum Studies, Stellenbosch University, South Africa. She received the prestigious Von Humboldt fellowship twice and is editor of the journal Per Linguam. She is author of the books Multilingual Higher Education: Beyond English-Medium Orientations (2013), and Multilingual Universities in South Africa (2014), co-edited with Liesel Hibbert, both published by Multilingual Matters. Ying Wang is Lecturer in Global Englishes at the University of Southampton. Her research interests include global Englishes, English as a lingua franca and language ideologies, with particular focus on sociolinguistic issues of English in relation to China and Chinese users in the context of globalisation. H. G. Widdowson is Professor Emeritus, University of London, and Honorary Professor at the University of Vienna. He is a founding editor of the journal Applied Linguistics and for 30 years the Applied Linguistics Adviser to Oxford University Press. His main interest has been the relationship between linguistic description and language pedagogy. Ursula Wingate is Senior Lecturer in Language in Education and works in the School of Education, Communication and Society at King’s College London. Ursula’s research interests are in academic literacy, English language policies and practices and language teaching methodology. Her recent publications are concerned with the impact of formative feedback on academic writing, the teaching and learning of argumentation and genre-based approaches to academic literacy instruction. Sue Wright is Professor of Language and Politics at the University of Portsmouth. She is the author of numerous books, articles and chapters on language policy, language choice and language spread. Her most recent publication is the revised second edition of Language Policy and Language Planning (2016, Palgrave). She is co-editor of the trilingual journal, Sociolinguistica and of the long-running Palgrave book series, Language and Globalisation. She is a member of International Panel on Social Progress (ipsp.org). Melissa H. Yu has extensive experience as an EFL teacher in Taiwan and course tutor at UK universities. Currently, she teaches at Newcastle University London. Her research explores TESOL, classroom discourse and international communication in various professional contexts. Lin Zheng is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Portsmouth. She holds an MBA and a PhD in Transnational Higher Education. She teaches business and intercultural communication related subjects to home, EU and international students. Her research interests are mainly inter-cultural communication and ELF. xix
Introduction
The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, or ELF, as it is more often called, begins where it ends: by looking back to ELF’s earliest days. The very final chapter of the handbook, ‘The future of English as a lingua franca?’, starts by outlining ELF’s development from its beginnings – including the first time the acronym ‘ELF’ was actually used in public – to the present day, before gazing into ELF’s hypothetical future. Nobody, myself included, had any idea in those early days that ELF research, let alone the acronym that was then so often met with amusement and comments about ‘little green men’, would grow so rapidly into the vast, widely known and largely accepted research field that it is nowadays and is likely to remain into the foreseeable future. On its journey, ELF has attracted established scholars from a range of other fields, initially and most notably Barbara Seidlhofer and Anna Mauranen, two of the three ‘founding mothers of ELF’ (Jenkins being the third), and compilers of the first two ELF corpora (see Mauranen 2003; Seidlhofer 2001), as well as a plethora of newer ELF scholars, many of whom focused on ELF in their doctoral research and subsequently became established ELF researchers themselves – not least my two co-editors of this handbook, Martin Dewey and Will Baker. Meanwhile, scholars in a range of other language-related disciplines, including several contributors to this handbook, have incorporated ELF into their thinking and research into areas such as language assessment (see Harding and McNamara, Chapter 45 this volume), complexity theory (see Larsen-Freeman, Chapter 4 this volume), and literacy practices (see Wingate, Chapter 34 this volume), to name just three. This is not to suggest that ELF, the phenomenon, did not exist a long time prior to the start of the research that has explored it. As is well-documented (e.g. Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey 2011), English has served as a lingua franca at many times and in many places in its long history, stretching right back to the start of British colonialism in the sixteenth century. Nor is English by any means the only, or even the first, language to serve as a lingua franca, or in other words, a language used for communication among those who do not share a first language (see Morán Panero, Chapter 44 this volume). Various languages have served this purpose over the centuries, including Arabic, French, Greek, Persian, Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish, and several continue to do so. What is different about ELF is the extent of its
1
Introduction
current reach both geographically and in respect of the domains in which it is used, to which the chapters of this ELF handbook are testimony. It is also not to suggest that ELF research has been uncritically accepted and gone unchallenged. Any kind of change tends to attract anxieties, and change relating to language often more so than any other. And ELF, because it promotes such radical change in the way we think about English as well as language more broadly, has received perhaps more than its fair share of criticism. In its earlier days, ELF research was most criticised from two more or less opposing positions: World Englishes and ELT. Somewhat confusingly, while World Englishes scholars tended to argue that ELF researchers were promoting a monolithic kind of English, ELT professionals took the opposite view, that ELF was promoting the idea that ‘anything goes’, with no standards whatsoever (see Seidlhofer, Chapter 7 this volume). Both positions were of course wrong, and it is pleasing to note that many of those who promoted them have, to a great extent, reconciled themselves to ELF thinking over the intervening years. Inevitably, there will always be some who, because ELF does not fit neatly into their own sometimes narrow view of linguistic life, are not able to make the conceptual leap and acknowledge the validity of the ELF paradigm. And there will always be others who simply do not take the trouble to read the ELF literature properly, if at all, before pronouncing on it. To paraphrase the words of the politician, Senator Patrick Moynihan, some of these commentators seem to believe that they are entitled not only to their own opinions, but also to their own facts. Nevertheless, while myths such as ‘ELF excludes native English speakers’ still circulate from time to time, they seem at last to be in decline. Meanwhile, others who have had entirely legitimate concerns about ELF, particularly in its early days when there was talk of ELF ‘varieties’ and ‘codification’, have made substantial contributions to the development of ELF researchers’ thinking. Such scholars have played an important role in reinforcing what was being found in empirical ELF data and contributing to moving ELF research on, for example, to the recognition of variability as a key feature of ELF interactions (see Kimura and Canagarajah, Chapter 24 this volume), and more recently of multilingualism as ELF’s overarching framework rather than one of its characteristics, with translanguaging seen as an intrinsic part of ELF communication. The work of García and Li Wei on translanguaging (e.g. 2014), and research into the multilingual turn, such as the contributions to May (2014), have been particularly influential in these latter respects. Turning now to the 47 chapters of this first ELF handbook, these are divided into seven sections. Part I, ‘Conceptualising and positioning ELF’, consists of eight chapters in five of which leading ELF researchers and commentators, Mauranen (Chapter 1), Baker (Chapter 2), Ehrenreich (Chapter 3), Seidlhofer (Chapter 7), and Widdowson (Chapter 8), consider ELF from a range of perspectives. Meanwhile scholars from different areas of language and linguistics, Larsen-Freeman (Chapter 4), Leung and Lewkowicz (Chapter 5), and Hall (Chapter 6), explore ELF in relation to their own specialisms. The second section of the handbook turns to the regional spread of ELF. By this, the authors do not mean that ELF communication is defined by its geographical position: it is always the case that who is speaking with whom is what counts most in ELF rather than where in the world the speakers happen to be situated. However, in line with Mauranen’s notion of similects (see Chapter 1), it is also evident that speakers of different first (and other) languages are influenced, albeit to a greater or lesser extent, by their language backgrounds. The seven chapters of Part II thus consider how, and how far, ELF is used in the regions on which their chapters focus, along with how it is regarded within their education systems. These chapters range widely, covering Europe (Sherman, Chapter 9), the Gulf States (Alharbi, Chapter 10), the Association of South-East Asian Nations (Kirkpatrick, Chapter 11), China 2
Introduction
(Wang, Chapter 12), Japan (D’Angelo, Chapter 13), Brazil (Gimenez, El Kadri and Calvo, Chapter 14), and South Africa (Van der Walt and Evans, Chapter 15). Part III is concerned with ELF characteristics and processes. It begins with OsimkTeasdale’s chapter on ELF’s variability, moves on to explore the role of pronunciation in miscommunication (Gardiner and Deterding, Chapter 18), then turns to the issue of creativity in ELF (Pitzl, Chapter 19), grammar (Ranta, Chapter 20), and morphosyntactic variation (Björkman, Chapter 21). The final two chapters of Part III consider the question of ELF norms (Hynninen and Solin, Chapter 22) and the rarely discussed issue of uncooperative ELF encounters (Jenks, Chapter 23). We then turn to ELF’s domains and functions. Part IV begins with Chapter 24 by Kimura and Canagarajah in which they examine similarities and differences in approaches taken by scholars researching translingual practices and ELF across a range of domains. Kankaanranta and Louhiala-Salminen (Chapter 25) turn to ELF in the domain of business, or BELF as it has become widely known, and Pietikäinen (Chapter 26) explores ELF in social contexts, focusing specifically on close relationships. The final four chapters of this section relate to humour in ELF (Pullin, Chapter 27), ELF in electronically mediated communication (Sangiamchit, Chapter 28), ELF and multilingualism (Cogo, Chapter 29), and ELF in translation and interpreting (Albl-Mikasa, Chapter 30). Part V is then devoted to one specific domain: ELF in university settings. This section consists of four chapters. First, Smit (Chapter 31) considers academic ELF from the perspective of language policy. Next, in Chapter 32, Murata and Iino consider English medium instruction with a particular focus on Japan. In Chapter 33, Horner tackles the still under-researched area of written academic ELF, and in the final chapter of the section, Wingate (Chapter 34) considers ELF in relation to literacy in higher education. Part VI, which will be of particular interest to readers involved in ELT, then turns our attention to language pedagogy, starting with ELF in, respectively, teacher education (Dewey and Patsko, Chapter 35), and teacher development (Sifakis and Bayyurt, Chapter 36), while Galloway explores ELF in teaching materials (Chapter 37). Hüttner then focuses on the role of ELF in content and language integrated learning, or CLIL (Chapter 38), and is followed by Chapter 39 by Suzuki, Liu and Yu, which looks at ELT and ELF specifically in three Asian contexts, Japan, China and Taiwan. Part VI ends with two wider-ranging chapters. In the penultimate chapter of the section, Wright and Zheng (Chapter 40) consider the difficulty of introducing ELF into the classroom, while Llurda (Chapter 41) ends Part VI by exploring ELF from the teacher’s perspective. The handbook concludes with six chapters that consider a number of trends and debates, and look into the future of ELF. In Chapter 42, Baird and Baird take a critical look at ELF attitude research and propose new ways of framing ELF attitudes. This is followed by Chapter 43, in which Guido discusses a particularly topical issue: migration, and the role of ELF in (mis)communication in immigrant ELF encounters. The focus is turned by Morán Panero in Chapter 44 to ELF among other global languages/lingua francas. We then move on to two chapters that explore in different ways the controversial issue of ELF in respect of language assessment. First, in Chapter 45, Harding and McNamara consider the challenges presented by ELF and suggest possible ways forward, and second, in Chapter 46 Shohamy discusses ELF in respect of critical language testing. Finally, the handbook ends with my own chapter (Chapter 47), in which I take stock of the distance ELF research has travelled since its beginnings, and evaluate a number of predictions about the future of ELF. With such a rich and wide-ranging collection of chapters written by so many key scholars in ELF and from other related areas, it remains only for me to wish you, on behalf of all 3
Introduction
three handbook editors, an enlightening and engrossing read, whether you choose to study the handbook’s contents in detail from beginning to end, or simply to dip into those chapters that align most closely with your own interests. Jennifer Jenkins January 2017
References García O. and L. Wei (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Jenkins, J., A. Cogo and M. Dewey (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching 44 (3), pp. 281–315. Mauranen, A. (2003). The corpus of English as a lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL Quarterly 37 (3), pp. 513–527. May S. ed. (2014). The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual Education. New York and Abingdon: Routledge. Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case of a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11 (2), pp. 133–158.
4
Part I
Conceptualising and positioning ELF
1 Conceptualising ELF Anna Mauranen
Introduction The two remarkable things about English today are that it has spread around the globe like no other language before, and that it is spoken by people for whom it is a second or additional language more than by those for whom it is a first language. Under either of those conditions, let alone both together, one would expect a language to become unusually heterogeneous and variable. This is exactly what we find with English. It is therefore not surprising that we have long been talking about ‘Englishes’ in the plural in English studies (I alone have four books called World Englishes in my bookshelf – not to speak of volumes on ‘global’ or ‘international’ Englishes). At the same time, the latest wave of globalisation has meant an enormous growth in the volume and kinds of mobility – and thereby in language contact. In this, too, English leads the way: it stands out from any other language in having become the global default lingua franca. This has inspired studies of language contact and contact languages in the last few years, with English at the centre (e.g. Schreier and Hundt 2013), or as part of a wider multilingual contact environment (e.g. Siemund, Gogolin, Schultz and Davydova 2013). The significance of ELF transcends the contact of any particular individual or group with English. ELF is not just a contact language where English is a domestic language or otherwise especially salient in a given community, but a non-local lingua franca, the means of communicating between people from anywhere in the world. Neither is its global weight restricted to elite usages in politics, international business or academia, but it is also employed by tourists, migrant workers, asylum seekers and just anyone in their daily lives over digital media. There is not even need to move around physically to be in contact with English. The term lingua franca is normally used to mean a contact language, that is, a vehicular language between speakers who do not share a first language. While some lingua francas are pidgins or jargons that have no native speakers but arise in contact situations as a mixture of two separate languages, others are existing natural languages used for vehicular purposes. Pidgins typically arise for restricted purposes, but any broad-purpose natural language can be used as a lingua franca if speakers have access to it, with no restriction on the uses or functions it can be put to. Although the term lingua franca is today commonly used for natural 7
Anna Mauranen
languages that are particularly widespread, especially, sometimes even exclusively, English, it is worth keeping in mind that any language, however small, can equally well be used as a lingua franca. Lingua francas need not even be ‘living’ languages: ‘dead’ languages also serve as vehicular languages, usually for a limited range of purposes like religion or learning, as in the cases of classical Arabic or mediaeval Latin. Two kinds of widespread definitions of ELF circulate in the field of applied linguistics, one that takes it to apply only to people for whom it is not a first language, to the exclusion of native speakers (e.g. Firth 1996; House 1999), and another that accepts native speakers as part of the mix (e.g. Seidlhofer 2004, 2011; Jenkins 2007; Mauranen 2012). The latter view is adopted here, since a categorical division of speakers into native and non-native has been seriously questioned in ELF, as it has been in World Englishes. The more comprehensive definition also reflects the reality of English today: English is spoken in situations with widely varying combinations of participants, including first-language speakers of different varieties. So briefly, I take English as a lingua franca to mean a contact language between speakers or speaker groups when at least one of them uses it as a second language. This is a short working definition, and will do for the present. A number of things could be further specified, but I hope this chapter will throw light on some of the remaining issues, as other chapters certainly do in this volume. We can approach ELF from a number of perspectives, but for achieving a holistic notion I suggest a simple division: the macro, the meso and the micro. These perspectives are based on the scale of a social unit, from the largest to the smallest, and like any categorisation, it is an abstraction and inevitably inattentive to much of the rich detail of reality. I nevertheless believe it to be relevant for capturing the big picture. The division draws on earlier distinctions by scholars dealing with language contact from different traditions. The first is the classic treatise of language contact by Weinreich (1953/1963) who suggested two relevant levels for the occurrence of what he called language transfer: the individual, or the level of speech, and society, or the level of language. A recent psycholinguistic division by Jarvis and Pavlenko (2007) adopts a very similar view, distinguishing the levels of the individual (who shows cross-linguistic influence), and society (where transfer can be observed). In a similar vein, variationist sociolinguists such as Milroy (2002) or Trudgill (1986, 2011) also posit two key levels, the societal and the individual. However, in the sociolinguistic case the individual refers to individuals in interaction, in effect making interaction the other pivotal level. Interaction, that is, the micro-social or meso level is also crucial to many social and linguistic theories: social network theory (Granovetter 1973; Urry 2007) and its applications in language change analysis (Milroy and Milroy 1985; Raumolin-Brunberg 1998); it is also key to language use in conversation analysis, interactional sociology, interactional linguistics and more recently in neurolinguistic approaches (see section ‘ELF from the meso perspective’ below for more detail). Increasingly in the last decade or so, language has been viewed from Complexity Theoretical perspectives; in these accounts, adaptive, self-organising systems are perceived as emergent at different scales. In these accounts, two levels of language systems are recognised, the individual (idiolects) and the communal language; the crucial relationship between the two is emergence, which results from interactions between speaker idiolects. In brief, then, the present three-perspective approach combines principal elements from previous approaches, and is oriented to variation, change and contact. In this chapter, I apply the three-pronged approach, and look at the consequences of each on the concept of ELF. At the end, I take up some integrative issues that cut across all three perspectives, which would be awkward to discuss separately at every point. 8
Conceptualising ELF
ELF from the macro perspective A macro-social perspective on English as a lingua franca involves two central domains: the linguistic and the societal. Let us begin from the linguistic, since language is our main focus. The scale of communication and mobility in the contemporary world, and as I will argue, the complexity of language contact involving English, affect our perceptions of language deeply. The sheer amount of contact is unprecedented, since in principle speakers of any of the roughly 7,000 recognised languages of the world can be in some kind of contact with English. But it is the quality of contact that is even more interesting than the quantity. ELF bears certain recognisable affinities with dialect contact; both incorporate contact between speakers of mutually intelligible varieties. The term ‘variety’ has been problematised with regard to ELF both from outside, usually arguing it does not fulfil all requisite criteria to pass as a variety, and from the inside (e.g. Seidlhofer 2007; Jenkins 2015) for implying a settled, unified language form, complete with a speech community, that can be reliably described. While I would be inclined to apply the term more loosely, in analogy with its counterpart at lower level analysis, ‘variant’, have settled for the more neutral term ‘lect’. Lect coheres with sociolect, idiolect, etc., and is thus productive in a positive way. It also reflects the likeness of ELF with dialect, which is not insignificant. We can assume that processes discovered in dialect contact research, for example, those leading to dialect levelling, simplification, reallocation and interdialect (e.g. Britain 2013) will also be in evidence in ELF. A number of lects reflecting contact with English have been given jocular nicknames like Swinglish, Czenglish, Manglish or Dunglish. These nicknames reflect the fact that when speakers who share a first language learn a given second language, their idiolects display certain similarities in pronunciation or accent, in syntactic features, lexical choices and so on. These lects, then, with their similarities, which arise from contacts of a particular L1 with English, I would like to call ‘similects’. Similects arise in parallel, as speakers learn the same L2, but since they already share an L1, they normally use that for communicating with each other. This is also where similects part company with dialects. Dialects arise in local or regional speech communities where people speak to each other, and the specific features that arise in the community result from frequent interactions within that community. By contrast, similects are not lects of any speech community. Similects are parallel also in that they develop certain similarities even if they are learned in different classrooms, schools and locations, by people of different ages and generations, and at different times. Similects, therefore, remain first-generation hybrids. They do not go through developmental stages in the way community languages do, they do not diversify, change, develop sociolects, varieties or other products of social interaction in a living community. They nevertheless embody language contact. Clearly, the picture so far is simplified, but it is easier to make the case in a simplified form first, and then add complicating details. Here the important simplification is the abstraction away from multilingualism: many people learning English are bi-or multilingual already, which is why ELF contexts are inherently multilingual, as I have noted elsewhere (e.g. Mauranen 2013), and many users also obviously learn other languages alongside or after English. The similect concept is thus compatible with the notion of English as a multilingua franca that Jenkins (2015) has suggested as an important missing facet in the conceptualisation of ELF. We know from multilingualism studies (e.g. Jarvis and Pavlenko 2007; Pavlenko 2014) that all of a speaker’s languages are present at any time, and that they influence one another constantly. Another simplification is treating 9
Anna Mauranen
everyone’s L1 repertoires as if more or less identical, even though this may not in fact be the case (e.g. De Bot, Lowie and Verspoor 2007). This discussion already veers towards cognition, which will be dealt with more thoroughly below. To remain a little while still at the individual level, it might well be argued that language contact takes place in language learners, and therefore similects are manifestations of learner language. However, similects do not fit under a general rubric of learner language. We may note occasional formal resemblance to typical L1-specific learner errors (carefully recorded in learner language studies, notably in the ICLE projects www.uclouvain.be/en-cecl-icle. html), but the main difference of learners and users is social. ELF lects are used far beyond any language teaching environment, in authentic second language use (SLU), by speakers in the real world from professionals to tourists and asylum seekers, and in the digital world by anyone anywhere. The sociolinguistic context of a language learning classroom is restricted and specific, with important repercussions to speaker identity and the relationship to language: for a learner, language use is ‘practice’, instrumental to learning, whereas in SLU language is used in its own right, for co-construction of meaning in interaction. One consequence is that while learners are not in a position to change the language it is their objective to learn, any user of a language can initiate changes. Surface similarities of learner errors and non-standard ELF forms thus hide deep incompatibilities (see further Mauranen 2012). ELF, then, embodies contact between speakers from different similects. Put in another way, speakers who use ELF as their means of communication speak English that is a product of language contact between their other languages and English; a shared first language is the source of similect affinity, and English comes in as they have encountered it in their learning process. ELF, then, means contact between these hybrid, contact-based lects – that is, ELF is a higher-order, or second-order language contact. Therein lies its particular complexity. A macro-social perspective on ELF needs to address the notion of community. It must be one that fits the nature of a contact language in complex and varied situations, and therefore cannot rest on traditional understandings of a speech community, which is largely local, monolingual, as well as non-mobile. Such ‘sedentary’ (Sheller and Urry 2006) ideals of communities were widely assumed in traditional dialectology and sociolinguistics, even if also criticised (see, e.g. Chambers 1992; Milroy 2002), just as they have been in social sciences more broadly (Bauman 2000; Sheller and Urry 2006; Urry 2007). The challenge of conceptualising community for ELF research has been noted by almost all scholars who have theorised ELF, but no quite satisfactory solution has been reached yet, possibly because this has not been perceived as pivotal to understanding ELF, or perhaps in part also because the notion of community for ELF ought to be more complex than models considered so far. Communities where ELF is a dominant means of communication are not necessarily, perhaps not even very often, based on physical proximity between speakers. Neither are they close-knit communities with multiplex internal contacts. These are key characteristics distinguishing ELF from dialect communities and other similar communities as traditionally conceived in dialectology and sociolinguistic research. Clearly, traditional speech communities are on the whole getting rarer with exponential growth in contemporary multiplicity of mobilities (Urry 2007), including developments in the digital age, when contacts across distances and with the rest of the world are ubiquitous. Digital means of communication add to our experienced reality, with a consequent need for redefining ‘community’, and the associated mixing of languages and communication patterns. Mobile people change environments often, acquire connections in each, and at the same time maintain contacts with their local communities of origin or earlier residence, their families, relatives and friends. Individuals are simultaneously members of 10
Conceptualising ELF
multifarious communities, and, for example, private and professional contacts need not use the same languages. Mobility, as Skeggs (2004) observes, is a resource not equally distributed among everyone. At present, we can observe an enormous scale of mobility from regions where warfare, poverty and political unrest drive groups of people towards regions that are perceived as safer and offering more opportunities. At the same time very different kinds of mobility pervade the ‘safe’ regions where modern means of transportation and communication are within everyone’s reach, albeit utilised in different ways and to different degrees by different individuals and groups. On the whole, people are more likely to use different languages, dialects and varieties in their diverse communities than has been the case in more stable and sedentary periods. They are, in other words, mobilising not only themselves but also their multilingual resources on an everyday basis, including varieties of the ‘same’ language. Clearly, we are not living the first period of large-scale mobility in history, but equally clearly we are amid one of those, perhaps one with the widest global reach, with community structures being reshuffled and reinterpreted as a result. The global scale, and the availability of digital means of communication add a specifically contemporary flavour to the mix. Much communication in ELF is ephemeral, and takes place in transient encounters. For these chance meetings the notion of community is often inappropriate. Jenkins (2015) suggests that Pratt’s (1991) notion of ‘contact zones’ could be a useful point of departure for depicting the temporary meeting and mixing of people from diverse backgrounds. This may indeed help account for the ephemeral end of ELF use, but it does not exhaust the variety in duration and stability that ELF groupings manifest. To gauge the effects of ELF on language change we must take the diversity of social formations on board, from transient like those formed for just one occasion, such as a chance conversation among strangers or an interview; through medium-span, like university courses or task forces; to regular but intermittent, such as conferences, or academic discourse communities; fairly permanent, like international organisations; to married couples who adopt ELF as their family language. If the purpose is to capture ELF as a whole, not just its diverse component communities, we can liken ‘the ELF community’ to a diffuse language community along the lines suggested in LePage and Tabouret-Keller (1985), that is, one where multiple sources of input prevail, which consists of many kinds of speakers with varying language identities and social ties and comparatively little agreement on what is shared in the language or the community. At a general level ELF groupings and communities are perhaps most like social networks that include more and less dense relations of interaction, or stronger and weaker ties (Granovetter 1973; Milroy and Milroy 1985; Milroy 2002). In this way, the general, diffuse ELF network also accommodates denser, more focused concentrations of communication patterns: some parts of the network develop and maintain closer mutual interactions, accommodate towards shared conventions, while other ties remain more sporadic. A network pattern would allow for a kind of community, then, where weak and strong ties intermingle in the whole, some getting stronger, reinforced by repetition, others remaining weak or weakening and getting lost through lack of renewal. Weak ties probably dominate ELF communication, imbuing ELF communities with what Urry (2007) calls ‘network sociality’, enabling the accumulation of ‘network capital’, a powerful type of social capital in a mobile world. In diffuse communities, where some parts will be more likely to become ‘focused’ than others, the time dimension is important: both the duration of a community and its frequency of internal communication are likely to support strengthening of ties and the emergence of communal focus – as in the case of discourse communities or communities of practice. An intriguing case is the European Union, which is fundamentally multilingual, but 11
Anna Mauranen
whose established structures are maintained and reproduced largely in English, despite the official and factual presence of other languages, especially French. EU English use has assumed a few conventions of its own that depart from Standard English. Moreover, EU employees use English as the principal language of communication in their leisure time as well (Kriszán and Erkkilä 2014). How the EU linguistic community in Brussels develops after Brexit will be exciting to follow; it may, for example, start assuming more regulatory practices of its own. Among ELF communities towards the more focused end, some are like academic discourse communities (Swales 1990), which tend to be professionally oriented, long-lasting, and predominantly international, and where face to face meetings only involve segments of the communities at any given time or place. The intermittent meetings are, nevertheless, strongly binding for the maintenance of the community, along the lines that Urry (2007) posits for network sociality. In many cases ELF communities also bear likeness to Wenger’s communities of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991), as noted first by House (2003), followed by Dewey (2007), Jenkins (2007) and Seidlhofer (2007). EU task forces, international research collaborations, international university programmes and military collaborations would all seem to fit the notion of a community of practice, “an aggregate of people coming together around a particular enterprise”, as defined by Eckert (2000: 35). A CoP is a real community (in contrast to imagined communities) in that it is based on members’ direct interaction with one another; these communities consist of people who know each other. Such comparatively focused communities are likely to develop conventions and norms of their own as members accommodate to each other and converge towards group norms (cf. Hynninen 2016). Linguistically this can be expected to add variation in what is regarded as ‘English’, but since linguistic preferences also tend to stabilise, we also notice language patterns that are very similar despite emerging from different groupings and situations (e.g. Mauranen 2012; Carey 2013). The global ELF-using ‘community’ is thus an umbrella community, a mesh of networks, which, apart from being largely diffuse, shares the feature with Anderson’s (1991) imagined communities (see Wang, Chapter 12 this volume) that the members may never meet each other in person, but maintain a general awareness of belonging to the community. The belonging may be perceived in the case of ELF perhaps above all as a category of speakers. An ELF identity is not as binding or strong as the national communities Anderson talks about, and it can be self-contradictory in comprising both positive and negative elements, as many studies of language ideologies show (Jenkins 2007; Wang 2012; Pilkinton-Pihko 2013). Speakers nevertheless seem to have an awareness of themselves as users of ELF, which for many is a central ingredient of their language identity. In short, ELF communities are diffuse, network-based multilingual communities where English is a dominant lingua franca. ELF as a whole is not a focused variety or language, but as Laitinen (in press) points out, in this respect ELF is not unlike the English language for the best part of its history, in which focused varieties only arose as standardised varieties in the modern period. This did not prevent change or evolution in its lexicogrammatical structures before that period. Neither did it prevent people from describing it.
ELF from the meso perspective The meso, or micro-social, view on ELF is concerned with language use in social interaction. Far from being just the necessary interface between the societal and the cognitive, the interactional aspect is pivotal to language. Interaction has been given 12
Conceptualising ELF
pride of place in conversation analysis, and more recently in interactional linguistics (e.g. Selting and Couper-Kuhlen 2001); moreover, it has been perceived as vital from evolutionary (Lee, Miksell, Joaquin, Mates and Schumann 2009) and neurolinguistic (e.g. Bråten 2007) viewpoints, and it is a central ingredient in linguistic models emanating from complexity theory (e.g. De Bot et al. 2007; Larsen-Freeman and Cameron 2008; The ‘Five Graces Group’ 2009). Interactional sociology, in turn, following on Goffman’s work, posits interaction as an autonomous ‘interaction order’ (Goffman 1983), which is to be treated as a substantive domain in its own right. Interaction is deeply intertwined with both the social and individual. Innovations do not diffuse in society without individuals, while at the same time, individual cognition is crucially shaped in interaction with its social environment (e.g. Bråten 2007; Hari, Sams and Nummenmaa 2016). Secondary socialisation, typically in education, is imparted and absorbed through interaction. This does not preclude seeing interaction as autonomous in the Goffmanian sense, differentiated from both large-scale social institutions and individual actors (De Jaegher, Peräkylä and Stevanovic 2016), because in this interpretation we can view it as a self-organising system, which engages in exchanges with its adjacent systems at different scales (see also section ‘ELF from the micro perspective’). Macro-social accounts of language change tend to postulate mechanisms like accommodation for explaining the diffusion of features from one language group to another, for instance in dialect contact (Trudgill 1986; Britain 2013). In this perspective, accommodation functions as Croft (2000) describes it, as a response to speakers from outside one’s own community. Speakers accommodate to each other to compensate for the lack of common ground by adjusting their speech by means like elaborating content or simplifying grammar (Giles and Smith 1979). Although assumptions of this kind have usually proceeded from research on native speakers of a given language, accommodation would seem to be at least equally relevant to explaining what happens in successful ELF communication, as shown in Jenkins (2000) for phonology. Some examples of morphological and phraseological accommodation in on-going interaction are also discussed in Mauranen (2012). An important interactional process for establishing common ground is enhanced explicitness, or what in Translation Studies has become known as explicitation (Blum-Kulka 1986). Explicitation is prominent when differences in interlocutors’ backgrounds are perceived or anticipated, and it is one of the most strongly supported universals of translation (e.g. Mauranen 2007a). In conversation it can take the form of frequent paraphrasing, rephrasing and repetition, or syntactic strategies like fronting or tails. Explicitation is roughly equivalent to what Giles and Smith (1979) regard as accommodation by ‘elaborating the content’. However, this is not all there is to it: discourse adaptations of this kind can also become drivers of grammar. Usage-based models of grammar (e.g. Du Bois 2003; Ford et al. 2003) or acquisition (MacWhinney 2005) posit that linguistic structures reflect the demands of communication, not the other way round, with communication shaped by available linguistic structures. In line with this, we can assume that ELF is like any other domain of language use and therefore discourse, actual linguistic interaction, drives the development of its grammar. Tendencies of enhanced explicitness have been observed in ELF (Seidlhofer 2004; Cogo and Dewey 2006; Mauranen 2007b, 2012). In the long term, we can expect structural changes to follow from continued large-scale ELF interaction. These changes in English structures can perhaps above all be expected to alter preferences in the first instance, so that certain kinds of structures become proportionally more common, or preferred, while others get rarer. We can already see such processes going on in syntax, where certain preferences are either stronger or weaker in ELF compared to 13
Anna Mauranen
equivalent L1 English discourse (Ranta 2013). Some kind of ‘communicative fitness’ in an element is likely to help it spread into common use and become preferred. Speakers tend to prefer structures that are easier to produce, and to avoid those that are hard to understand. These may also be communicatively advantageous by being more salient than their alternatives, as Ranta (2006) argues in the case of the notable preference for the progressive form in ELF. It is thus quite conceivable that the explicitation tendency in ELF drives grammar towards renewed preference patterns. As noted above, from a macro perspective one well-established expectation is that language contact results in structural simplification. In interactional terms, this could be understood as emanating from speakers’ search for the least common denominator and widely shared features as the likely ingredients of communicative success. Speakers of different similects will probably try out features that foster successful communication over features that do not (or are ‘ornamental’ cf. Szmresanyi and Kortmann 2009). These may be especially salient or particularly learnable features of a given language, and reflect ‘subjective simplicity’ (to adapt Miestamo’s (2009) notion of user-oriented or ‘subjective complexity’). It is an empirical question whether this reflects a parallelism between ELF and creoles, which according to McWhorter (2001) display relatively little overall grammatical complexity on account of their pidgin origins and therefore have little that is unnecessary to communication. Clearly, ELF does not originate in pidgins, nor is it functionally reduced; it is used for everything languages are normally used for. Structural simplification is nevertheless quite possible given the complex, ever-present multilingual contact in ELF. Processes such as morphological regularisation and a preference for the most frequent vocabulary are clearly indications of simplification, and likely to be enhanced in social interaction. However, simplification can be of many kinds, and possible trade-offs between those are hard to demonstrate (Nichols 2009), so an overall measure of simplicity may not be feasible. Simplification in some features is also quite compatible with simultaneous complexification in others, and certain interactional processes probably favour complex structures, like those that boost explicitation. ELF interaction manifests a large number of non-standard expressions, which usually present no major obstacles to communication. Since we can assume a certain fuzziness in processing language forms that are less well entrenched (see section ‘ELF from the micro perspective’), it is a reasonable assumption that ELF interaction leads to the strengthening of approximate forms in production. Many items in a listener’s repertoire may be comparatively weakly entrenched: if a hearer does not have a strong and well-defined notion of the standard form, he or she is not likely to find an approximation disturbing as long as it bears enough resemblance to a target to enable meaning construction. Thus approximate forms that are sufficiently recognisable probably result in communicative success. The interactional success in turn is apt to support the speaker’s acceptance of the approximation. The feedback loop that arises in spontaneous interaction is a crucial link in reinforcing and spreading expressions that might otherwise pass as random idiosyncracies (or even, in language pedagogical contexts, as lack of success, or errors). Frequency also plays a part here: the most frequent items of a language are on the whole most strongly entrenched. Clearly this must hold for L1 and L2 speakers alike, since these are the items they all are most likely to hear and use most often. Therefore, when speakers look for the least common denominator that would support interactional fluency, it is likely that the best guesses would be those that are the most widely shared. High-frequency items in the lingua franca are good candidates: they have the best chances of being known to both. Indeed, a distinct preference for the most frequent vocabulary has been attested in ELF 14
Conceptualising ELF
(Mauranen 2012; Gilner 2016). We may therefore anticipate that very frequent items beyond lexis are also well represented in ELF discourse. It has commonly been assumed that ELF speakers do not share much, or even any, cultural background. This is very much an open question, which we have little research evidence on, but clearly, some shared cultural background comes with aspects of the language held in common. English language teaching materials tend to promote not only a given ‘code’, but certain information, clichés and beliefs about British and North American culture that speakers will be familiar with to a greater or lesser extent. Global entertainment industry and news services are probably even more influential in furnishing people with common information wherever they are. Other shared concepts and terms can be historical (Midas touch, Pyrrhic victory, holocaust, ostpolitik) or contemporary (tsunami, pizza, manga, Brexit) or embedded in different languages (chicken and egg, Dark Ages), which can be exploited successfully in interaction. In addition to the possibly underestimated common background, the more interactionally pertinent question is what we deem as relevantly shared in the on-going interaction. The Firthian notion on ‘context of situation’ offers a good basis for sorting out shared determinants of the setting – whether an airport, souvenir shop, immigration office, or research centre – that provides interactants with common assumptions. Historical and situational elements constitute a priori sharedness (even though their being identically ‘given’ to participants can be questioned), whereas the interaction itself generates its own shared domain as it moves on. Thus we should make a distinction between stored and dynamic sharedness. Actual verbal interaction makes use of multimodal as well as multilingual resources. It progresses dynamically along the temporal dimension, incrementing shared knowledge as it develops in participants’ joint activity (Sinclair and Mauranen 2006). Much of what is shared is thus generated in the interaction itself. What ELF throws into sharp relief is that this also concerns the linguistic resources; as Jenkins (2015: 64) points out, “We are often talking not of a priori ‘resources’, but of resources that are discovered as they emerge during the interaction”. As Jenkins observes, what gets shared may not be shared from the start, and interlocutors may not even know what they might have in common in the beginning. Altogether, the notion of jointly generating shared resources, such as language and knowledge, by participants in interaction, is crucial to understanding grammar in a usage-based or emergent manner. Usage-based models of language-in-interaction, or in alternative terms, models of languaging (Becker 1995), emphasise the nature of language as being continually created in social interaction, or, in short, language as emergent. On this point ELF is no different from language in general – it is basically a question of perceptions of language having shifted from static, focused and monolingual, towards appreciating dynamic notions of languaging and multilingualism. In line with Jenkins (2015), it is high time to take these conceptual developments on board in re-thinking ELF. A notable proportion of empirical ELF research hitherto has engaged with ELF in interaction. This may be a good choice, given the centrality of interaction in detecting processes of languaging, and also in detecting incipient and ongoing change.
ELF from the micro perspective The cognitive and the interactional are closely intertwined. Individual cognition is strikingly attuned to intersubjectivity; consciousness develops along with dialogical competence, as has been shown in research into early language development (e.g. Tomasello 2003, 2009) 15
Anna Mauranen
or into mirror neuron systems (e.g. Bråten and Trevarthen 2007) and their more abstract and higher-order counterparts, alignment and coupling systems (Hassen and Frith 2016). A fair proportion of contemporary brain research is directed to observing people in social interaction, because as Hari (2007) puts it, other people constitute the primary environment for humans. Interaction, in effect, shapes our brains from the start. Cognition is thus attuned to its social environment, but if interaction is viewed as an autonomous system in Goffman’s (1983) sense and in subsequent interactional sociology (cf. the previous section), what role does an individual’s cognition play? Goffman does not grant it any role, but research strands like enactivism seek to reconcile the individual with social interaction as autonomous, dynamic systems (De Jaegher, Peräkylä and Stevanovic 2016), while also recognising a tension between the autonomy of interaction and the autonomy of the individual. Even though dynamic, autonomous systems are self-organising, their processes are also connected to processes external to the system, and conditions external to the system may also be necessary for system-internal processes. Since language as a complex adaptive system is generally seen as operating both in the individual, as an idiolect, and in interaction, as communal language (e.g. The Five Graces Group 2009), it would seem that the enactivist view captures the distinction as well as the connection appreciably well. What we have, then, are self-organising systems at different scales, which are open, and although autonomous, at the same time interrelated. From the individual’s cognitive viewpoint we could expect English as a speaker’s additional language to be more weakly entrenched than the first (see also Hall, Chapter 6 this volume). The individual’s accumulated experience must be different for languages that are acquired from infancy (whether one or more) and those learned later. Entrenchment is one of the two central processes postulated in usage-based accounts of language representation in an individual’s cognitive makeup (see e.g. Dabrowska 2004; MacWhinney 2005). The other is abstraction; both rest on a speaker’s aggregate linguistic experience. Speakers normally have much less exposure to their later languages than their earliest, and this is likely to be reflected in less deeply entrenched memory representations. Production and reception in less entrenched representations may impose a greater strain on working memory, slow down memory retrieval and schema accessibility and make heavier demands on adaptive strategies. Psycholinguistic research has also consistently shown considerable frequency effects in language acquisition and use (e.g. Ellis 2002). It has been well established that frequent language elements behave differently from infrequent ones (see e.g. Bybee and Hopper 2001), and survive longest in language even over very long periods of time (Pagel, Atkinson and Meade 2007). The cognitive correlate of this is stronger entrenchment of the most frequent items, which in ELF means that these are on the whole well represented; the interactional consequence of this would show in accommodation, especially in speakers’ likelihood of finding common ground for fluent communication (see previous section). Does ELF processing have much effect on English grammar? This is where the other process postulated in usage-based models, abstraction, is relevant. Cognitive processes play a fundamental role in shaping grammars; as a speaker’s aggregate lifetime experience accumulates it gets categorised, and gradually the abstractness of the categorisation rises. At high levels of abstraction, categories eventually become fixed in grammar (Bybee 2006; Croft 2000; Tomasello 2003). Speakers’ language repertoires are dynamic in the sense that they undergo constant change during their whole lifetime. Most people’s repertoires comprise elements from more than one language, and it is reasonable to expect similar processes of abstraction for their entire multilingual repertoires even at post-childhood stages. It is 16
Conceptualising ELF
also possible that speakers’ knowledge about their language(s) may be less abstract than is commonly believed (Dabrowska 2004). If this is the case, it would seem to have important implications for language learning models, above all in questioning rule-based assumptions. However, it should not differentiate between an individual’s languages: exposure and abstraction are the central building blocks in early and later acquired languages. In a traditional view, imperfect learning is implicated in language contact situations (Thomason 2001), assumed to cause structural or phonological rather than lexical changes in the target language. More often than not this presumably leads to simplification rather than complication of the target language structure. While ‘imperfect learning’ is not a useful concept for ELF (see, e.g. Brutt-Griffler 2002; Mauranen 2012), post-childhood language learning has often been implicated in structural simplification. As relatively late learning is the typical case for ELF, it would lead us to predict that ELF displays structural simplification but probably not lexical changes. Unlike structural simplification, lexical simplification has not been of much interest for language contact, and has been predicted to happen much less if at all. It would seem that since lexis changes and travels fast, it could just add to the lexical stores of both languages. However, a cognitive viewpoint reveals a somewhat different picture. Lexical simplification has been observed in learner language (e.g. Altenberg and Granger 2002; Granger, Hung and Petch-Tyson, et al. 2002) as well as in translations (e.g. Laviosa-Braithwaite 1996; Nevalainen 2005) in addition to ELF (Mauranen 2012; Gilner 2016). The prevalence of very frequent lexis in learner language is usually attributed to gaps in learning and to interference from the first language. By contrast, since translations are generally carried out into the translator’s first language, interference from the target language is the customary explanation (and learning difficulties never implicated). I would argue, as I have done before (e.g. Mauranen 2010), that the common, more general basis for these shared lexical processes in each situation is language contact. As language contact is activated in an individual who is either translating from one language to another or speaking a somewhat weakly entrenched language, it invites reliance on the most frequent vocabulary. If two competing systems are simultaneously active in a speaker’s repertoire (cf. Jarvis and Pavlenko 2007; Riionheimo 2009), we can hypothesise that the best-entrenched parts of each are likely to become proportionally more salient. As a corollary, unique features of the languages are likely to get suppressed (as in translations: Tirkkonen-Condit 2004); in ELF this might concern things like Seidlhofer’s (e.g. 2011) ‘unilateral idiomaticity’. In productive cognitive terms, then, we might assume that one of the consequences of language contact is the relative overrepresentation of the most frequent lexis of the language that is currently being used. And this is precisely what we find in ELF. It must be noted, though, that this does not entail an overall ‘impoverished’ vocabulary: we observe a difference in ELF and ENL vocabulary among the 200 most frequent words (still very common words), but in lower frequencies the difference disappears (Mauranen 2012; Gilner 2016). It would seem reasonable to expect non-first language use to manifest fuzzier processing than first language processing. Not only do later languages provide less exposure, but their acquisition begins at a later stage of brain maturation, which also contributes to weaker entrenchment. Even if we allow for the simplifications involved in talking about an individual’s first and later languages (many people are bi- or multilingual from the start, their later languages may have become stronger, etc.), in large numbers the processing of a less strongly entrenched language should be fuzzier and manifest more approximation in cognitive processing. 17
Anna Mauranen
I would like to suggest that the most important cognitive processing phenomenon in ELF is approximation. By approximating intended expressions well enough, speakers can achieve communicative success. Approximation is advantageous because cognitive processing is generally fuzzy, not only speech. Precision in memory is higher when items are firmly entrenched in long-term declarative memory, but with less deep entrenchment connections can remain less stable. It is reasonable to postulate that cognitive approximation is involuntary and results from realities of perception, memory and access. Access routes may be more precarious in a less entrenched language and for less frequent items. Yet it is possible that approximation works because a speaker’s output provides enough for the interlocutor to go on, and they can manage with less accurate detail than if standard written language was taken as the benchmark. We must also assume that conversationalists in an ELF encounter engage in fuzzy processing in both the speaker and the hearer roles. Weak entrenchment is equally relevant to the hearer position as it is to the speaker position: an approximate form, for example, may not be harder to understand than a precise form, because a typical hearer is not very precisely attuned to Standard English (or any particular variety of English), but is likely to rely on fairly fuzzy processing in making sense of the interlocutor’s speech. These matching cognitive processes in turn have interactional consequences (see section ‘ELF from the meso perspective’ above): acceptance of approximate forms in interaction. When approximation works as a communicative strategy, the positive feedback from the hearer strengthens the items for speaker. A complex environment like ELF would seem to require widening tolerance for fuzziness, and speakers seem to adapt to this, as shown by research that finds less miscommunication in ELF than expected at the outset (House 2002; Kaur 2009; Mauranen 2006). Memory for sense overrides memory for form, thus a very small proportion of language is remembered verbatim. Approximations can retain the meaning but only part of the conventional expression, as in how people interact with each other, where they live how they go around for their business (cf. native English go about their business) or the main impediment in front of the gender movement (cf. impediment to). The longer the unit, the easier it seems to accept that mental representations are partial and oriented to meaning rather than form, so for instance we do not expect to remember books or even their chapters verbatim, but sentences, utterances, or phrases can sometimes become bones of contention (‘that’s not what I said’). Some items are more salient than others, and presumably better remembered. An effective approximation is a matter of shared ground between interlocutors, be it based on stored or contextual matter. For example, a noun like risk is a good candidate for being salient; it is frequent, specific, and has cognates in many languages. In ELF we find it used much in the same sense as in Standard English, but its collocations can sometimes be unusual: but there is the risk available all the time and they are trying to avoid them. Although we may not usually speak about risks being ‘available’, the sense of them being present is clear here. Working memory has limited capacity; it consists of the information the speaker attends to at a given moment (around seven units at a time) and includes the effort expended on fast on-line retrieval from long-term memory. Its constraints drive speakers towards economising on their efforts and preferring subjective simplicity (section ‘ELF from the meso perspective’ above) to complicated expression. Lingua franca use carries notable processing pressure, as speakers operate under conditions of limited resources and multi-source competition. The same constraints also favour settling on certain preferred expressions for given meanings, or ‘fixing’, as Vetchinnikova (2014) calls the process. Vetchinnikova (2014) noted fixing in individuals who repeatedly employed certain expressions for a given meaning. 18
Conceptualising ELF
These expressions were roughly identical to what they had acquired from their previous experience of English, which was often salient and recent. Fixing follows the one-meaningone-form principle or isomorphism recognised in language learning research (e.g. Winford 2003). But as a counterpart to approximation, it is more widely relevant to understanding the role of ELF in language change. If we extend the term from cognitive to the meso and macro levels, we can appreciate the wider consequences of approximation and fixing. In interaction (meso level) accommodation seems to lead to convergence, and at communal (macro) level, it has been attested in identical or near-identical expressions across interactions (Mauranen 2012). Altogether, approximation leads to increasing linguistic variability, and fixing leads towards reducing it. Their interplay helps foster and perceive language change through ELF processes. Cognitive processes like approximation and fixing, then, have repercussions for macro-level communal language, via interactional accommodation and adaptation.
Conclusion This chapter has approached ELF from three perspectives, from the macro through meso down to the micro level. A few recurrent themes have appeared throughout the discussion bringing to light an integrated view of ELF, as the different perspectives come together. One is the social nature of language at all levels, also incorporating individual cognition. ELF is fundamentally a matter of language contact, which in the macro-social view manifests itself as complex, second-order contact between similects. Similects, parallel idiolects of speakers with similar language backgrounds, meet and mingle in interaction between speakers. Thus in the notion of ELF as complex similect contact all three perspectives are intertwined in the dynamic process of languaging in ELF. When we talk about communal (macro) level languages, we can see that they are made up of languaging, as languaging processes in the interactions of individuals sustain the social facts that languages are. All levels of language are in constant motion, since in principle all the individual interactions that make up languages are involved in maintaining them and altering them at every moment. However, alterations brought about in interaction do not work in unison or in the same direction. Tensions remain in languages as a permanent feature, and so do the dynamisms of growing or diminishing variability. Natural languages do not reach stable states of equilibrium, and ELF cannot be expected to reach any such state either. ELF, furthermore, lacks the regulatory mechanisms characteristic of languages with a communal status, such as nation-state languages or recognised minority languages. While regulation that seeks to maintain standard languages may not be as successful as is generally believed, it imposes norms that are more or less explicit, and above all sustains notions of distinct, norm-driven languages that ‘belong’ to communities of people (cf. Widdowson 1994). Such languages are therefore adopted as building blocks and reference points of identities, and in short, become powerful social facts. Complex language contact foregrounds a multilingual view of ELF. At macro level multilinguality is perceptible as contact between English and an appreciable proportion of the world’s other languages: as speakers (often multilingual to begin with) of these other languages use ELF, the complexity of the mix is striking. The co-presence of several languages in any ELF exchange is available for interactional needs as interlocutors continuously and mutually adapt to one another. Individuals thus cooperatively engage in languaging, connecting the interactional and the cognitive. Participants in ELF interactions are at least bilingual, apart from possibly monolingual speakers of English, which shows how the smallest site of 19
Anna Mauranen
language contact is that which takes place in the multilingual speaker’s mind. Multilingual proficiency is dynamic, and if we view language as a system, it is perhaps best seen as a complex system, sharing many features with other complex systems (see Larsen-Freeman, Chapter 4 this volume). Language systems influence each other in multilingual cognition, and beyond that, like other complex systems they interact with their environment. For language systems at any scale, the crucial environments are social. Relating complexity to the three perspectives in this chapter, the individual’s language can be seen as a complex adaptive system at the micro level, as can communal languages at macro level. Interactions occupy the meso level, and as was discussed above, they can be perceived as autonomous dynamic systems of their own, with vital connections to the cognitive and the communal. The concept of similect-based contact is compatible with the notion of English as a Multilingua Franca that Jenkins (2015) put forward as a new opening in the conceptualisation of ELF. As multilingualism studies indicate, a speaker’s languages are all present at any time, exerting mutual influence on each other. It follows that cognitive processing maintains a multilingual undercurrent even if speakers are using only one of their languages. This may mean competing repertoires, but also easy switching and crossing between repertoires. In interactional terms, ELF multilingualism implies that other languages can be drawn on if necessary. Conversely, if English is not chosen as the lingua franca in a multilingual encounter (a possibility Jenkins suggests), it is still highly likely to have a latent presence. We are soon going to move from the first generation of global ELF, which I have previously suggested to have started around 1995, with the worldwide access to the internet, to the next generation (around 2020–2025). One of the intriguing questions that has not been addressed relates to ‘ELF couples’ (e.g. Pietikäinen 2014) and the new generations of their children. There will probably be a growing number of people whose first language is ELF – or English – learned from parents who have ELF as their couple language. This is hardly going to be a large or influential group, perhaps not even a ‘group’ but a number of individuals who are similar in this respect. ELF as a first language is nevertheless an interesting topic of research for child language development as it is for ELF. An important consideration for ELF research and conceptualisation to take on board is the question of different time scales. These were touched on above in the connection of communities: some ELF encounters, we noticed, were transient and not easily captured in a notion of ‘community’, but nevertheless we can appreciate the fact that these are repeated, frequent event types that construct and maintain an important type of languaging in the contemporary world. Other ELF event types were more compliant with group formation and permanence or regularity of encounters between the same individuals, and finally there was a third kind of community, such as the EU, or international companies, off-shore university branches, or on a smaller scale, couples and families, where stability and permanence characterise the frame of existence. These social formations entail different time scales, and consequently different roles in, say, norm-development and regulation of ELF use. Clearly, the more stable the community at hand, the more likely regulatory practices are to set in: some usages become the norm within the community, even if external standards imposed by prestigious bodies of language regulation (dictionaries, grammars, educational institutions) should differ from these. However, all interactions self-regulate in one way or another, and the accumulative effects of masses of transitory encounters on languaging are not very well known or studied. Relative stability at the macro level works towards reliable communication, thereby helping make languages useful. Likewise, interactions are successful if they reproduce familiar practices and patterns and in this way achieve communication. There are thus interests in maintaining and reproducing shared practices, and therefore centripetal forces exert pressure 20
Conceptualising ELF
both at macro and meso levels. The macro level can be expected to be particularly slow to change: global networks drive the maintenance of ELF as a mutually comprehensible resource even amid variability and change. At the same time, centrifugal forces are at work in on-going interactions where the immediate interest is to make particular, specific, unfolding communication events successful by any means available. On the smaller scale, cognition, processes are fastest; we talk about milliseconds. Still, for individual cognition the moment-to-moment processing also relies on stored resources that have accumulated as aggregate lifetime experiences of languaging. The experience keeps accumulating, thus also continually changing, albeit not very fast, because while each new experience brings something new it also repeats, draws on and reinforces earlier resources as well as the affordances of the on-going interaction. In all, time scales in ELF are multiplex, and at each level we have to account for counteracting forces within those time scales. To understand them better, we need to pose good questions for empirical research as well. ELF altogether is a complex phenomenon, which has not only stirred up a considerable amount of controversy, but already challenged many firmly held traditional notions of language – and paved the way for new questions.
Further reading Hall, C.J. (2013). Cognitive contributions to plurilithic views of English and other languages. Applied Linguistics 34, 211–231. Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice 2(3): 49–85. doi 10.1515/ eip-2015-0003 Larsen-Freeman, D. and Cameron, L. (2008). Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mortensen, J. (2013). Notes on English used as a lingua franca as an object of study. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2(1): 25–46. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press
References Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. Altenberg, B. and Granger, S. (2002). The grammatical and lexical patterning of make in native and non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics 22(2): 173–189. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity. Becker, A. (1995). Beyond Translation: Essays Toward a Modern Philosophy. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Blum-Kulka, S. (1986).Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In House, J. and Blum-Kulka, S. (eds) Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies (pp. 17–35). Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Bråten, S. (ed.) (2007). On Being Moved: From Mirror Neurons to Empathy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bråten, S. and Trevarthen, C. (2007). Prologue: From infant intersubjectivity and participant movements to simulation and conversation in cultural common sense. In Bråten, S. (ed.) On Being Moved: From Mirror Neurons to Empathy (pp. 21–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Britain, D. (2013). Mundane mobility and contact in dialect death and birth. In Schreier, D. and Hundt, M. (eds), English as a Contact Language (pp. 165–181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A Study of its Development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Bybee, J.L. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82, 711–733. Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (2001). Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (eds), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 21
Anna Mauranen
Carey, R. (2013). On the other side: Formulaic organizing chunks in spoken and written academic EFL. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2(2): 207–228. Chambers, J.K. (1992). Dialect acquisition. Language 68, 673–705. Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2006). Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic motives to lexicogrammatical innovation. In Mauranen, A. and Metsä-Ketelä, M. (eds), English as a Lingua Franca: Special Issue of The Nordic Journal of English Studies 5(2), 59–93. Croft, W. (2000). Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longman. Dabrowska, E. (2004). Language, Mind and Brain: Some Psychological and Neurological Constraints on Theories of Grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. De Bot, K., Lowie, W. and Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10(1), 7–21. De Jaegher, H., Peräkylä, A. and Stevanovic, M. (2016). The co-creation of meaningful action: Bridging interaction and interactional sociology. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B 171(1693): 20150378. Dewey, M. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca: An Empirical Study of Innovation in Lexis And Grammar. Doctoral dissertation. King’s College, University of London. Du Bois, J.W. (2003). Discourse and grammar. In Tomasello, M. (ed.), The New Psychology of Language (Vol. 2, pp. 47–87). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford: Blackwell. Ellis, N.C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2), 143–188. Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 26, 237–259. The ‘Five Graces Group’ (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning 59(Suppl. 1): 1–26. Ford, C.E., Fox, B.A. and Thompson, S.A. 2003. Social interaction and grammar. In Tomasello, M. (ed.), The New Psychology of Language (Vol. 2, pp. 119–143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Giles, H. and Smith, P. (1979). Accommodation theory: Optimal levels of convergence. In Giles, H. and St. Clair, R.N. (eds) Language and Social Psychology (pp. 45–56). Oxford: Blackwell. Gilner, L. (2016). Dominant vocabulary in ELF interactions. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 5(1): 27–51. Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review 48, 1–17. doi:10.2307/ 2095141. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360–1380. Granger, S., Hung, J. and Petch-Tyson, S. (eds) (2002). Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hari, R. (2007). Human mirroring systems: On assessing mind by reading brain and body during social interaction. In Bråten, S. (ed.) On Being Moved: From Mirror Neurons to Empathy (pp. 89–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hari, R., Sams, M. and Nummenmaa, L. (2016). Attending to and neglecting people: Bridging neuroscience, psychology and sociology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B 371(1693): 20150365. Hassen, U. and Frith, C.D. (2016). Mirroring and beyond: Coupled dynamics as a generalized framework for modelling social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B 371(1693): 20150366. House, J. (1999). Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in English- as-linguafranca and the myth of mutual intelligibility. In C. Gnutzmann (ed.) Teaching and Learning English as a Global Language (pp. 73–93). Tübingen: Stauffenberg. House, J. (2002). Communicating in English as a lingua franca. In Foster-Cohen, S., S., Ruthenberg, T. and Poschen, M.-L. (eds) EUROSLA Yearbook 2 (pp. 243–261). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. House J. (2003). English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(4): 556–578. Hynninen, N. (2016). Language Regulation in English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Jarvis, S. and Pavlenko, A. (2007). Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. London: Routledge. 22
Conceptualising ELF
Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice 2(3): 49–85. doi: 10.1515/ eip-2015-0003. Kaur, J. (2009). Pre-empting problems of understanding in English as a lingua franca. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds) English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings (pp. 107–125). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Kriszán, A. and Erkkilä, T. (2014). Multilingualism among Brussels-based civil servants and lobbyists: Perceptions and practices. Language Policy. doi: 10.1007/s10993-013- 9302-y. Laitinen, M. (in press). Ongoing changes in English modals: On the developments in ELF. In Timofeeva, O., Chevalier, S., Gardner, A.C. and Honkapohja, A. (eds), New Approaches in English Linguistics: Building Bridges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Cameron, L. (2008). Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Laviosa-Braithwaite, S. (1996). The English Comparable Corpus (ECC): A Resource and a Methodology for the Empirical Study of Translation. Doctoral dissertation. UMIST. Lee, N., Miksell, L., Joaquin, A.D.L., Mates, A.W. and Schumann, J.H. (2009). The Interactional Instinct: The Evolution and Acquisition of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. LePage, R.B. and Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacWhinnney, B. (2005). The emergence of linguistic form in time. Connection Science, 17, 191–211. McWhorter, J. (2001). The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 6, 125–166. Mauranen, A. (2006). Signalling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177: 123–150. Mauranen, A. (2007a). Universal tendencies in translation. In Anderman, G. and Rogers, M. (eds) Incorporating Corpora. The Linguist and the Translator (pp. 32–48). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mauranen, A. (2007b). Hybrid voices: English as the lingua franca of academics. In Fløttum, K., Dahl, T. and Kinn, T. (eds) Language and Discipline: Perspectives on Academic Discourse (pp. 233–259). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Mauranen, A. (2010). Discourse reflexivity: A discourse universal? The case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 19(2): 13–40. Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mauranen, A. (2013). Lingua franca discourse in academic contexts: Shaped by complexity. In Flowerdew, J. (ed.) Discourse in Context (pp. 225–246). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Miestamo, M. (2009). Implicational hierarchies and grammatical complexity. In Sampson, G., Gil, D. and Trudgill, P. (eds), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable (pp. 80–97). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Milroy, L. (2002). Social networks. In Chambers, J.K., Trudgill, P. and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds) The Handbook of Language Variation and Change (pp. 549–572). Oxford: Blackwell. Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (1985). Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics 21, 339–384. Nevalainen, S. (2005). Köyhtyykö kieli käännettäessä? – Mitä taajuuslistat kertovat suomennosten sanastosta. In Mauranen, A. and Jantunen, J. (eds) Käännössuomeksi. Tutkimuksia käännössuomen kielestä (pp. 139–160). Tampere: Tampere University Press. Nichols, J. (2009). Linguistic complexity: A comprehensive definition and survey. In Sampson, G., Gil, D. and Trudgill, P. (eds), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable (pp. 64–79). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pagel, M., Atkinson, Q.D. and Meade, A. (2007). Frequency of word-use predicts rates of lexical evolution throughout Indo-European history. Nature 449(11): 717–720. Pavlenko, A. (2014). The Bilingual Mind and What It Tells Us about Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pietikäinen, K. (2014). ELF couples and automatic code-switching. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(1): 1–26. 23
Anna Mauranen
Pilkinton-Pihko D. (2013). English-Medium Instruction: Seeking Assessment Criteria for Spoken Professional English. Doctoral dissertation. University of Helsinki. Pratt, M.L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 33–40. Ranta, E. (2006). The ‘attractive’ progressive: Why use the -ing form in English as a lingua franca? In Mauranen, A. and Metsä-Ketelä, M. (eds), English as a Lingua Franca: Special Issue of The Nordic Journal of English Studies 5(2): 95–116. Ranta, E. (2013). Universals in a Universal Language? Exploring Verb-Syntactic Features in English as a Lingua Franca. Doctoral dissertation. University of Tampere. Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (1998). Social factors and pronominal change in the seventeenth century: The Civil War effect? In Fisiak, J. and Krygier, M. (eds) Advances in English Historical Linguistics (pp. 361–388). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Riionheimo, H. (2009). Interference and attrition in inflectional morphology: A theoretical perspective. In Penttilä, E. and Paulasto, H. (eds) Language Contact Meets English Dialects: Studies in Honour of Markku Filppula (pp. 83–106). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Schreier, D. and Hundt, M. (eds) 2013. English as a Contact Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 209–239. Seidlhofer, B. (2007). English as a lingua franca and communities of practice. In Volk-Birke, S. and Lippert, J. (eds) Anglistentag 2006 Halle Proceedings (pp. 307–318). Trier: Wissenschaftlige Verlag Trier. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Selting, M. and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (eds) (2001). Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sheller M. and Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A 38, 207–226. Siemund, P., Gogolin, I., Schulz, M. and Davydova, J. (eds) 2013. Multilingualism and Language Contact in Urban Areas. Acquisition – Identities – Space – Education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sinclair, J. and Mauranen, A. (2006). Linear Unit Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Skeggs, B. (2004). Class, Self, Culture. London: Routledge. Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Szmrecsanyi, B. and Kortmann, B. (2009). Between simplification and complexification: non-standard varieties of English around the world. In Sampson, G., Gil, D. and Trudgill, P. (eds), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable (pp. 64–79). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thomason, S.G. (2001). Language Contact. Edinburgh University Press. Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (2004). Unique items: Over-or underrepresented in translated language? In Mauranen A. and Kujamäki, P. (eds) Translation Universals: Do they exist? (pp. 177–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tomasello, M. (2009). Why We Cooperate. Cambridge: MIT Press. Trudgil, P. (1986). Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell. Trudgill, P. (2011). Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity. Vetchinnikova, S. (2014). Second Language Lexis and the Idiom Principle. Unigrafia: Helsinki. Wang, Y. (2012). Chinese Speakers’ Perceptions of their English in Intercultural Communication. Doctoral dissertation. University of Southampton. Weinreich, U. (1953/1963). Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. New York: Linguistic Circle 1953. Reprinted: The Hague: Mouton, 1963. Widdowson, H.G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28, 377–389. Winford, D. (2003). An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
24
2 English as a lingua franca and intercultural communication Will Baker
Introduction English as a lingua franca (ELF) is deeply intercultural both as a means of communication and as a research field. However, until recently there has been surprisingly little crossover between the fields of ELF research and intercultural communication research. Given that English used as a lingua franca is presently likely to be the most common medium of intercultural communication, it is a concern that there has been so little uptake of ELF research in intercultural communication literature, and that where it has been discussed it has often been marginalised and misrepresented. The use of English as the predominant global language makes it a prime site for both empirical and theoretical investigations of intercultural issues. Furthermore, language choices are not trivial in intercultural communication and the extensive use of English needs proper scholarly attention. In this chapter I will argue that ELF research has taken a similar perspective to much contemporary intercultural communication research in viewing communication from a poststructuralist perspective where categories of language, identity, community and culture are seen as constructed, negotiable and contested. Furthermore, currently both ELF and intercultural communication research are concerned with notions of culture and community, identity and intercultural communicative competence/awareness. These three themes, I believe, offer potentially fruitful points of convergence where both research fields can inform one another.
Intercultural communication research While a history of intercultural communication research is not the purpose of this chapter, it is helpful to begin with distinctions between traditional ‘cross-cultural’ accounts of intercultural communication, more contemporary intercultural perspectives (Scollon and Scollon, 2001) and most recently transcultural approaches (Baker, 2016). Cross-cultural communication research typically focused on national level accounts of culture, homogeneity in cultural groupings and the study of the communicative practices of distinct cultural groups independent from intercultural interaction (e.g. Chinese communicative practices), which were then compared to the communicative practices of other distinct national groups (e.g. Chinese 25
Will Baker
compared with French communicative practices). Such research has been criticised for its essentialist approach to cultural groupings (e.g. Holliday, 2011) in assuming that individuals are synonymous with national characterisations of culture and that there are clear boundaries between different cultures. Most problematic in such research has been the assumption that individuals in intercultural interactions behave in the same manner as they do in intracultural communication (communication within cultural groupings). In contrast to cross-cultural perspectives, intercultural communication research focuses on the communicative practices of distinct cultural, or other groups, in interaction with each other (e.g. Italian linguists communicating with English linguists) (Scollon and Scollon, 2001, p. 539). Cultures are not characterised as bounded entities within national borders, but fluid and dynamic with blurred boundaries. Furthermore, cultures are viewed as heterogeneous, containing a great deal of variety among members. This is not to deny the role of national cultures, which are still a powerful cultural grouping, but they are one of many cultures and communities that can be drawn upon in communication, alongside others such as gender, generation, profession and ethnicity. Most significantly in intercultural communication research we should not make a priori assumptions about the cultural groupings and identities that will be drawn on in interaction. Instead we need to ask, “[w]ho has introduced culture as a relevant category, for what purposes, and with what consequences?” (Scollon and Scollon, 2001, p. 545; see also Piller, 2011; Zhu, 2014). Most recently, given the dynamic and flexible characterisations of language, communication, identity and culture found in ELF research, it can be argued that intercultural communication is no longer an appropriate term in all instances, since it may not always be clear what cultures participants are in-between or ‘inter’ in intercultural communication. Indeed, I think ‘trans’, as in ‘transcultural communication’, provides a better metaphor with its association of across and through rather than between and the suggestion of transgressing borders (Pennycook, 2007; Baker, 2016). However, given that much of the literature and research referred to in this chapter makes use of the term intercultural communication, for consistency and continuity it is easier to keep the traditional terminology, but with the caveats and limitations noted here. Adopting this critical view of intercultural or transcultural communication, in which many different groupings and communities are drawn on, opens up the question of what is distinctive about intercultural communication as opposed to other kinds of communication. Indeed, Scollon, Scollon and Jones (2012) recommend abandoning the concept of culture and intercultural as too large, unwieldy, ill-defined and essentialist. However, I would argue that any alternative is equally problematic. Concepts such as identity, discourse and community are no less complex, open to essentialism or multiply defined. Furthermore, the notion of culture and the intercultural is made use of extensively in social life at many levels from media and political discourses to individual interactions. If we are to take subjective positions on social interactions and relationships seriously, then we need to account for culture and the intercultural and not simply dismiss it as ill-informed folk theory. Moreover, as Zhu points out in relation to culture in intercultural communication, we “need to take care not to confuse the need to problematize the notion of culture at the conceptual level with the need for a working definition of culture for those disciplines and studies which investigate group variation” (Zhu, 2014, p. 199). Zhu provides a definition of intercultural communication, which like Scollon and Scollon’s (2001) definition takes interaction and negotiation as fundamental, but also recognises the importance of participants’ perceptions of cultural and linguistic differences as essential in any characterisation of communication as intercultural. Furthermore, in 26
ELF and intercultural communication
research it is necessary to make a distinction between participant or lay ‘categories of practice’ and ‘categories of analysis’ that researchers make use of (Brubaker and Cooper, 2000). Therefore, in addition to participant perceptions, if the researcher regards cultural and linguistic differences as relevant, the interaction may also be treated as intercultural, “with the caveat that there must be empirical or theoretical justifications for making use of such categories” (Baker, 2015, p. 23). In sum, we can regard communication as intercultural when participants and/or researchers regard linguacultural (linguistic and cultural) differences as significant in the interaction; however, such differences should be approached critically and not assumed a priori.
ELF and intercultural communication research Following the characterisation of intercultural communication above, “ELF is by definition intercultural in nature since ELF communication is typically defined as involving speakers from different linguacultures” (Baker, 2015, p. 43). Similar points have been made by other ELF researchers, for example, Jenkins states that “ELF is about intercultural communication in the broadest sense . . . intercultural communication skills and strategies are paramount” (2014, p. 26). Likewise, Cogo and Dewey claim that “the type of research we undertake is intercultural in nature (or maybe better still, transcultural), in that it concerns communication that takes place among speakers from various linguacultural backgrounds” (2012, p. 26). Mauranen also observes that “[a]s ELF gains ground in international communication, the intercultural perspective comes increasingly to the fore” (2012, p. 43). ELF research also shares many similarities with contemporary intercultural communication research in adopting a post-structuralist perspective on communication, identity and culture in which they are viewed as constructed, negotiable and adaptable. In keeping with this critical, poststructuralist approach, ELF research has also been concerned with issues of hybridity and questions of power, ideology and resistance. This has particularly centred around standard language ideology and power imbalances related to ‘native speakerism’ and characterisations of an Anglophone ‘centre’ and periphery ‘others’ (e.g. Jenkins, 2007; Jenks, 2013). Two important points need to be addressed in relation to this characterisation of ELF as a form of intercultural communication. First, and most obviously, this entails that ELF is not culturally or identity ‘neutral’, as has been suggested by some ELF researchers (e.g. House, 2014). To claim that there is such a thing as neutral communication is to misunderstand the nature of communication as a social practice. All communication, intercultural or otherwise, involves participants whose identities will be present in the interaction in one way or another. Furthermore, communication is a form of cultural practice and so will necessarily involve drawing on, constructing and negotiating culturally based frames of reference and communicative practices. This is not to claim that any particular cultural identities or practices are present a priori, or that they are necessarily significant in understanding the interaction; but whether judged important or not, culture and identity are always present. Second, there is no implication in this characterisation of ELF that it is a unique form of intercultural communication (as for example Firth, 2009 argues), so the communication strategies, pragmatic strategies, linguistic awareness and intercultural awareness observed in ELF communication are likely to be present in other forms of multilingual intercultural communication. Indeed, it is because ELF is not a unique form of intercultural communication that research into ELF has the potential to be highly useful for intercultural communication research in general. Given the extensive use of ELF in intercultural communication globally, ELF research is likely to provide valuable insights into multilingual intercultural communication and the 27
Will Baker
complex relationships between languages, communicative practices, identities, communities and cultures. However, ELF research has frequently been misunderstood, ignored or marginalised in intercultural communication literature. For example, the 600-page Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication (Jackson, 2012) does not contain a single reference to ELF. Of course we would not expect intercultural communication research to only focus on English and ELF but given its extensive global use for intercultural communication it would seem perverse to ignore it. Of most concern is that where English is dealt with in intercultural communication studies there is frequently no awareness of ELF research, even when dealing with issues addressed extensively in the ELF literature (see for example Piller, 2011). Without including ELF research there is often a lack of understanding of how issues such as identity and culture play out in contexts with few fixed connections between a language (English) and national identities and cultures. In the rest of this chapter I will outline three areas that I believe have the greatest potential for cross-fertilisation between intercultural communication and ELF research: culture, identity and intercultural communicative competence/awareness.
Culture and intercultural communication through ELF Culture has understandably been the subject of much discussion and theorisation in intercultural communication research. However, it has been of less concern in ELF research. Nonetheless, a number of studies have looked specifically at the notion of culture in relation to ELF communication. Meierkord (2002) offers an early example of this demonstrating how interactants make use of English to construct and negotiate a range of cultural practices in what she terms a ‘masala’, but also suggests that ELF can be ‘stripped’ of culture, which is problematic as outlined above. Pölzl and Seidlhofer (2006) investigate the way in which English is used in ELF interactions to represent local cultural references and practices. The focus of this study was on a setting where there was a clearly identifiable L1 linguacultural connection and how ELF communication related to this L1 culture. While important, in much ELF interaction there may be no clearly distinguishable L1 culture that participants identify with or refer to. In a more recent study Xu and Dinh (2013) adopt a dynamic perspective in their examination of language and culture in ELF. They explore the multiple meanings that their study participants attribute to a number of key words that move between local and more flexible global cultural references. One perspective on issues of community and culture that has been of interest to ELF researchers is the notion of community of practice (CoP) (e.g. Jenkins, 2006; Seidlhofer, 2007). Much of this discussion has been at the theoretical level, although empirical studies are beginning to emerge (e.g. Ehrenreich, 2009; Kalocsai, 2014; Vettorel, 2014). In order to account for the fluid communities in which ELF is typically found the CoP framework has had to be employed in a substantially modified and more flexible manner than originally conceived (Wenger, 1998). However, there has been little in-depth consideration of how such localised CoPs relate to other scales of community and especially wider ideas of culture and cultural identities (although see Kalocsai, 2014; Vettorel, 2014). Another significant limitation is that CoPs are typically instrumental in their goals whereas cultural communities and identities are more nebulous. Thus, while ELF studies that look at CoPs have contributed to our understanding of the role of ELF in constructing and maintaining communities, they typically do this on a single instrumental scale, with many other types of community and links between them still unaccounted for.
28
ELF and intercultural communication
My own research has looked extensively at the construction, adaptation and negotiation of culture in intercultural communication through ELF and how we might theorise this (Baker, 2009, 2011, 2015). In doing so I make use of the ideas of linguistic and cultural flows, hybridity, third places and complexity theory. While a detailed explanation of all these concepts is beyond the scope of this chapter (see Baker, 2015 for a full discussion), a number of central notions need outlining. In particular a perspective on culture is taken in which it is viewed metaphorically as a complex adaptive system (Larsen-Freeman and Cameron, 2008) in which cultural characterisations emerge from a conglomeration of multiple individual interactions but are not reducible to those individual interactions. Crucially, this entails that while cultural characterisations may influence individuals they cannot be read directly back to those individuals. In other words, a British person may be influenced by the notion of ‘British culture’ (to take a national cultural characterisation) and in turn their interactions may contribute to a characterisation of British culture, but their actions, beliefs and values are not synonymous with British culture. Such a dynamic view of culture means that any cultural characterisation is in a constant state of emergence but never finalised with continuous change and adaptation. Therefore, no definitive or final characterisation of culture can ever be provided. This is easily observed in the multitude of different interpretations of cultures and the struggles and tensions around who defines culture and how. Moreover, individuals are simultaneously members of many different cultural groupings at a range of levels or scales from local/regional, to national and global. Each of these groupings can again be viewed as dynamically interacting complex systems that influence each other and with boundaries between them blurred. It is important at this point to clarify the relationship between language and culture in intercultural communication through ELF interactions. Following Risager (2006), a distinction is made regarding the relationship between language and culture in the generic and differential sense. In the generic sense language is never culturally neutral since language is always linked to cultural practices and is itself a form of cultural practice. However, in a differential sense particular named languages (e.g. English) are not linked to particular named cultures (e.g. American). This provides a refutation to the strongest interpretations of linguistic relatively in which language and culture are synonymous and also more contemporary versions of this where the structure of a language is viewed as containing unique cultural elements (e.g. Wierzbicka, 2006). Thus, there is nothing that inexorably links the English language to Anglophone cultures and this has been clearly demonstrated in the research cited above. Indeed, it is the ability of language and culture to come together in novel ways that enables a language such as English to function as a global lingua franca. The notion of flows provides a metaphor to envisage how this relationship works, with linguistic and cultural flows converging in a particular communicative event to create meaning (Risager, 2006; Pennycook, 2007). Crucially, how linguistic and cultural flows converge is always an empirical question and cannot be determined in advance. In this way we can see how a language such as English operating as a lingua franca on a global scale is part of the construction and negotiation of a multitude of communicative and other cultural practices and in turn becomes part of a diverse range of cultural practices in itself. Data from my own studies (Baker, 2009, 2011, 2015) within a higher education setting in Thailand (although not confined to that setting), have illustrated the way that various linguistic and cultural flows converged in particular interactions to create meaning. An analysis of a number of different communicative events shows ELF users drawing on multiple cultural frames of reference in the same conversation, and moving between and
29
Will Baker
across local, national and global contexts in dynamic ways. Crucially, the data highlight new cultural products, practices and interpretations emerging from ELF communication. Furthermore, the importance of adaptation, negotiation and co-construction is clearly demonstrated. For example, participants are seen negotiating different interpretations of the word ‘petanque’ with multiple meanings and references recognised rather than a single fixed one (Baker, 2009, pp. 581–582). Other participants are seen playfully negotiating the conventions for finishing a conversation consciously moving between different frames of reference related to ‘traditional’ cultural conventions, more contemporary approaches and linking this to a multitude of discourse communities and practice related to culture, gender and generation (Baker, 2009, pp. 577–578). In sum, current approaches to culture in ELF research complement much contemporary research in intercultural communication that also considers cultures as complex and fluid sets of beliefs, ideologies and practices that are always transitory, partial and in a constant state of emergence (Holliday, 2011; Piller, 2011; Zhu, 2014). ELF research has a particularly valuable contribution to make in exploring English, as the most extensively used language of intercultural communication, and how this is connected to constructions of culture and cultural identity. ELF research demonstrates how problematic it is to posit an inexorable link between particular languages and cultures, especially at the national level (e.g. English and Anglophone cultures) in intercultural communication. This is not to refute the power of national languages and cultures, but it does underscore the need to look at other scales and not to make a priori assumptions about this relationship for English, or any other language, that is part of intercultural communicative practices.
Identity and intercultural communication through ELF Closely linked to the notion of culture is that of identity and this has been a fundamental part of both intercultural communication and ELF research. As with culture, identity is most commonly viewed from a post-structuralist perspective as multiple, emergent, dynamic and at times contradictory. Individuals simultaneously orientate towards and construct many different identities in communication such as gender, ethnic, generational, professional, cultural, national, regional and religious identities. Given the focus on process in this perspective a more accurate term might be identification, since identity construction can be viewed as the process of identification with a network of social groups and social relations that we take part in and orientate towards. It is also important to note that identity is not only identification with those groups we choose but also allocation by others to particular social groups and hence negotiation and struggle are a significant feature of identity construction (Pavlenko and Blackledge, 2004; Holliday, 2011; Zhu, 2014). Language is a key aspect in the construction and negotiation of identity, as Zhu notes, “we have come to the view that language practices and identity are mutually dependent and interconnected. Language practices index and symbolise identities, which in turn impact on and feedback into language practices” (2014, p. 218). Due to the multilingual and multicultural nature of intercultural communication this makes issues of identity and language particularly complex with notions of hybridity, liminality and third spaces frequently drawn on to account for the new spaces opened up for identity construction in intercultural communication (e.g. Rampton, 1995; Pennycook, 2007; Kramsch, 2009). However, there are also dangers of essentialising and othering participants in intercultural communication, especially if stereotypical nationally based notions of identity are prevalent (Holliday, 2011). 30
ELF and intercultural communication
Of particular relevance to intercultural communication research is cultural identity. Traditional intercultural communication research has quite rightly been criticised for an over reliance on essentialised notions of cultural identity in which individuals are viewed as synonymous with national cultures and national cultural identity is the sole focus of analysis (see Piller, 2011; Holliday, 2011 for critiques). Instead we need to be clear that individuals can identify with a great many social groups including, potentially, multiple cultural groups. So, for example, an individual may identify with some of the cultural practices, beliefs and values associated with Chinese culture, but this does not determine their whole identity; it is only one aspect of it. Thus, the relationship between culture and identity is as complex and dynamic as any of the other aspects of intercultural communication discussed here. Current research into cultural identity in intercultural communication has looked at the manner in which nation, ethnicity and race contribute to the construction of cultural identity and the ways in which this may be accepted, negotiated, resisted or ascribed in interactions (e.g. Kumaravadivelu, 2008; Holliday, 2011; Zhu, 2014). Especially relevant to intercultural communication research have been studies that explore the new spaces that globalisation opens up for the construction of cultural identities (e.g. Pennycook, 2007; Canagarajah, 2013). A growing number of ELF studies have also demonstrated the different ways in which a range of identities are performed through ELF. Participants in ELF studies have reported and been observed using English to create and index multiple identities moving between local L1 identities and more global orientations (e.g. Phan, 2008; Pölzl and Seidlhofer, 2006; Pitzl, 2012). Other research has demonstrated the construction of shared multilingual and multicultural identities in ELF interactions (Klimpfinger, 2009; Cogo and Dewey, 2012). Studies have also shown the role of ELF in identification with dynamic, ad hoc communities of practice and virtual communities (Kalocsai, 2014; Vettorel, 2014). Alongside this, my research has illustrated the third-place identities intercultural communication through ELF gives rise to with participants embracing being ‘in-between’ and mediating between cultures or other groupings (Baker, 2009, 2011). At other times participants have reported the use of ELF as a medium through which they can construct freer, liminal and fluid identities that are not indexed to or ‘between’ any particular cultures or cultural identifications, while on other occasions participants may report being comfortable adopting multiple cultural identities apparently without contradiction (Baker, 2009, 2011, 2015). Zhu (2015) and Baker (2015) both focus on issues of cultural identity in ELF and highlight the way in which such identities are constructed and negotiated within the interactions and warn against the danger of a priori ascriptions of cultural identity. Issues of power and ideology in identity construction have also been of interest to ELF researchers especially in relation to the pull of ‘native speaker ideologies’ in the discourse of ELT, which associates the use of English with Anglophone nations and cultures (Jenkins, 2007). Furthermore, Jenks (2013) and Baird, Baker and Kitazawa (2014) caution that while we need to be aware of the potential power imbalances native and non-native identities can give rise to, we need to carefully examine how they are constructed in interactions and not make pre-determined assumptions. In sum, ELF studies focus on the liminal, dynamic and multiple aspects of cultural identity construction, while also recognising potential power imbalances, especially in relation to native speaker ideology in English.
Intercultural competence/awareness and intercultural communication through ELF Both intercultural communication and ELF research have underscored the complexity and fluidity of intercultural interactions at multiple levels from linguistic features to communicative 31
Will Baker
and pragmatic strategies and culture and identity construction. Likewise, both fields have been interested in understanding how this complexity is managed in communication. There has been shared criticism of the limitations of communicative competence, particularly as conceived in applied linguistics, with its predominant focus on linguistic competence underpinned by grammatical competence. Successful communication, as demonstrated by both intercultural communication and ELF research, depends on much more than competence in a bounded set of syntax, lexis and phonology. Indeed, Hymes’ (1972) original conception of communicative competence placed greater emphasis on wider social aspects of communication but this was typically in relation to defined speech communities of native speakers – a very different scenario to most intercultural communication and ELF interaction. Within intercultural communication research the alternative notion of intercultural communicative competence (ICC) has been very influential (e.g. Byram, 1997). This represents an attempt to widen communicative competence in recognising the intercultural dimension to communicating in multilingual and multicultural settings. Alongside linguistic competence and communicative strategies, ICC adds features such as: knowledge about one’s own and other cultures and communities and how communication is influenced by this; a willingness to explore and accept differences in communication; the ability to relativise values and practices; the ability to mediate between different cultural groups and communicative practices; and a critical approach to cultural and communicative characterisations (Byram, 1997, 2008). Although, ICC has been drawn on extensively in intercultural communication literature, especially in relation to education (Risager, 2007), it has also been criticised for its strong orientation to national levels of culture, its a priori assumptions of cultural divides and differences and a lack of engagement with the current role of English as a global lingua franca outside of Anglophone settings (Holliday, 2011; Baker, 2011, 2015). A number of alternatives to communicative competence and ICC have been proposed and Kramsch’s (2009, 2011) notion of symbolic competence is particularly salient. Symbolic competence does not reject communicative or intercultural communicative competence, but rather incorporates a reflexive perspective that addresses the ideological, historic and aesthetic aspects of intercultural communication (Kramsch, 2009, 2011). Importantly, Kramsch assumes a more critical view of culture to the nationally orientated perspectives in ICC. Symbolic competence is about more than understanding a cultural other and one’s own culture; it is also about understanding the fluidity of numerous ‘discourse worlds’ (Kramsch, 2011, p. 356) and the ability to navigate the complexity of change, multiple meanings and diverse interpretations in intercultural communication. Symbolic competence is thus a process and a “dynamic, flexible and locally contingent competence” (Kramsch 2009, p. 200). Nonetheless, Kramsch does not explore the relevance of this concept to lingua franca communication and the focus is on multilingual immigrant communities where native speakers exert a strong influence. Canagarajah’s (2013) performative competence is also of relevance with its emphasis on the processes of multilingual/translingual intercultural communication. Particularly important is Canagarajah’s highlighting of the central role of communicative strategies, but also recognition that even these strategies need to be approached flexibly. In ELF research the notion of communicative competence has received much attention (e.g. Seidlhofer, 2011; Widdowson, 2012). In particular, it has been criticised for its static view of linguistic competence, reliance on native-like competence, and failure to recognise the importance of flexibility in the employment of linguistic resources in intercultural communication. However, arguably more significant in ELF research has been an interest in communicative and pragmatic strategies. Early ELF research such as Jenkins (2000) identified the importance of accommodation in ELF communication. Indeed, Seidlhofer and 32
ELF and intercultural communication
Widdowson argue that “it may turn out that what is distinctive about ELF lies in the communicative strategies that its speakers use” (2009, p. 37); although, I would add the caveat that this is not necessarily distinctive to ELF but rather a central feature of intercultural communication in general. Alongside accommodation, communicative and pragmatic strategies such as pre-empting misunderstanding, repetition, explicitness and code-switching have frequently been noted in ELF studies (see Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey, 2011 for an overview). Importantly, these strategies are not seen as ‘compensating’ for communicative deficiencies but rather as displays of pragmatic competence by successful multilingual and multicultural intercultural communicators. To date, ELF research has provided detailed information about the micro-discourse features of intercultural communication through ELF and what competence in this might entail. Nonetheless, together with this analysis of micro level features, we need explorations of macro-level aspects of intercultural communication related to identity and culture, such as those identified in ICC, and a means of linking the two levels. Intercultural awareness (ICA) represents an attempt to draw research together from both ELF and intercultural communication studies in a conception of the skills, knowledge and attitudes needed for successful (however we might choose to define that) intercultural communication through ELF (Baker, 2011, 2015). ICA builds on many of ICC’s notions of the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed in intercultural communication. However, unlike ICC, the focus is not predominantly on national conceptions of culture and language, although they are present, but instead ICA incorporates an understanding of the fluid, complex and emergent nature of the relationship between language and culture in intercultural communication through ELF. There is also an emphasis on intercultural communication as a process and the need to employ any intercultural awareness in a flexible and situationally relevant manner. This means that detailed features of ICA cannot be specified in advance but only broad areas. These broad areas include different levels of awareness moving from a general or basic awareness of communication as a cultural practice, to a more critical awareness of varied intercultural communicative practices and finally an advanced level of intercultural awareness where flexibility, dynamism and complexity are the norm (Baker, 2011, 2015). It is this final level of the model with its emphasis on fluidity that is particularly relevant for intercultural communication through ELF. However, it is important to recognise that this model of ICA, or any other model, should not be read as a set of prescriptive features for intercultural communication. A critical approach to intercultural communication entails an understanding that there can be no one set of communicative practices, intercultural or otherwise, that are more effective or successful than any other in all situations. Just as questions of language, culture and identity are always open empirical questions, so too are notions of successful ‘competent’ intercultural communication, which can only ever be judged in relation to individual instances of interaction.
Conclusion In this chapter I have argued that there is much potential for productive cross-fertilisation between intercultural communication and ELF research. First, ELF is by definition a form of intercultural communication and so offers valuable data for intercultural research. Contemporary approaches in both fields typically adopt post-structuralist perspectives to a number of central concepts such as language, identity, community and culture. Furthermore, both fields are concerned with understanding and documenting multilingual and multicultural communication in which diversity, complexity and fluidity are the norm. ELF research can draw on much of the theoretical and empirical work in intercultural communication for 33
Will Baker
expanded views of identity, culture, community and intercultural competence and awareness. At the same time intercultural communication research can benefit from the extensive empirical and growing theoretical work in ELF studies documenting the relationships between languages, communicative practices, identity, community and culture in the super-diverse and complex scenarios that are typical of intercultural communication through ELF.
Related chapters in this handbook 3 Ehrenreich, Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca 24 Kimura and Canagarajah, Translingual practice and ELF 28 Sangiamchit, ELF in electronically mediated intercultural communication 47 Jenkins, The future of English as a lingua franca?
Further reading Baker, W. (2015). Culture and identity through English as a lingua franca: rethinking concepts and goals in intercultural communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Piller, I. (2011). Intercultural communication: a critical introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Scollon, R., Scollon, S.B.K. and Jones, R.H. (2012). Intercultural communication: a discourse approach (3rd edn). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Zhu, H. (2014). Exploring intercultural communication: language in action. Abingdon: Routledge.
References Baird, R., Baker, W. and Kitazawa, M. (2014). The complexity of English as a lingua franca. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(1), pp. 171–196. Baker, W. (2009). The cultures of English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), pp. 567–592. Baker, W. (2011). Intercultural awareness: modelling an understanding of cultures in intercultural communication through English as a lingua franca. Language and Intercultural Communication, 11(3), pp. 197–214. Baker, W. (2015). Culture and identity through English as a lingua franca: rethinking concepts and goals in intercultural communication Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Baker, W. (2016). English as an academic lingua franca and intercultural awareness: student mobility in the transcultural university. Language and Intercultural Communication, 16(3), pp. 437–451. Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond ‘identity’. Theory and Society, 29(1), pp. 1–47. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship: essays and reflections. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. London: Routledge. Cogo, A., and Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a lingua franca: a corpus-based investigation. London: Continuum. Ehrenreich, S. (2009). English as a lingua franca in multinational corporations: exploring business communities of practice. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds), English as a lingua franca: studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 126–151 Firth, A. (2009). The lingua franca factor. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), pp. 147–170. Holliday, A. (2011). Intercultural communication and ideology. London: Sage. House, J. (2014). English as a global lingua franca: a threat to multilingual communication and translation? Language Teaching, 47(3), pp. 363–376.
34
ELF and intercultural communication
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 269–293. Jackson, J. (ed.). (2012). The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication. London: Routledge. 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. (2007). English as a lingua franca: attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a lingua franca in the international university: the politics of academic English language policy. London: Routledge. Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44(3), pp. 281–315. Jenks, C. (2013). Are you an ELF? The relevance of ELF as an equitable social category in online intercultural communication. Language and intercultural communication: Special Issue: The Discourse of Ethics and Equity, 13(1), pp. 95–108. Kalocsai, K. (2014). Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca: a study of Erasmus students in a central-European context. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Klimpfinger, T. (2009). ‘She’s mixing the two languages together’: forms and functions of codeswitching in English as a lingua franca In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds), English as a lingua franca: studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press, pp. 348–371. Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. (2011). The symbolic dimensions of the intercultural. Language Teaching, 44(3), pp. 354–367. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008). Cultural globalization and language education. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meierkord, C. (2002). ‘Language stripped bare’ or ‘linguistic masala’? Culture in lingua franca communication. In K. Knapp and C. Meierkord (eds), Lingua franca communication. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 109–134. Pavlenko, A. and Blackledge, A. (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. London: Routledge. Phan, L.H. (2008). Teaching English as an international language: identity, resistance and negotiation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Piller, I. (2011). Intercultural communication: a critical introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Pitzl, M.-L. (2012). Creativity meets convention: idiom variation and re-metaphorization in ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), pp. 27–55. Pölzl, U. and Seidlhofer, B. (2006). In and on their own terms: the ‘habitat factor’ in English as a lingua franca interactions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177, pp. 151–176. Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: language and ethnicity among adolescents. London: Longman. Risager, K. (2006). Language and culture: global flows and local complexity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Risager, K. (2007). Language and culture pedagogy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Scollon, R. and Scollon, S.W. (2001). Discourse and intercultural communication. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H. Hamilton (eds), The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 538–547 Scollon, R., Scollon, S.B.K. and Jones, R.H. (2012). Intercultural communication: a discourse approach (3rd edn). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Seidlhofer, B. (2007). English as a lingua franca and communities of practice. In S. Volk-Birke and J. Lippert (eds), Anglistentag 2006 Halle proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, pp. 307–318
35
Will Baker
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seidlhofer, B. and Widdowson, H.G. (2009). Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a lingua franca. In K. Murata and J. Jenkins (eds), Global Englishes in Asian contexts: current and future debates. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 26–39 Vettorel, P. (2014). ELF in wider networking: blogging practices. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Widdowson, H.G. (2012). ELF and the inconvenience of established concepts. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), pp. 5–26. Wierzbicka, A. (2006). English: meaning and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Xu, Z. and Dinh, T.N. (2013). How do “WE” (World Englishes) make sense in ELF communication? Words and their meanings across cultures. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(2), pp. 365–388. Zhu, H. (2014). Exploring intercultural communication: language in action. Abingdon: Routledge. Zhu, H. (2015). Negotiation as the rule of engagement in intercultural and lingua franca communication: meaning, frame of references and interculturality. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(1), pp. 63–90.
36
3 Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca Susanne Ehrenreich
Introduction A community of practice is a group of people who regularly interact with each other by means of a shared communicative repertoire in order to accomplish a common task. In the process, a great deal of informal learning is taking place. Old-timers show newcomers the ropes, newcomers may inspire longer-term members to rethink and innovate established practices. In today’s globalized world, such purpose-oriented endeavours increasingly bring together people from diverse linguacultural backgrounds who use and develop, among other resources, English as a lingua franca as part of their communicative repertoire. The term “community of practice”, coined by Lave and Wenger (1991: 97–98), was developed by Wenger (1998) as the essence of his social theory of learning. In its 1998 incarnation, the concept has developed an enormous impact, both as a heuristic notion and as an educational model, and has been applied in a wide range of disciplines (Squires and van de Vanter 2013). While celebrated and applied as a knowledge management tool in organizational and business studies (e.g. Wenger et al. 2002), it has also been applied, mostly in its analytical capacity, in fields such as education and sociolinguistics (e.g. Holmes and Meyerhoff 1999; Barton and Tusting 2005a; Hughes et al. 2007), accompanied by insightful critical debates. With regard to ELF theorizing, the potential relevance of the concept of community of practice was first discussed by House (2003).1 In an attempt to find an adequate notion to conceptualize the sociolinguistic realities of multilingual ELF speakers globally, it was initially considered a possible alternative to the established concept of the speech community. However, as is argued in Ehrenreich (2009: 130), as a “midlevel category” (Wenger 1998: 124) the concept of community of practice generally describes smaller and more cohesive group configurations and is therefore not a suitable candidate for such re-conceptualization efforts (see also Jenkins 2015: 64–66). With regard to empirical ELF research, however, it is a very different story. Although utilized as a framework in only a handful of studies so far – Ehrenreich (2009, 2010, 2011a) and Alharbi (2015) in the domain of international business, and Smit (2010), Cogo and
37
Susanne Ehrenreich
Dewey (2012) and Kalocsai (2014) in the domain of higher education – the concept has been shown to be a powerful analytical tool. If applied to suitable contexts, it enables socially situated explorations and analyses of ELF; analyses that help to (re-)direct the focus in ELF research to the social embeddedness of ELF in use. In this chapter, I will provide an overview of the potential and the limitations of applying the concept of community of practice to empirical research into ELF. After briefly tracing the origins of the concept and its first applications in sociolinguistics, the three criterial dimensions of a community of practice – mutual engagement, its joint enterprise and a shared repertoire – will be described, including a discussion of critical issues that have been raised in relation to them. For each dimension, it will be shown, on the basis of existing research, how these have been realized in ELF-based communities of practice. After a brief consideration of research methodological implications, empirically derived insights into the socially embedded and dynamic nature of ELF-based shared repertoires will be summarized and discussed with regard to four exemplary facets of ELF communication (strategies, multilingualism, sociopragmatic hybridity and ELF speakers’ identities). I conclude by reviewing the concept of community of practice in its capacities as an analytical tool, as a theoretical notion and as an educational model.
Communities of practice as an analytical research tool: origin and applications Lave and Wenger (1991: 97–98) introduced the concept “community of practice” as part of their theory of situated learning, in which apprenticeship-like types of learning are conceptualized as “legitimate peripheral participation”, but did not specify the term in detail. Its analytical potential for sociolinguistic research was recognized and explored by Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (1992), who introduced it to language and gender research with the following, now classic definition: A community of practice is an aggregate of people who come together around mutual engagement in an endeavor. Ways of doing things, ways of talking, beliefs, values, power relations—in short, practices—emerge in the course of this mutual endeavor. As a social construct, a community of practice is different from the traditional community, primarily because it is defined simultaneously by its membership and by the practice in which that membership engages. (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1992: 464) The prominence Eckert and McConnell-Ginet give in their definition to emerging “ways of talking, beliefs, values, power relations” as these aggregates’ shared “practices”, will be shown to prove particularly helpful in analysing the use of ELF as norm-driven,2 social behaviour in group-based social contexts. Adopting a “midlevel category” (Wenger 1998: 124) such as the community of practice – as opposed to analytical categories describing larger and less cohesive configurations of speakers – to examine ELF in its social contexts helps to identify and describe group-internal social parameters and how these govern its members’ linguistic and communicative behaviour. Holmes and Meyerhoff (1999: 174) translate the idea of social learning into a sociolinguistic perspective: 38
Communities of practice and ELF
The process of becoming a member of a CofP – as when we join a new workplace, a book group, or a new family […] – involves learning. We learn to perform appropriately in a CofP as befits our membership status: initially as a ‘peripheral member’, later perhaps as a ‘core member’ […]. In other words, a CofP inevitably involves the acquisition of sociolinguistic competence. Wenger, in his 1998 book, sets out to explore the concept of community of practice “more systematically” in order “to make it more useful as a thinking tool” (Wenger 1998: 7). Starting out from the fact that communities of practice are a familiar experience to everyone since “[w]e all belong to communities of practice. At home, at work, at school, in our hobbies” (Wenger 1998: 7) and from his observation that “the learning that is most personally transformative turns out to be the learning that involves membership in these communities of practice”, he aims to exploit this familiarity to further elaborate his conception of learning as “social participation” (Wenger 1998: 4). Crucially, participation to him is both “a kind of action and a form of belonging” (Wenger 1998: 6). To him, the concept of community of practice serves as a “point of entry” into his more encompassing theory of social learning (Wenger 1998: 8). A concise definition of the concept itself is not offered. Instead, three criterial dimensions of such communities are described: mutual engagement, a joint enterprise and a shared repertoire (Wenger 1998: 72–85. 124–126). It is these criterial dimensions that help to specify what a community of practice is, in contrast to other non-practice based communities (or non-community forming types of practices).
Criterial dimensions of communities of practice Communities of practice exist regardless of externally applied analytical categories. In other words, a group configuration is either a community of practice, or it is not. Two implications arise from this observation. First, configurations that do not ontologically represent a community of practice according to Wenger’s criteria cannot be transformed into such merely for research purposes. This is a lesson that can be learnt from previous research in sociolinguistics, where, as Meyerhoff (2005: 597) notes, enthusiasm for Wenger’s concept has gone slightly overboard in the past. “[S]imply jumping on a bandwagon and picking up a trendy new term [. . .] for analysing data it is not equipped to handle”, she argues (Meyerhoff 2005: 597), is a rather unwise thing to do. Second, empirical work that does not explicitly apply the community of practice framework may nevertheless offer de facto portrayals of exactly such communities, their members and their shared repertoires. So, for instance, the work by Kankaanranta and her colleagues (e.g. Kankaanranta and Planken 2010) and Räisänen’s longitudinal study (2013) represent examples of what could be categorized as conceptually ‘covert’ analyses of international business communities of practice or selected aspects thereof.
Mutual engagement For a community of practice to evolve as a coherent group, its members need to interact on a regular basis. Importantly, while pursuing their tasks (or what they interpret these tasks to be) such interactions have to be made possible in the first place. The primary channel for such exchanges is direct face-to-face interaction, however, these days most likely complemented 39
Susanne Ehrenreich
by electronically mediated communication. Just how much face-to-face contact between members is necessary for a community of practice to establish meaningful and rich relationships and to sustain itself as a community, is a highly controversial matter, and needs to be assessed carefully for each individual configuration. As a result of the participants’ mutual engagement various kinds of relationships evolve, with the community’s members being “included in what matters” (Wenger 1998: 74), albeit to varying degrees depending on the members’ status as “core” or “peripheral” members (Wenger 1998: 7). Establishing such group coherence requires considerable investment on the part of its members (cf. Wenger 1998: 74). Most importantly, however, right from the outset, Wenger (1998: 77) argues against a romanticized view of communities of practice, making it quite clear that these are not places free of conflict and power issues. This is a point on which he has been criticized, wrongly, I would maintain, on several occasions (see e.g. Barton and Tusting 2005a; Hughes et al. 2007). The people who are brought together in different types of communities of practice can be very different in all kinds of ways including the ways in which they respond to whatever their ‘joint enterprises’ are: “The resulting relations reflect the full complexity of doing things together” (Wenger 1998: 77). Therefore, interactions among members of a community of practice can be both “harmonious or conflictual” (Wenger 1998: 125). ELF-resourced communities of practice are no exception. It is this observation about the full range of possible interpersonal configurations that makes the concept a particularly valuable one for ELF research. It allows a contextually and situationally informed analysis of language use, reminding ELF scholars of the fact that ELF talk is not per se ‘cooperative’ in the sense of ‘conflict-free’. In this regard, the community of practice framework, which requires an ethnographic and multi-dimensional research methodology, facilitates detailed sociolinguistic and sociopragmatic analyses of when and how ELF speakers in a given interactional sequence decide to co-operate or not to co-operate with each other. Taking a look at research into ELF-based communities of practice available to date, what are the ways in which mutual engagement in such communities is enacted? Ehrenreich (2009, 2010, 2011a), Kankaanranta and Planken (2010), and Alharbi (2015) have identified the following forms of mutual engagement in the global workplace among business professionals, who, by the way, are always simultaneously members in several communities of practice: face-to-face encounters in offices, in meeting rooms, in hallways or at the coffee machine, over lunch and during business dinners. The encounters take place at home and abroad, with colleagues in subsidiaries or with clients. Naturally, mutual engagement among business professionals also involves phone calls, phone or video conferences (or net conferences) as well as e-mail. Group sizes and speaker configurations may vary considerably from one encounter to the next. In the domain of higher education, interactions and relationship building in a community of practice of Erasmus students occur in shared activities such as partying and travelling (Kalocsai 2014: 85–89), and in an international hotel management programme, inside and outside the classroom in various subgroups (Smit 2010). Crucially, the examples in all studies underline the fact that the concept of community of practice is not a synonym for externally defined groups or configurations of people (i.e. a classroom, a team, or a unit; see Wenger 1998: 74). A community of practice only evolves as a result of the relationships its members establish through their mutual engagement. The studies available so far also demonstrate that for some ELF speakers the communicative contexts in which they find themselves are relatively stable and fixed for the time of their community’s existence, as is the case with the group of Erasmus students, and even more so with the students in the international hotel management programme. Yet, in other contexts, as can be
40
Communities of practice and ELF
seen in the international business communities of practice (Ehrenreich 2009, 2010, 2011a; Alharbi 2015), the ELF speakers involved are simultaneously members, often in different roles (i.e. as core or peripheral members), of several parallel communities of practice, communities that might themselves be in a state of flux to a greater or lesser extent, forming and dissolving, acquiring new members and losing others.
Joint enterprise The second criterial dimension of a community’s shared practice is the negotiation of a joint enterprise. While this is a fairly intuitive notion in contexts such as Wenger’s original research setting in an insurance company, in other domains this dimension may be more difficult to pin down. It is no surprise, then, that as a conceptual category, the notion of a joint enterprise seems to pose a considerable challenge when applied to sociolinguistic and ELF research. Two of the crucial questions in this regard are: First, is ‘language’ part of a given community’s joint enterprise or not? (see Ehrenreich 2009) And, second, how specific does a community’s joint enterprise have to be in order to be analytically meaningful? (see e.g. Meyerhoff 2002; Prior 2003; Davies 2005; and for Business English as a lingua franca ((B)ELF), see Ehrenreich 2009). According to Wenger, a joint enterprise is the goal or purpose that motivates the participants’ interrelated actions, as “their negotiated response to their situation” (Wenger 1998: 77). As a result, “relations of mutual accountability” are created, which serve as communityspecific guidelines as to “what matters and what does not” (Wenger 1998: 81). Consequently, a negotiated joint enterprise is never a direct reflection of an official or external goal, but is transformed by the participants themselves in and through their practices to suit their own purposes as much as is possible in a given setting. As indicated above, in the domain of business identifying the joint enterprise of a community of practice is a fairly straightforward issue. Companies are ‘profit-making organizations’, it is their goal to develop and sell whatever product or service they have specialized in. In their organizational structures, the respective departments (e.g. research and development, production, sales, IT) as well as the units and teams contribute to this aim. Within the departments and across them, company-internally and externally, with colleagues and with customers, members of management and employees form communities of practice, who jointly negotiate how this ultimate goal of ‘profit-making’ defines their everyday practices. Generally, ‘language’ or ‘speaking a language’ are not normally part of such joint enterprises (with the exception of, for example, communication departments and translating agencies). At the same time, this does not mean that language is not playing an important part in such non-language focussed communities’ practices. Quite the contrary, the participants’ mutual engagement and the negotiation of their respective joint enterprises are realized via language – in all its social and stylistic functions – and would, quite clearly, not be possible without it. However, for heuristic reasons, it is important not to conflate what is symptomatic of fundamental differences in the respective ‘relevance systems’, i.e. a community’s set of priorities, of different professional or interest groups (for a brief discussion of the sociological construct of relevance systems and its implications for ELF research, see Ehrenreich 2009: 128–129). As discussed in Ehrenreich (2009), language plays a pivotal role in the ‘relevance systems’ of ‘language-focussed’ people or professional groups such as linguists, language teachers and language students (Ehrenreich 2009: 128–129). For these groups, language, or more
41
Susanne Ehrenreich
specifically, in the case of English language specialists, English, is part and parcel of the joint enterprise of whatever professional community of practice (or related ‘constellations of practice’) they are a member of. With regard to ‘content-focussed’ people or professional groups, language only plays a secondary role. Content comes first, and language serves the purpose of conveying content (Ehrenreich 2009, 2010, 2011a). This conceptual distinction between language-focussed vs content-focussed speakers is helpful in more than one way. Most importantly, it helps to explain the markedly different attitudes towards ELF between different professional groups (Ehrenreich 2009).3 Second, it helps to uncover a heuristic confusion in early attempts to apply the community of practice framework to ELF speakers generally. For example, it was suggested with regard to applying the community of practice framework to ELF that negotiation not only “on the content plane”, but also “on the level of linguistic (English) forms” was part of the “‘enterprise’ in ELF talk” (House 2003: 572). Such a perspective may be justified in ELF-based communities of practice that carry a strong language focus such as EMI classes (for an example, see Smit 2010). Yet, in all other cases, English (as a lingua franca) is most probably part of a community’s ‘shared repertoire’, not part of their ‘joint enterprise’. Ultimately, however, whether and to what degree this conceptual distinction – language, or ELF, being part of a community’s joint enterprise vs not being part of their shared enterprise – holds true for any given ELF-based community of practice needs to be examined carefully by the researcher. It is the researcher’s task to reconstruct the participants’ emic views on what they themselves consider to be or not to be components of their joint enterprises, and how these components relate to their shared repertoires. The second challenge inherent in the notion of a community’s ‘joint enterprise’ concerns its specificity. ELF scholars are well-advised to take note of the critical voices that have been raised in sociolinguistic research. For example, Meyerhoff (2002: 528) emphasizes that “[i]t is important that [the] shared enterprise be reasonably specific and not very general or abstract”. And, extending her argument, that [i]t ought to contribute something meaningful to an understanding of the dynamics of the group involved. Sociolinguists who wish to use the notion of CofP in their analyses have to exercise caution and ensure that as researchers they are not attempting to constitute ‘CofPs’ for which a shared enterprise is explanatorily vacant. (Meyerhoff 2002: 528) To illustrate her point from a sociolinguist’s perspective, Meyerhoff presents an example taken from her own research that cannot be explained productively using the community of practice framework, simply because, as she states, “it was impossible to specify what kind of enterprise all the women who were observed using sore [a Vanuatu apology routine; SE] to express empathy might share” (Meyerhoff 2002: 530). Translating these words of caution into ELF research, this means that, hypothetically speaking, ‘communicating via ELF’ with no further defined shared goal would in most domains fall into the category of an ‘explanatorily vacant’ enterprise. Specificity of a joint enterprise in the business domain is not a problem, and the same potentially holds for classrooms of various kinds and related programme activities. Yet, to what extent externally defined groups such as classrooms actually transform into communities of practice is a matter of the participants’ actual mutual engagement. In other contexts, particularly with regard to “self-constituted groups” (Davies 2005: 562), it might be more difficult, in general, to uncover and define the possible joint enterprise of a given group configuration. For example, online communities or student groups do not automatically 42
Communities of practice and ELF
constitute communities of practice. This is the case only if they have as a group negotiated a shared enterprise, at least for a given time span (see Davies 2005: 562). Returning to the questions stated at the beginning of this section regarding ‘language’ as part of a community’s joint enterprise and the specificity of such enterprises, how have these issues been dealt with in community-of-practice-based empirical ELF research to date? In my own study of two Germany-based multinational corporations in the technology sector, the members’ enterprises arise from and revolve around the individuals’ responsibilities, for example, in engineering or in sales, or around their organizations’ structures, as well as, importantly, the fact that several years ago their jobs had taken on a global dimension (Ehrenreich 2009, 2010, 2011a). Their joint enterprises concern business issues. (B)ELF, from an emic view, is part of the communities’ shared repertoires. As such it is, without any doubt, inextricably linked to business matters in that it serves the purpose of doing business, just like any other language or semiotic tool. In Alharbi’s study in a British-owned health insurance company in Saudi Arabia, the employees’ focus is on how to get their jobs in the multicultural teams of the company’s IT department done in a meaningful way (Alharbi 2015). Despite the obvious contextual differences, her findings are very similar to mine, with the exception that in particular configurations and only for some members, in Alharbi’s study, ‘English’ temporarily seems to surface as part of the members’ ‘enterprise’. In the educational domain, the situation seems to be slightly different. The group of Erasmus students in Kalocsai’s (2014) study adapted the official rationale of the Erasmus programme in a dynamic manner, a gradual process resulting in the overall joint enterprise of building an Erasmus network of friends; an enterprise, which for some members at least, was associated with the language-related goal of improving their English (Kalocsai 2014: 77–85). In Smit’s (2010: 106, 131, 135) analysis of an English-medium vocational programme, the students harmonized three components as their jointly negotiated enterprise: first, the educational goal; second, building relationships among themselves; and finally, improving their English language proficiency. Yet, in the overall account of the study, ‘English as a classroom language’ is on several occasions portrayed not only as the researcher’s main focus, but also as the sole component of the community’s enterprise, a view that may not be entirely compatible, and emically justified, with the students’ nor the teachers’ perspectives. There is content matter, too, and there are relational goals.
Shared repertoire The third dimension of practice that contributes to creating coherence in a community is the development of a shared repertoire for negotiating meaning among its members (Wenger 1998: 82). The individual elements of this repertoire can be very heterogeneous in nature and comprise both linguistic and non-linguistic elements. Diverse as they may seem to outsiders, they are not random, but are unified by and a reflection of the members’ joint enterprise: The repertoire of a community of practice includes routines, words, tools, ways of doing things, stories, gestures, symbols, genres […], actions, or concepts that the community has produced or adopted in the course of its existence, and which have become part of its practice […] It includes the discourse by which members create meaningful statements about the world, as well as the styles by which they express their forms of membership and their identities as members. (Wenger 1998: 83) 43
Susanne Ehrenreich
When a community of practice evolves, its members bring with them a diverse set of communicative resources, which are then “imported, adopted, and adapted for their own purpose – if only the language(s) they speak” (Wenger 1998: 126). With regard to their analyses, ELF scholars need to be careful to acknowledge the fact that the shared repertoire of any ELF-based community of practice is always much more than ‘just’ ELF. From a community of practice perspective, ELF in its varied manifestations is part of and at the same time embedded as only one of many other elements in a multi-layered communicative repertoire; a repertoire that is itself inextricably linked with the community members’ mutual engagement and their joint enterprise (Ehrenreich 2009; Kalocsai 2014: 95–98). Crucially, it is the community’s joint enterprise, not any communityexternal criterion, which serves as the ultimate benchmark for appropriateness (Ehrenreich 2009). Moreover, such shared repertoires are not fixed at any given point in time, but mutable and adaptive (Wenger 1998: 83).4 As evidenced in Ehrenreich (2009), Räisänen (2013), Alharbi (2015) and others, in business communities these repertoires comprise, in addition to English, several other languages as well as documents such as drawings, charts, power point presentations or websites, also often models of different parts of technical products, and, on a more abstract level, certain “ways of doing things” (Wenger 1998: 83). In Kalocsai’s (2014) Erasmus student community the repertoire includes, in addition to languages, collaboratively built ‘schemata’ for partying and travelling, conversational frames, humour and communicational support. The focus in Smit’s (2010) analysis of an EMI setting is on classroom interaction via ELF as the hotel management students’ and their teachers’ shared repertoire. Wenger also points out two additional implications of such repertoires being dynamic and interactive, which provide instructive analytical clues for any socially situated research into ELF: Agreement in the sense of literally shared meaning is not a precondition for mutual engagement in practice, nor is it its outcome. Indeed, mismatched interpretations or misunderstandings need to be addressed and resolved directly only when they interfere with mutual engagement [or the joint enterprise; SE]. Even then, they are not merely problems to resolve, but occasions for the production of new meanings. (Wenger 1998: 84) Without doubt, ambiguity, in terms of linguacultural ambiguity, potentially extending to every aspect of ELF communication, is one of its key characteristics. In ELF-based communities of practice, tolerance for ambiguity is needed, assessed against the requirements of mutual engagement and the joint enterprise. Wenger’s characterization of the shared repertoire of a community of practice, is, indeed, relatively brief, as has been noted by several sociolinguists (e.g. Tusting 2005). Yet, given the overall goal of his book, this is not necessarily a major conceptual weakness of his theory per se. Concise as his outline of the characteristics of a shared repertoire may be, seen in conjunction with the other two dimensions, mutual engagement and joint enterprise, it provides sufficient orientation for sociolinguists, including ELF scholars, to develop and utilize the notion to support their research in terms of socially situated analyses of language, or ELF, in use.
Summing up: features of a community of practice and methodological implications Aware of the challenge the expository nature of his characterization of the concept of community of practice poses – with no concise definition included (see Barton and 44
Communities of practice and ELF
Tusting 2005b: 6) – Wenger (1998: 125–126) offers as an additional heuristic device the following list of features, which indicate whether and to what degree a community of practice has formed: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
sustained mutual relationships—harmonious or conflictual shared ways of engaging in doing things together the rapid flow of information and propagation of innovation absence of introductory preambles, as if conversations and interactions were merely the continuation of an ongoing process very quick setup of a problem to be discussed substantial overlap in participants’ descriptions of who belongs knowing what others know, what they can do, and how they can contribute to an enterprise mutually defining identities the ability to assess the appropriateness of actions and products specific tools, representations, and other artifacts local lore, shared stories, inside jokes, knowing laughter jargon and shortcuts to communication as well as the ease of producing new ones certain styles recognized as displaying membership a shared discourse reflecting a certain perspective on the world.
Incidentally, a close look at these features reveals again the pivotal role language plays in the shared practices of such communities. Adequate research techniques are required to examine the social facets of ELF use in communities of practice from an emic, i.e. the participants’, perspective. As a general rule, qualitative ethnographic approaches, ideally in conjunction with various conversation or discourse analytic methods, seem to be the most promising way to capture the multidimensional realities of ELF use in such communities as perceived by their members. The studies conducted to date have used, in various combinations, the following data collection techniques: (participant) observation, qualitative interviews, casual conversations, online journals, as well as audio recordings of speech data. Moreover, as challenging as it may seem, spending an extended period of time in the field is a methodological sine qua non. Finally, novice researchers need to be aware of the fact that a distinct set of criteria has been developed to assess the overall quality of qualitative research (see Smit 2010: 87–88).
The shared repertoires of ELF-based communities of practice: socially embedded and dynamic Seidlhofer was right when, some 10 years ago, she issued her call for “clearly situated qualitative studies with a strong ethnographic element” (Seidlhofer et al. 2006: 21). Looking at the findings of community-of-practice-based research into the use of (B)ELF available to date, these findings demonstrate conclusively what can be gained by such a ‘qualitative turn’ (see Ehrenreich 2009; Kankaanranta and Planken 2010; Smit 2010; Räisänen 2013; Kalocsai 2014; Alharbi 2015). Summarizing their overall contribution to (B)ELF research, these studies are highly innovative in that they make ‘the social’ visible in (B)ELF, thus restoring its full communicative complexity as ‘language in its social context’; an aspect that had previously, hence Seidlhofer’s call, been neglected in ELF research.5 Thick ethnographic descriptions of how (B)ELF is used in context, recorded from multiple angles and including longitudinal perspectives, reveal the wealth of social, often domain-specific, parameters at work in (B)ELF communication and how these 45
Susanne Ehrenreich
govern the use of individual linguistic and communicative elements. These parameters include, to name but a few, issues of power and how power is defined in a given context, relating to hierarchies with regard to speakers, languages, cultures and organizations, as well as face issues and issues relating to social distance (see Ehrenreich 2011a). They also include domain-specific parameters, for example, with regard to business communication or classroom discourse, parameters that are derived from multiple, and often, but not necessarily, competing cultural norms. Rarely are these parameters stable ones, more often they are in flux and under ongoing negotiation in the respective communities of practice. In terms of the overall qualities of (B)ELF identified so far, community-of-practice-based work generally supports previously gained insights into ELF in many ways. Crucially, what it offers on top of that are contextually sensitive analyses from multiple perspectives of individual aspects of ELF communication, analyses that eventually contribute to a more socially differentiated description of ELF. In their light, several generalizations concerning the nature of ELF may turn out to be somewhat premature and empirically not always fully justified. Similarly, empirically uncharted territory and several blind spots become visible. A few examples will help to illustrate these more general observations, examples referring to the use of communicative strategies, the multilingual nature of ELF, the role of cultural communicative conventions, as well as, finally, (B)ELF speakers’ identities. Communicative strategies have been studied extensively in ELF research and they are generally regarded as an indication of the cooperative (in a somewhat narrow sense of the word) nature of ELF communication. Often these strategies are mentioned as candidates for possible pedagogical implications. Yet, through community-of-practice-based studies we gain a clearer picture of the social complexity that governs speakers’ decisions as to what strategy is appropriate to use in a given context or not. Quite clearly, in the business domain, power issues can occasionally override short-term communicative needs or result in uncooperative behaviour (Ehrenreich 2010; Alharbi 2015). In contrast, “collaborative communication work” (Smit 2010: 404) has been found to eclipse typical asymmetries in classroom talk in Smit’s analysis in the domain of higher education. Similarly, with regard to the notion of ELF as a multilingual resource detailed analyses of specific contexts highlight huge differences in terms of the degree to which multilingualism is played out in ELF-based encounters. In some settings, there may be a happy mix of various languages surfacing in addition to, or as part of, ELF (e.g. Kalocsai 2014: 158–163; Ehrenreich 2016: 146–149), while in others the minimum three languages involved, i.e. two L1s plus English, are strictly confined to their respective communicative spaces. For example, this was the case in a somewhat hostile encounter between German and Chinese business professionals during a meeting I observed, in which the two first languages of the participants were used extensively within the L1 groups, but in a conversationally highly impolite way, i.e. without explaining their L1 use in any way to the other party. Two parameters that contributed to the observed conversational climate include power and social distance. The observed meeting involved an important, but relatively new client (the Chinese party), and was thus an example of company-external communication, which is generally said to be considerably more formal than company-internal communication. With regard to codeswitching, one of the most obvious instantiations of ELF as a multilingual resource, Alharbi (2015: 150) is able to show, on the basis of her multi-method ethnographic data, how the instances of code-switching in company-internal meetings in a Saudi MNC varied according to the number of non-Arabic speaking, English native speaker seniors present in such meetings. In Smit’s study (2010) of an EMI setting, other languages than English were by and large considered by the community members not to be a particularly positive resource. 46
Communities of practice and ELF
At the linguacultural interface of ELF communication (see Baker, Chapter 2 this volume), we find a lot of empirically uncharted territory. Pragmatic hybridity in terms of interculturally mixed communicative conventions has been found to be a key characteristic of ELF communication (Louhiala-Salminen et al. 2005; Ehrenreich 2009, 2010, 2015). Ethnographic insights into the practices of international business communities of practice highlight, from an emic point of view, how such linguacultural ‘leakage’ (see for this term, Jenkins 2015: 75) is dealt with. Sometimes, although often only initially, this mix of communicative conventions poses a challenge. Members of a community of practice negotiate strategies to deal with these differences, often by way of integrating them into their shared repertoires. A host of questions needs to be asked: How do such interculturally mixed repertoires develop? Which parameters are most influential in shaping them? Power issues, local cultures (i.e. the ‘habitat factor’), the dominance of same-language-speaker groups? When or why is the mix of different communicative conventions experienced as a challenge? What are the factors contributing to a successful or less successful handling of such a mix? Once a community has negotiated an interculturally hybrid repertoire of communicative conventions, is this repertoire relatively stable or rather dynamic? Which parameters govern its situational realization? And finally, are such processes mono-directional (e.g. moving towards Western cultures?) or multidirectional? Most of these issues have only rarely been explored empirically so far,6 not least because they pose considerable methodological challenges. Community-of-practice-based, qualitative approaches offer promising avenues in this respect. Finally, there is a great overlap in terms of how community-of-practice-based research describes how members of (B)ELF-resourced communities of practice develop, over time and through their mutual engagement around a joint enterprise, into confident userscum-learners of (B)ELF (Ehrenreich 2009, 2010; Kankaanranta and Planken 2010; Räisänen 2013; Kalocsai 2014). They seem to follow a shared “trajectory” (Räisänen 2013), in that they start out from an EFL (English as a foreign language) learner identity with a deeply ingrained deficiency orientation. Gradually, however, through a process of secondary socialization, they grow into competent and confident users of their respective shared repertoires. These do not only comprise (B)ELF and other languages, but many additional enterpriserelated communicative and semiotic elements. Eventually, (B)ELF is embraced as ‘theirs’ (see also Kalocsai 2014).7 In the light of these findings, the often quoted distinction between ‘language(s) for communication’ versus ‘language(s) for identification’ has become obsolete (see House 2003 with reference to Hüllen 1992). (B)ELF is much more than just a language for communication. For many speakers it clearly also serves a range of identificatory purposes in their global interactional spaces. Evidently, communicating extensively via ELF within, across and beyond their communities of practice results in a type of learning that is “most personally transformative” (Wenger 1998: 6). Yet, interestingly, in ELF settings within an institutional educational context, such emancipation from one’s ‘old’ EFL language learner identity is not reported (Smit 2010: 408).
Conclusion Community-of-practice-based empirical explorations of (B)ELF are still rare. Yet, as has been shown in this chapter, individually and in their entirety, they yield invaluable insights into (B)ELF as a social language, and clearly, more work along these lines needs to be done. By comparing and contrasting the shared repertoires of different communities of practice – either within the same organizational or institutional settings, or across such settings, within 47
Susanne Ehrenreich
or across different domains, and in different geographical regions – it might eventually be possible to distinguish community-specific from more generally applicable social parameters governing the use of ELF in context. At the same time, as a research tool, the concept of community of practice is not a methodological “be-all and end-all” (see Meyerhoff 2005: 597). Groups that are organized in different ways regarding their internal structure or their goal-orientation require different concepts. Therefore, additional conceptual tools are needed in the ELF research tool box to capture adequately the specific social dimensions of ELF use in a wide range of various groupings of speakers, including larger configurations of ELF speakers as well as more transient or one-off encounters between ELF-speaking individuals. Developing such tools is high on the agenda for future ELF research (see, for example, Jenkins 2015: 76–77, on the notion of Pratt’s (1991) ‘contact zones’). With regard to ELF theorizing, the discussion in this chapter underlines the fact that the community of practice as a concept is not an adequate replacement for the sociolinguistic concept of the ‘speech community’. The search for alternatives is still on. Yet, while the community of practice itself is not a suitable candidate, additional research based on the concept might substantiate the observation that in certain “constellations of practice” (Wenger 1998: 126–131) or even beyond these, speakers of (B)ELF, in fact, share very similar beliefs as to the appropriate use of language as part of their repertoires. What is more, looking at the findings available to date, there is already valuable empirical evidence indicating that these shared beliefs result in very similar speaker identifications and, indeed, a shared sense of membership. So maybe, after all, rather than looking for conceptual alternatives, it might suffice to recast the concept of speech community in global terms. Similarly to Mauranen’s notion of ‘second order language contact’ (see Mauranen, Chapter 1 this volume), ELF speakers globally could be seen as members of ‘second order global speech communities’, of which they have become members through a shared process of secondary socialization. This process takes place in their respective domains, e.g. business, academia, higher education, leisure, etc., where they are socialized into the appropriate uses of English as a multilingual and multicultural lingua franca. Finally, the potential of the concept of community of practice in its educational dimension8 is still waiting to be discovered and explored in ELF as a field of enquiry. In some settings, such a community of practice approach might prove to be the key to a more contextually refined approach to fostering the users-cum-learners’ competence of ELF in its fluid and hybrid nature, e.g. in business. In other settings, it remains to be seen to what extent communities of practice can be ‘cultivated’ (see Wenger et al. 2002) in ways that support – through mutual engagement and organized around a joint enterprise – the development of sociolinguistic competence in ELF. To conclude, ultimately, as is the intention of Wenger’s theory, the concept of community of practice in all its dimensions – in theorizing, in research and in education – invites us to think about adequate conceptions of learning, including the learning of ELF as a social language.
Notes 1 As an interesting precursor of Wenger’s concept, but already with specific reference to English as a lingua franca, see Knapp’s notion of ‘participation communities’ (Knapp 1984/2015). 2 Norm here refers to communicative norms in the broadest and most comprehensive sense of the term. 3 See as an interesting example illustrating the positive attitudes towards BELF the following resource from the field of Business English teaching (Handford 2016): https://medium.com/business-english/ business-english-as-a-lingua-franca-belf-ff52ebd05a66#.atiwdo9p0 (accessed 20 May 2016). 4 Which, incidentally, is one of the main reasons why teasing out pedagogical implications of community-of-practice-informed (B)ELF research for teaching purposes poses such a great 48
Communities of practice and ELF
challenge, at least if such ‘teaching’ is not at the same time accompanied by a major philosophical reorganization of its educational framework. 5 Interestingly, research into BELF has always included a strong qualitative element. In fact, Louhiala-Salminen’s (2002) seminal study can be classified as another conceptually ‘covert’ community-of-practice-based study. 6 But see Ehrenreich 2011b for a discussion of the interculturally mixed uses of address terms in a German MNC and the varied parameters influencing their situational realization. 7 See again the resource from the field of Business English teaching (Handford 2016). 8 See also the paragraph on ‘Education’ in the section ‘Where is the concept being applied?’ on Wenger’s website at http://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/ (accessed 20 May 2016).
Related chapters in this handbook 1 Mauranen, Conceptualising ELF 2 Baker, English as a lingua franca and intercultural communication. 25 Kankaanranta and Louhiala-Salminen, ‘ELF in the domain of business – BELF: What does the B stand for? 47 Jenkins, The future of English as a lingua franca?
Further reading Ehrenreich, S. 2009. English as a lingua franca in multinational corporations: exploring business communities of practice. In: Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. eds, English as a lingua franca: studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 126–151. Holmes, J. and Meyerhoff, M. 1999. The community of practice: theories and methodologies in language and gender research. Language in Society. 28(2), pp. 173–183. Kalocsai, K. 2014. Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca: a study of Erasmus students in a Central European context. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Meyerhoff, M. and Strycharz, A. 2013. Communities of practice. In: Chambers, J.K. and Schilling, N. eds, The handbook of language variation and change. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 428–447. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
References Alharbi, N. 2015. Business English as a lingua franca in Saudi multinational corporations. PhD thesis, King’s College London. Barton, D. and Tusting, K., eds, 2005a. Beyond communities of practice: language, power and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barton, D. and Tusting, K. 2005b. Introduction. In: Barton, D. and Tusting, K. eds, 2005. Beyond communities of practice: language, power and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–13. Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. 2012. Analysing English as a lingua franca: a corpus-driven investigation. London: Continuum. Davies, B. 2005. Community of practice: legitimacy, not choice. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 9(4), pp. 557–581. Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. 1992. Think practically and look locally: language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology. 21, pp. 461–490. Ehrenreich, S. 2009. English as a lingua franca in multinational corporations: exploring business communities of practice. In: Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. eds, English as a lingua franca: studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 126–151. 49
Susanne Ehrenreich
Ehrenreich, S. 2010. English as a business lingua franca in a German MNC: meeting the challenge. Journal of Business Communication. 47(4), pp. 408–431. Ehrenreich, S. 2011a. The dynamics of English as a business lingua franca: a language contact perspective. In: Archibald, A., Cogo, A. and Jenkins, J. eds, Latest trends in ELF research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 11–34. Ehrenreich, S. 2011b. Forms of address in English as a lingua franca (ELF) as a window on speakers’ perceptions of sociopragmatic hybridity. The Fourth International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca, 27 May, Hong Kong. Ehrenreich, S. 2016. English as a lingua franca (ELF) in international business contexts: key issues and future perspectives. In Murata, K. ed., Exploring ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts. London: Routledge, pp. 135–155 Handford, L. 2016. Business English as a ‘lingua franca’ (BELF). [Online]. [Accessed 20 May 2016]. Available from: https://medium.com/business-english/business-english-as-a-lingua-franca-belfff52ebd05a66#.atiwdo9p0 Holmes, J. and Meyerhoff, M. 1999. The community of practice: theories and methodologies in language and gender research. Language in Society. 28(2), pp. 173–183. House, J. 2003. English as a lingua franca: a threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics. 7(4), pp. 556–578. Hüllen, W. 1992. Identifikationssprachen und Kommunikationssprachen [Languages for identification and languages for communication]. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik [Journal of German Linguistics]. 20, pp. 298–317. Hughes, J., Jewson, N. and Unwin, L. eds, 2007. Communities of practice: critical perspectives. London: Routledge. Jenkins, J. 2015. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice. 2(3), pp. 49–85. Kalocsai, K. 2014. Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca: a study of Erasmus students in a Central European context. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Kankaanranta, A. and Planken, B. 2010. BELF competence as business knowledge of internationally operating business professionals. Journal of Business Communication. 47(4), pp. 380–407. Knapp, K. 1984/2015. English as an international lingua franca and the teaching of intercultural communication. Reprinted in Journal of English as a Lingua Franca. 4(1), pp. 173–189. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Louhiala-Salminen, L. 2002. The fly’s perspective: discourse in the daily routine of a business manager. English for Specific Purposes. 21(2), pp. 211–231. Louhiala-Salminen, L., Charles, M. and Kankaanranta, A. 2005. English as a lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: two case companies. English for Specific Purposes. 24(4), pp. 401–421. Meyerhoff, M. 2002. Communities of practice. In: Chambers, J.K., Schilling-Estes, N. and Trudgill, P. eds, Handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 526–548. Meyerhoff, M. 2005. Biographies, agency and power. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 9(4), pp. 597–603. Pratt, M.L. 1991. Arts of the contact zone. Profession 91, pp. 33–40. Prior, P. 2003. Are communities of practice really an alternative to discourse communities? American Association for Applied Linguistics Annual Meeting, 22–25 March, Arlington, Virginia. Räisänen, T. 2013. Professional communicative repertoires and trajectories of socialization into global working life. PhD thesis, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Seidlhofer, B., Breiteneder, A. and Pitzl, M.-L. 2006. English as a lingua franca in Europe. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 26, pp. 1–34. Smit, U. 2010. English as a lingua franca in higher education: a longitudinal study of classroom discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Squires, S. and van de Vanter, M.L. 2013. Communities of practice. In Caulkins, D.D. and Jordan, A.T. eds, A companion to organizational anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 289–310. Tusting, K. 2005. Language and power in communities of practice. In Barton, D. and Tusting, K. eds, Beyond communities of practice: language, power and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 36–54. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W. 2002. Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 50
4 Complexity and ELF Diane Larsen-Freeman
Introduction Despite its being a relatively new area of inquiry, the study of English as a lingua franca (ELF) has spurred those of us in the language professions to rethink some fundamental concepts: two of which are the nature of language and the ideology of native-speaker privilege. Offering assistance in rethinking these is Complexity Theory (CT). Complexity Theory itself has only relatively recently been taken up in the physical sciences, but it has since been widely applied to the social sciences as well. It is a metatheory of and for our times. I begin by introducing CT as a metatheory; then, I discuss how the study of ELF supports and is served by viewing language as a complex adaptive system (CAS). I turn next to the inherent challenge to native-speaker privilege in this view. Before concluding, I briefly discuss design features for an ELF research agenda informed by CT. As with all theories, tenets in CT have antecedents, stretching at least as far back as the Greek philosophers. However, the particular constellation of principles that we have come to know as CT today has emerged from the radically transformed scientific thinking that began in the previous century with the advent of quantum mechanics, the adoption of a nonreductionist approach, and the embrace of systems thinking. CT is a metatheory in the way that Overton (2007: 154) defines the term: A metatheory is a coherent set of interlocking principles that both describes and prescribes what is meaningful and meaningless, acceptable and unacceptable, central and peripheral, as theory—the means of conceptual exploration—and as method—the means of observational exploration—the context in which theoretical and methodological concepts are constructed. Theories and methods refer directly to the empirical world, while metatheories refer to the theories and methods themselves. In other words, with a metatheory there is room for, indeed still the need for, more specialized theories that refer directly to the empirical world. For instance, any attempt to account for second language development would minimally need a theory of language and a theory of learning/development. With CT as the metatheory, a candidate for the former might 51
Diane Larsen-Freeman
be characterized as usage-based, where language is continually transformed through use (Beckner et al., 2009), and the latter as emergentism (Ellis and Larsen-Freeman, 2006). The point is that when it comes to ELF, CT provides meta-level guidance, and more focused “object” theories are still needed. As long as the theoretical concepts and principles of the object theories are consonant with those of CT, they would sit comfortably within the scope of CT. I turn next to consider what concepts and tenets are featured in CT as a metatheory.
Complexity theory Perhaps the most powerful insight from CT lies in its non-reductionist concept of emergence. In a complex system, novelty emerges out of the interaction of its parts. This position is somewhat different from the meaning of the aphorism that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Emergence stresses that something new arises from the interaction of the components of a system. Instead of assuming that every phenomenon can be explained by breaking it down into simpler components, a more holistic perspective is called for. CT defines the problem domain as investigating how patterns continually emerge from components interacting within the changing ecology in which they operate (van Lier, 2000: 246). It is centrally a theory of change, in which the parts of a complex system self-organize—there is no inherent preformationism. As patterns emerge upwards through self-organization, they are downwardly entrained due to both the historic trajectory of the system and the conditions present in the environment (Thompson and Varela, 2001). This cyclical dynamic has been referred to as “reciprocal causality.” The way the science writer, James Gleick, has worded it, “the act of playing the game has a way of changing the rules” (1987: 24). Notice that emergence is situated within an ecology or context. Many multicomponential systems are “merely” complicated. What makes a system complex is both the interconnectedness of its components and the fact that they are context dependent (Juarrero, 2000: 26). A complex system changes both through internal reorganization and through the system’s adaptation to a changing context. Furthermore, because of the interconnectedness of its components, change in any one part of the system impacts the others. Complex systems also operate at different levels of scale—from micro to macro and levels in between. CT is a relational theory, so researchers do not just focus on one level of a complex system, but rather look for the connections among them (Larsen-Freeman and Tedick, 2016). Complexity arises from the nonlinear nature of the interactions among the components of a dynamic system. Change does not occur at regular intervals; sometimes it is gradual, other times sudden. While knowing the parameters of a linear system makes it possible to predict its future trajectory (Byrne and Callaghan, 2014), this is not true in a nonlinear system. In such a system, a small change in one parameter can have unanticipated consequences at a later point in time. The result is not proportionate to the cause. Complex dynamic systems are open: they take in and expend energy, matter, or information, depending on the type of system, all the while they are self-organizing. When systems self-organize, they settle into preferred states, which are called attractors. The potential for future development lies in the variability around the relatively fixed stability of an attractor. A good way to think of an attractor state is to imagine an eddy in a stream (Thelen, 2005). The water droplets that comprise it are always different, constantly flowing through it. However, the whorl remains a more or less continuous emergent pattern or attractor in the flux. Its existence and rate of flow is due to the physical contours of the streambed and the temporal conditions, e.g., the fact that its waters come from the spring 52
Complexity and ELF
melt of the snow that fell the preceding winter. If either of these change, the eddy would disappear or be otherwise transformed. As I have written, CT is a metatheory of and for our times. Its influence has extended beyond its point of origin. It offers a systems-based, non-reductionist way of thinking. It seeks patterns in the flux of performance, while maintaining stability through reciprocal causality. It insists on the importance of interconnectedness and of perpetual dynamism within a context. It recognizes the nonlinearity of change. It offers a metalanguage that encodes these notions and connects a variety of phenomena. Indeed, because of its defining characteristics—continuing variation, its situatedness, and its novelty, ELF is one of these phenomena. The study of ELF has contributed to our rethinking the nature of language and thus encouraging a view of language, consonant with CT, that of language as a complex adaptive system (Seidlhofer, 2011; Mauranen, 2012; Hülmbauer, 2013; Baird et al., 2014).
Nature of language: ELF as a CAS One of the issues in accounting for ELF is to overcome a way of thinking about language that has been inherited from linguistics, i.e., a static, atomistic view. Linguists adopt this view in order to describe language synchronically as an idealized system. While such an approach may yield descriptive adequacy, this pursuit provides no vocabulary or concepts for the discussion of dynamic processes (Larsen-Freeman and Cameron, 2008). The problem for ELF researchers is that the predominance of this view makes it is easy to commit the fallacy of analyzing and reifying language in use (Herdina and Larsen-Freeman, forthcoming). As Baird et al. (2014: 177) warn, In facing the challenges that accompany systematic and useful engagement with the roles and proliferation of English, it should be clear that any treatment of language that neglects the dynamic and contextual nature of communication is likely to misrepresent both the data gathered and the explanations for what is observed. The problem is compounded by experience with language instructional materials, where materials authors have to corral, segment, and sequence an otherwise protean subject (Larsen-Freeman and Freeman, 2008). Presumably, when individuals seek to communicate with others, they do not think in terms of an inventory of constructions. Rather, as speakers communicate with others, they employ all the semiotic resources at their disposal, including nonverbal ones and contextual cues. Of course, communication is not an individual act. Several individuals come together in a languaging episode (Maturana and Varela, 1987), enacting a CAS, and in so doing something new emerges. Speakers “soft-assemble” (Thelen and Smith, 1994) their language resources in the moment to deal with the exigencies at hand. The patterns are softly assembled, which means that the patterns can be flexibly adapted by speakers, depending on their intentions, their interlocutors, and the context of use. By so doing, the language resources they are using are transformed. Patterns emerge “upwards” in the sense that languageusing patterns arise from individuals using the language interactively, co-adapting to one another’s resources. However, there is reciprocal causality, in that the language-using patterns themselves “downwardly” entrain emergent patterns in a given communal language (Larsen-Freeman and Cameron, 2008). Importantly, because most ELF speakers are multilingual, the historical contingency that shapes the way that they use English is affected 53
Diane Larsen-Freeman
by the other languages they know. It follows then that ELF speakers who speak English as a third language will be operating from a different base than those for whom it is a first or second language (Jessner et al., 2016). Soft assembly and historical contingency offer a way of conceptualizing both global and universal changes as well as local, variable, and individual performance (Thelen and Bates, 2003). A system denotes a set of interconnected parts, which function in coordination together. In both product and process views of language, language operates as a system, not merely a collection of components. In the latter case, it is a dynamic system. It is not necessary for a dynamic system to be invariable, bounded, or without exception (Larsen-Freeman and Cameron, 2008). Indeed, as I have already indicated, a dynamic system is perpetually changing, never ending—in the case of language, emerging from the bottom-up interaction of multiple speakers in communicative exchanges, where both parties’ language resources are affected (Larsen-Freeman, 2011: 49). The mutual influence does not lead to reification. Indeed, language should not be seen as an entity but instead as a space in which an infinite number of possible trajectories may be realized. None of these trajectories comes into being until language is used in a specific context … Context, in this sense, does not mean just the physical space; it includes the intentional or inter-subjective space between users. (Larsen-Freeman and Freeman, 2008: 161) It is important to remember that complex systems are comprised of multiple levels. In the case of ELF, we can point to individual human beings, their contacts zones, and globalized networks—nested levels that are mutually influencing each other. This does not imply that the changed use at an individual level is immediately taken up at all levels, for change takes place at different rates at different levels (MacWhinney, 1999). As with other complex systems, language-using patterns are heterochronous (Lemke, 2000). A language event on some local timescale may simultaneously be part of language change on longer timescales. The point is that both novel patterns and established ones co-exist, which make complex systems at one and the same time both variable and stable. Systems function toward stability while simultaneously changing in response to internal and external phenomena (Clarke et al., 2016). CT also helps us expect that what emerges from an interaction will be distinctive—not entirely predictable from an analysis of its antecedents. Similarly, we cannot assume that because the participants we study use English as a lingua franca, this will necessarily lead to the emergence of particular forms of speech (like a preference for zero realization of the [-s] variable). In short, it is simply difficult, if not impossible, to claim with any certainty that a specific language scenario will necessarily generate specific speech forms and lead to the adoption of specific norms of interaction and interpretation. (Mortensen, 2013: 39) Thus, the language resources of individual ELF users, i.e., people who use English in contexts where it serves as a lingua franca, may overlap, but will never be identical, not only because of the users’ different language profiles and their use of English to satisfy their unique needs, but also because of their history of interactions with others. Furthermore, each language user has in principle the right to extend the language. In addition, language
54
Complexity and ELF
in use is not only for the purpose of communication but is also a tool that allows speakers to manage their identities and even to resist adopting ongoing changes present in the speech of other members of the community (Labov, 1966), so we see tremendous variation (Steels and Buels, 2017). In concert with a CAS view of ELF, Baird et al. (2014) underscore the importance of viewing language from multiple dimensions in which its contextual embodiment is crucial, and its isolation and compartmentalisation is problematic. This leads Larsen-Freeman and Cameron to state that “language cannot be usefully segregated from its ecology” (2008: 79). (Baird et al., 2014: 181)
Challenging native-speaker privilege Language as a CAS has also contributed to challenging the privileging of English native speaker norms. Because language as a CAS is realized in, and affected by, different contexts, there should be no one usage that is universally privileged, independent of purpose and audience. The following excerpt from the front matter of the respected American Heritage Dictionary (pointed out by a member of its usage panel, Anne Curzan, 2016) makes this clear. The Usage Panel should not be thought of as an academy empowered to rule on all questions of disputed usage. That is an expedient that the English-speaking world has rejected since the 18th century, and in a world where English is established as the language of a heterogeneous international community, the idea that any group or individual might arrogate the authority to fix standards seems not only illiberal but absurd. (American Heritage Dictionary, 2011: xii) Along with a rejection of native-speaker privilege is the recognition that what constitutes an “error” is subject to interpretation. Curzan (2016) addresses the polysemy of the term “error,” pointing out that there are three instances of what might be called “an error” in English. One is the use of double negation, which once was common in Old and Middle English, but now only exists in non-standard varieties of English. The second is a deviation from formal standard English, such as the increasingly common use of the subject pronoun they as singular (e.g., I was talking to a friend of mine, and they told me). The third is a construction that no native speaker of English would use. However, going a step further, with regard to this third category, Jenkins (2000: 160) makes the point: “There really is no justification for doggedly persisting in referring to an item as “an error” if the vast majority of the world’s L2 English speakers produce and understand it.” Interestingly, some child language researchers now describe what might have earlier been termed “an error,” not as an error or mistake, but rather as an innovation (see also LarsenFreeman, 2016). For instance, Achimova (2008) writes about the “innovations” that children learning English as their native language exhibit. Achimova’s justification is that “[w]e refer to forms like goed as innovations, not mistakes because a child does not yet know the whole system of a language and simply tries to fill in the gaps in the grammatical system creating new forms” (2008: 7). This same logic would seem to apply to other language learners/ users, and perhaps even more so to ELF users because ELF is used in a multilingual context
55
Diane Larsen-Freeman
(Jenkins, 2015), and thus what appears to be an error from a monolingual English point of view may, in fact, be an innovation from a multilingual point of view. The fact of the matter is that, from a CT perspective, ELF users have the capacity to create their own forms with meanings and uses (morphogenesis) and to expand the meaning potential of English (Larsen-Freeman and Cameron, 2008). For instance, Björkman, (Chapter 21, this volume) observes that ELF users often choose the English periphrastic comparative form (e.g., more narrow, more cheap) over the inflected form (narrower, cheaper). However, there are good reasons for this choice. Besides, many native English speakers choose to do the same (Larsen-Freeman and Celce-Murcia, 2015). The history of English is the loss of grammatical inflections (Curzan, 2016). Clearly, the form of comparatives in English is changing in this regard, and perhaps ELF users are in the vanguard in this instance and elsewhere. To return to the point about innovations and errors, CT offers support for the position that there is no principled basis for distinguishing between an innovation and an error because both are contingent upon the speakers’ perception of, and acting on, the affordances in the context to create meaning, not in their applying a fixed set of rules. In fact, instead of applying rules, there is a tendency for speakers to reuse existing forms as much as possible, even if the forms already have other functions. This exaptation serves a useful purpose. If a new invention is based on the exaptation of an existing word or construction in a slightly different context, then there is a higher chance that the hearer might guess this new meaning than if a radically new invention is made. Hence the exapted invention has a higher chance to propagate and survive in the communal language. (Steels and Beuls, 2017: 32) This process of bricolage works in both directions. Since ELF interactions are multilingual, it is possible not only for inventions to surface in English, but for new forms to be adopted into the contact language. For example, speakers of German now use the expression “Das macht sinn” (That makes sense), which is not endemic to German, but is rather a back translation from English into German (Herdina, personal communication). Much of the discussion so far has centered on the use of language for meaning-making and communicating. While these are no doubt core functions of language use, challenging native-speaker privilege also extends to using one’s language resources to negotiate one’s identity and to manipulate one’s languages resources to one’s benefit as well, what Kramsch and Whiteside (2008) refer to as “symbolic competence.” Symbolic competence “is defined within a complexity theoretical framework as the ability to position oneself advantageously, to be aware of the historicity of words, to reframe and change the context of the interaction” (Kramsch and Whiteside, 2016). In other words, in keeping with CT as a metatheory, symbolic competence is dynamic, flexible, and locally contingent (Kramsch, 2009).
Implications for methodology As was mentioned in the introduction, Overton’s definition of a metatheory has implications for what he calls “observational exploration.” Although the study of language development from a Complexity Theoretic perspective is still in its infancy, second language development researchers have sought to identify research methods that are more consistent with CT as a metatheory (Larsen-Freeman, 2015). At the least, it is felicitous if such methods are longitudinal, multiscalar, and localized, and ones that consider individual variability in the 56
Complexity and ELF
developing language resources of second language learners (Verspoor et al., 2011; Dörnyei et al., 2015). To these characteristics, Hiver and Al-Hoorie (2016: 750 ) add, CDST [complex dynamic systems theory] is grounded in the phenomenological reality of the social world and calls for approaches that emerge from the needs of inquiry (Morin, 2008), which we believe complements the recent pivot toward a more transdisciplinary, problem-focused orientation to research methodology (King and Mackey, 2016). It would seem that research methods with these design features are also suitable for researching ELF (Baker, 2015). Another dimension of methodology that might be attended to, given CT, is to frame investigations in multilingual terms, one where what emerges from ELF interactions is a pluralistic interplay of language resources, resulting from the mutual influence of all relevant languages in the exchange. Another important consideration has to do with the importance of context. CT makes it clear that similar mechanisms may lead to different outcomes as they interact with different features of the context. Central to these contextual features are the understandings, choices, actions, and interactions of the speakers involved (Moss and Haertel, 2016). One other way that CT may help with the study of ELF is in the former’s encouragement to interrogate dichotomies (Morin, 2007). Such an attitude might help to overcome the tendency to dichotomize native and non-native uses of English. It recognizes that dichotomies can be useful when used heuristically, such as the one between mono- and multi-lingualism, but like all heuristics, they are simplifying moves (Larsen-Freeman, forthcoming). Baird (2012: 10) has written thusly about ELF: Dichotomising along the lines of “standard” vs. “non-standard,” “ENL/normative” vs. “ELF/expressive” or perhaps worse “creative” vs. “conforming” is to vastly oversimplify the linguacultural landscapes in which language is performed, the backgrounds and roles of the interlocutors, and the contextual identification processes involved in interactions.
Conclusion Some have argued that theories from the physical sciences are inappropriate to apply to more human concerns; however, linguists are increasingly drawn to CT for the analogical insights it affords, a linguistic system emerges in the same way as other “emergent phenomena” (the way systems are seen in the science of complexity), through the addition and/or disuse of the strategies that the interactants develop in the here and now of their communicative acts. (Mufwene et al., 2017: 20) If one accepts the analogy, there is guidance available in CT as a metatheory and support for it from the study of ELF: the need to acknowledge the dynamicity, nonlinearity, and openendedness of ELF communication and speakers’ positionings, which lead to the emergence of innovative, and the retention of established, patterns, partly attributable to English and partly traceable to the interplay with the other languages present. The guidance and support include the need to foreground the spatial, temporal, and intersubjective contextualization of ELF speakers’ interactions, attending to speakers’ adaptive moves and the inevitable variability 57
Diane Larsen-Freeman
that accompanies the adaptation. While any of these defining characteristics of ELF could be looked at singly, an advantage to adopting CT is that it offers a coherent framework from which to view the whole. A corresponding point is that in order to avoid becoming awash in holism, it is necessary to demarcate a focal system of interest. It must be recognized that in drawing boundaries, certain aspects of a multidimensional process are foregrounded, with the result that other dimensions are backgrounded. Any claims, therefore, must remain modest and provisional (Cilliers, 2001).
Further reading Baird, R., Baker, W., and Kitazawa, M. (2014). The complexity of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3, pp. 171−196. De Bot, K., Lowie, W., and Verspoor, M. (2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, pp. 7−21. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2016). A successful union: Linking ELF with CAS. In L. Lopriore and E. Grazzi (Eds.), Intercultural Communication: New Perspectives from ELF (pp. 15−29). Rome: Roma Tres Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2016). Complexity Theory and ELF: A matter of teleology. In M.-L. Pitzl and R. Osimk-Teasdale (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Perspectives and prospects. Contributions in honour of Barbara Seidlhofer (pp. 139−146). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Mufwene S., Coupé, C., and Pellegrino, F. (Eds.). (2017). Complexity in language: Developmental and evolutionary perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
References Achimova, A. (2008). Verb innovations in spontaneous speech of children. In T. Marinis, A. Papangeli and V. Stojanovik. (Eds.), Proceedings of the child language seminar 2007–30th anniversary (pp. 4−14). Reading: University of Reading. American heritage dictionary of the English language (2011). 5th ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Baird, R. (2012). English as a lingua franca: The study of language practices. Englishes in Practice: Working papers of the Centre for Global Englishes, University of Southampton 1, 3–17. Baird, R., Baker, W., and Kitazawa, M. (2014). The complexity of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3, pp. 171−196. Baker, W. (2015). Culture and identity through English as a lingua franca: Rethinking concepts and goals in intercultural communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, B., Christiansen, M.H., Croft, W., Ellis, N.C. Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., and Schonemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, Supplement 1, pp. 1–26. Byrne, D. and Callaghan, G. (2014). Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. Abingdon: Routledge. Cilliers, P. (2001). Boundaries, hierarchies, and networks in complex systems. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5, pp. 135–147. Clarke M., Trujillo, A., Hubbard, R., and Loven-Santos, C. (2016). Balancing mandated innovation and personal/professional development. A paper presented at COTESOL, Denver, November 4. Curzan, A. (2016). Survey says . . . : Determining what usage is and isn’t acceptable. A plenary addressed delivered at the International TESOL Convention, Baltimore, April 8. Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P.D., and Henry, A. (Eds.). (2015). Motivational dynamics in language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ellis, N.C. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (Eds.). (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics [Special issue]. Applied Linguistics, 27(4). Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Penguin. Herdina, P. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (forthcoming). Language and complexity. Hiver, P. and Al-Hoorie, A. (2016). A dynamic ensemble for second language research: Putting complexity theory into practice. Modern Language Journal, 100(4), pp. 741–756. 58
Complexity and ELF
Hülmbauer, C. (2013). From within and without. The virtual and the plurilingual in ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2(1), pp. 47–73. Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice 2015, 2, pp. 49–85. Jessner, U., Allgäuer-Hackl, E., and Hofer, B. (2016). Emerging multilingual awareness in educational contexts: From theory to practice. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 72, pp. 157–182. Juarrero, A. (2000). Dynamics in action: Intentional behavior as a complex system. Emergence, 2, pp. 24−57. Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. and Whiteside, A. (2008). Language ecology in multilingual settings: Towards a theory of symbolic competence. Applied Linguistics, 29, pp. 645−671. Kramsch, C. and Whiteside, A. (2016). Annotated bibliography on symbolic competence. A presentation at the University of Arizona, February 26. Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). A complexity theory approach to second language development/ acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 48−72). Abingdon: Routledge. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Ten “lessons” from CDST: What is on offer. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre, and A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 11–19). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2016). Complexity theory and ELF: A matter of teleology. In M.-L. Pitzl and R. Osimk-Teasdale (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Perspectives and prospects. Contributions in honour of Barbara Seidlhofer (pp. 139−146). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Larsen-Freeman, D. (forthcoming, 2017). Complexity theory: The lessons continue. In Z.-H. Han and L. Ortega (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane LarsenFreeman. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Celce-Murcia, M. (2015). The grammar book: Form, meaning, and use for English language teachers. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning/Heinle/Cengage Learning. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Freeman, D. (2008). Language moves: The place of “foreign” languages in classroom teaching and learning. Review of Research in Education, 32, pp. 147–186. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Tedick, D. J. (2016). Teaching world languages: Thinking differently. In D. Gitomer and C. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed.) (pp. 1335−1387). Washington DC: American Educational Research Association. Lemke, J. (2000). Across the scales of time: artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture and Activity, 7, pp. 273–290. MacWhinney, B. (Ed.) (1999). The emergence of language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Maturana, H.R. and Varela, F.J. (1987). The tree of knowledge. Boston, MA: New Science Library. Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morin, E. (2007). Restricted complexity, general complexity. In C. Gershenson, D. Aerts, and B. Edmonds (Eds.), Worldviews, science and us: Philosophy and complexity (pp. 5–29). Singapore: World Scientific. Mortensen, J. (2013). Notes on English used as a lingua franca as an object of study. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2, pp. 25–46. Moss, P. and Haertel, E. (2016). Engaging methodological pluralism. In D. Gitomer and C. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 127−247). Washington DC: American Educational Research Association. Mufwene, S., Coupé, C., and Pellegrino, F. (Eds.). (2017). Complexity in language: Developmental and evolutionary perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 59
Diane Larsen-Freeman
Overton, W. F. (2007). A coherent metatheory for dynamic systems: Relational organicismcontextualism. Human Development, 50, pp. 154–159. Seidlhofer, B.. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Steels, L. and Beuls, K. (2017). How to explain the origins of complexity in language: A case study for agreement systems. In S. Mufwene, C. Coupé, and F. Pellegrino (Eds.), Complexity in language: Developmental and evolutionary perspectives (pp. 30–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thelen, E. (2005). Dynamic systems theory and the complexity of change. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 15, pp. 255−283. Thelen, E. and Bates, E. (2003). Connectionism and dynamic systems: Are they really different? Developmental Science, 6, pp. 378−391. Thelen, E. and Smith, L. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Thompson, E. and Varela, F.J. (2001). Radical embodiment: Neural dynamics and consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Science, 5, pp. 418−425. Van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J.P. Lantolf and S.L. Thorne (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155−177). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., and Lowie, W. (Eds.) (2011). A dynamic approach to second language development. Methods and techniques. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
60
5 English language teaching Pedagogic reconnection with the social dimension Constant Leung and Jo Lewkowicz
Introduction What goes on in the language classroom is fundamentally shaped by the ways in which the very idea of language is conceptualised by curriculum developers, examination requirements, materials writers, teachers and students. The views and perceptions of these key stakeholders are of course influenced by wider educational and ideological debates in society at any given time. Take the example of English as a school subject in England. In the past 50 years or so, the characterisation of subject has been construed variously in terms of ‘personal expression’, ‘canons of English literature’, ‘basic requirement for participatory citizenship’, ‘grammar and spelling’ and so on. The teaching of English as an additional/ complementary/ foreign/second language is no exception. It has in recent times been influenced by the spread of English as a lingua franca for business, educational, governmental and technological purposes in different parts of the world, which, in turn, has further consolidated English Language Teaching (ELT) as a transnational enterprise. Given the global reach of the English language, the way in which it is conceptualised in ELT has a worldwide impact. In this chapter our discussion will comprise three main parts. We will first provide a brief account of the prevailing conceptualisation of English as it is represented in theoretical and curriculum frameworks. Then we will look at some samples of internationally marketed ELT textbooks to explore how the ‘core’ concept of English has been interpreted and rendered as teaching and learning activities and materials. In the final part we will focus on the conceptual and pedagogic adequacy of the prevailing conceptualisation and suggest that it needs to be expanded in order to take account of the type of linguistic fluidity that is characteristic of lingua franca English language use.
Social dimensions of language From historical accounts we know that lexis and syntax have always been an important constituent of language teaching (e.g., Howatt, with Widdowson, 2004; Stern, 1992). Indeed it would be difficult to imagine any kind of language learning without paying
61
Constant Leung and Jo Lewkowicz
at least some attention to the formal and rule-based aspects of the language concerned. In language education a key conceptual issue is whether grammar and lexis should be regarded as the main focus of teaching. Taken to extremes, this concern for lexico-grammar can be indifferent to questions such as who are the speakers/users, for what purpose/s and under what circumstances? The fundamental epistemological assumption is that language, as manifested in the form of lexis and syntax, has an autonomous and stable (if not permanent) existence. In ELT this was the prevailing conceptualisation in the early parts of the twentieth century (e.g., see Bell, 1981, ch. 5; Quirk, 1990; Richards and Rodgers, 2001). However, we witnessed a decisive paradigmatic shift in the 1980s. In fact the earliest movements of this shift can be traced to the intellectual developments a decade or so earlier. The work of Hymes (1972, 1977) on the ethnography of communication and communicative competence within the field of anthropology paved the way for the adoption of a different perspective. Hymes (1972: 277) argues that it is important to learn ‘knowledge of sentences, not only as grammatical, but also as appropriate’. Furthermore, language learning should include social rules of use for ‘when to speak, when not, and as to what to talk about with whom, when, in what manner’. This turn towards the social dimensions of language and language use has significant implications for language teaching. The work of applied linguists such as Breen (1985), Brumfit and Johnson (1979), Candlin (1981), Halliday (1973), Morrow (1981), Savignon (1983), Widdowson (1975, 1978) and others in this period elaborated and recontextualised this conceptual shift from anthropology to language studies and language teaching. Canale and Swain made a significant contribution to this moment of conceptual shift in a series of highly influential articles (Canale, 1983, 1984; Canale and Swain, 1980a, 1980b). Their aim was to develop for language education ‘a somewhat modified set of principles which is consistent with a more comprehensive theoretical framework for the consideration of communicative competence’ (1980a: 1). Their rendering of communicative competence for language education comprises four components: grammatical competence (vocabulary and grammatical rules), sociolinguistic competence (social conventions of use), discourse competence (elements of textual cohesion and content meaning coherence), and strategic competence (making most of limited language resources by using alternative expressions). In the ensuing 30 years these principles have consolidated into what is now widely referred to as Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in the worldwide ELT profession. One can readily see the principles of CLT embedded in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR; Council of Europe, 2001). The CEFR is a transnational curriculum framework for language teaching and assessment initially developed for education systems within Europe but now widely adopted globally. The CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001: 9) claims that it ‘views users and learners of a language primarily as “social agents” [. . .] who have tasks [. . .] to accomplish in a given set of circumstances, in a specific environment, and within a particular field of action’ (though in practice the social dimension has tended to be as an abstraction). Thus, the espoused aims of language education and language teaching from the CEFR perspective are to endow learners with the capacity and knowhow to communicate with others in real-world contexts. The espoused pedagogic principles of CLT offer the requisite intellectual and linguistic sensibilities for this socially oriented view of language education. From South Korea to Brazil, CLT is the paradigm representing a professionally endorsed orthodoxy in language education (for further discussion see Byram and Parmenter, 2012). Nowhere is this perspective more evident than in the internationally marketed textbooks.
62
English language teaching
Manifestations of social dimensions of language in ELT textbooks The adoption of CLT and the associated changes to language pedagogy have led to a complete metamorphosis of the conceptual orientation of ELT textbooks. A cursory comparison between the more popular textbooks of the early 1980s (e.g. Soars and Soars, 1984) and those currently in use (e.g. Soars and Soars, 2009) show that there have been changes at all levels from presentation, to content as well as pedagogic tasks, though less so in the language focus of those tasks. At the heart of these changes has been our evolving understanding of how the English language is used in the world and what we believe authentic language use entails. To explore these changes we now turn to look at how the English language use has been interpreted and rendered as teaching and learning activities and materials in a range of internationally marketed textbooks. The intention here is to highlight some of the features of coursebooks that claim to adopt a communicative approach and how these may have changed in recent years. Our purpose is to explore the shifts in conceptualisation and orientation influenced by the tenets of CLT. We do not claim to be providing a comprehensive overview of such textbooks or to evaluate their usefulness. Perhaps one of the most striking developments since the introduction of CLT is the way in which ‘authentic’ materials have been perceived. In the earlier textbooks such as Headway (Soars and Soars, 1984) and English File (Latham-Koenig, Oxenden and Seligson, 1996) the emphasis was placed on the texts being taken from sources written for non-pedagogic purposes such as newspapers and magazines with, where possible, the original layout of the text being retained. The sources were predominantly from the Anglophone world, reflecting issues and topics of predominant interest to a limited audience primarily those familiar with British or American culture. In addition, tasks that were designed to ‘boost students’ confidence in dealing with real English’ (Soars and Soars, 1984, back cover) would often require students to talk in pairs or groups about topics unrelated to their experience (e.g. finding a town or country house, Soars and Soars, 1984, p. 31), and would focus more on practising taught forms than on enabling learners to convey their own meaning. Learners would be given the information to use in their dialogues and role plays. Acknowledging the internationalisation of English, more recent textbooks have themselves recognised the need to deal with a wider range of material and tasks that relate to international learners all over the world. Such textbooks, like their precursors, continue to focus on developing students’ grammar and vocabulary, but at the same time aim at developing learners’ communicative capacity to deal with authentic language use in their carrier content. If we take the fourth edition of New Headway Intermediate (Soars and Soars, 2009) as our first example, a number of the reading topics include a non-Anglophone perspective, such as in the first unit, which introduces a family from Kenya and China, and Unit 6, which compares the kitchens of women from Italy, the US and India. There is also a recurring ‘Spoken English’ section that draws learners’ attention to features of real life language use such as sounding polite in Unit 1 and ways of adding emphasis to what is being said in Unit 6. A further feature evident in this textbook is the way in which many of the tasks are set up to promote communication among the students. In Unit 6 (p. 50), for example, students work in three groups with each group reading one of the three texts on one of three kitchens described and then work with members of the other groups to swap and compare information. Such information-gap tasks have been designed to promote interaction among learners and encourage a semblance of authentic communication. 63
Constant Leung and Jo Lewkowicz
We now turn to English Unlimited Intermediate (Rea and Clementson, 2011) as a further example of how enhancing communicative ability has been put into practice in recent years. (For a detailed critical appraisal of this textbook from an ELF perspective, see Dewey, 2014). This course is part of a series covering six levels (from A1 to C1 on the CEFR scale) and is aimed at adult learners. In the introduction to the teachers’ book the course is described as: ‘practical, authentic, international and flexible’ (p. 4 of Teacher’s Pack). The textbook includes both scripted as well as unscripted (i.e. sourced from recordings of instances of real-life communication) audio and video listening material among native and non-native (expert) speakers who come from a range of places and speak with different accents. In the first activity of Unit 2, for example, the conversations are between an Argentinean and an Irish person and then a Canadian talking with a Turkish person, though the language oriented tasks all focus on native speaker English. A section on intercultural awareness is included in every second unit to further promote intercultural communication. Among the topics covered are ‘Dealing with conflict’ in Unit 9 and ‘Attitudes to family’ in Unit 11, and indeed, intercultural communication is seen as paramount by the authors who describe intercultural competence as a ‘fifth skill’ (Students’ Book, back cover). The systematic use of extended tasks and projects is a further way of preparing learners for future communicative situations outside the classroom. In English Unlimited (Rea and Clemenston, 2011) such a task is found in each unit to consolidate and extend the learning introduced in the opening sections of the unit. So, for example, in Unit 2 entitled ‘Good communication’ the target activity is to discuss the issue of banning mobile phones and MP3 players in the office, expressing opinions with greater or lesser certainty through use of modal auxiliaries. A cumulative unit project also concludes each unit of English: No Problem (Quinones and Karol, 2004) which is a US-oriented text for adult migrant learners with the view of equipping them for the future. The above examples illustrate how two dimensions of social language, that of exposure to authentic language use as well as engaging with others in the learning activities, are being built into the teaching materials currently in use. The increasing use of unscripted texts from a range of real-world sources that has been facilitated by the availability of modern technology is exposing learners to samples of diverse language use. Such texts that are being presented in speech and writing as well as in the form of illustrations incorporate information beyond the basic fabric of the language (i.e. grammar and vocabulary), thus building awareness of socially and contextually appropriate language use, but they always do so according to native speaker norms. In addition the activities themselves are designed to facilitate meaningful interaction among learners, though it must be acknowledged that much of the interaction continues to be directed by the teacher and/or textbook. One way in which textbooks drive the interaction is through the choice of topics presented. To appeal to as wide an audience as possible, currently used textbooks pride themselves on selecting universal topics (see, for example, the back blurb of Soars and Soars, 2009 and Rea and Clemenston, 2011). Yet this is one of the features of such textbooks that has come under a good deal of criticism (e.g. Akbari, 2008; Siqueira, 2015). To be universally acceptable the topics selected and consequently the texts associated with them have often been ‘anaesthetized to make them politically and socially harmless for an international audience’ (Akbari 2008: 282). Materials writers are advised by publishers to adhere to the PARSNIP acronym, that is, to avoid topics of politics, alcohol, religion, sex, narcotics, isms (i.e. sexism, racism, radicalism etc.) and pornography (Gray, 2001, cited in Akbari, 2008: 282). By reaching out to everyone, the textbooks will not necessarily be meeting the real needs, interests and
64
English language teaching
concerns of anyone. They may be exposing learners to language as it is used in a specific situation such as by the National Geographic as is the case in Life Intermediate (Stephenson and Highes, 2013) or the BBC in Speak Out Upper Intermediate (Eales and Oakes, 2016). However, this does not guarantee that the materials are relevant for the learners. No text is culturally neutral. Thus textbooks provide learners with a perception of the English-speaking world through the lens of the textbook writers/publishers. Typically this world continues to be viewed from the vantage point of the idealised Anglophone world user. Even when speakers of other cultures are introduced the language samples fail to capture the fluidity of real-time language use: the samples of language presented or indeed elicited from the learners appear sterile and far divorced from the type of interaction that occurs in spontaneous speech. We draw on an example from a recently published textbook to illustrate this point. In Unit 5 of Speak Out Upper Intermediate (Eales and Oakes, 2016, p. 137) students are asked to work in pairs to talk about ways for getting people to stop dropping litter. They are given the following list of options: get a celebrity spokesman to promote the idea; have signs for the backs of cars: ‘Don’t even think of throwing your rubbish out’, increase fines for dropping litter, have rubbish bins that make fun sounds when something’s dropped in. They are then instructed to use the provided framework that shows what each speaker is to include while role-playing the situation, as can be seen from the extract below: A: B: A: B:
How / feel / get / celebrity / endorse / campaign? not / first choice / have to say How / idea / increase / fines / strike you? It / be / done before. / think / wrong track. / It / great / if / use / signs / back of cars (Eales and Oakes, 2016: 137; extracted from task 4B of Unit 5.3)
The objective of the task is to have students suggest ideas, however, not only are all the ideas given, but the frame for the dialogue is presented so there will be very little variation in the outcome of the task regardless of speaker. What students will say is therefore predictable. It becomes a task of practising forms rather than of meaning-making, one to be completed as quickly as possible rather than a task to become involved in. It does not capture the fluidity and agentive characteristic of real-life interaction, which can be readily seen in the following extract taken from a ‘live’ interaction during a Biology tutorial at a London university. The focal student (S) is a speaker of English as an additional language. The tutor is a mother tongue English speaker. The interaction is between a tutor and a student using English as an additional language at the beginning of a seminar when the tutor is returning marked work to students. 01 S: 02 T: 03: S: 04 T: 05 S: 06 T: 07 S: 08 T: 09 10 S:
where is mine?1 where is yours (.) it’s a very good question I gave it in I (.) in the box over there (.) was it? Where did you give it? in the box downstairs ah, that’s why I haven’t got it why? because it should have been in the metal box here (.) you give it to me again (.) it may even be lost because if they have any (.) I have your name on your paper [inaudible]
65
Constant Leung and Jo Lewkowicz
11 T: 12 13 S: 14 T: 15 16 S: 17 T: 18 19 S: 20 T: 21 22 S: 23 T: 24 S: 25 T: 26 S: 27 T: 28 S:
yes but it’s probably got mislaid somewhere because they are not expecting this work = = OK it should have been in the metal box there [pointing in the direction of an adjacent room] huh this time this time I’ll let you off (.) if it happens again I can’t let you off OK all tutorial work is in the box [pointing in the direction of an adjacent room again] in this floor yes, on the end here OK OK [turning away from S] right our next job ahh can I give you yes, when you just give it to me as soon as possible OK.
The student in this exchange has her own agenda. Once she finds out that her assignment is not returned by her tutor she needs to ascertain two pieces of information: where and when she can resubmit her assignment. The tutor is forthcoming as to where, in fact, he reiterates the information a couple of times (ll.14–15, 20–21). But having indicated that the issue is closed (l. 25), the tutor has not provided the second piece of information as to the time of resubmission. The student, therefore, does not let the tutor move on (l. 26). This extract of spontaneous and agentive speech is very different from the textbook example cited above in that its focus is on meaning-making and continues to the point where the necessary information has been elicited (rather than merely rehearsed) (see Leung and Lewkowicz, 2013 for a related discussion; also see Leung, 2014; Leung and Street, 2014).
Changing dynamics of language use What the above discussion reveals is that although current textbooks aim to enhance learners’ social language by including authentic materials and encouraging students to use language to express views and opinions, these two dimensions of social language are not sufficient to truly prepare students for dealing with the complexities of real-life language as it has been documented. One possible explanation relates to the carrier content of such textbooks, which is often anodyne to the point that the authenticity is there to meet a marketing requirement rather than enhance learners’ propensity to use language in a meaningful (for them) way. The material is authentic in the eyes of the material writers/publishers but may not be for the learners who may be observing others’ use of language rather than becoming involved in the meaningful production of language. This resonates with the distinction between genuine and authentic language that Widdowson (1978) made nearly 40 years ago, claiming that no materials are authentic in their own right – they need to be authenticated by those using them. This suggests that a key issue in materials design is that of interest and relevance to the target audience and no materials can be considered authentic just by virtue of the fact that they came from non-textbook sources. So in this context if we take authentic language to mean any piece of language that has been actually used in society, then it may mean very 66
English language teaching
little to the student. We can call this faux authenticity. The fundamental tenets of CLT, as it was formulated by Canale and Swain and others, were to endow students with a capacity to engage with others in ways that are socially tuned. However, the need to package teaching materials that are drawn from a narrow range of texts that have been used, perhaps, inadvertently reified the social in anodyne ways. It would be fine to present faux authentic materials if we were simply interested in using them as stimulus for grammar or vocabulary exercises. But if we are to promote genuine student engagement, then we would need to provide students with the opportunity to make or add personal meaning as part of the learning activity. The injection of students’ personal meaning may include activities and tasks that challenge or reject the ideas and arguments in the carrier content. Giving students a voice in the learning activities is what would make language learning activities more authentic. This is related to the idea of personal intellectual growth as a language learning goal. Dixon (1967: 6–7), in a seminal paper given at the oft-quoted Dartmouth College conference on language education had this to say: The fact is that in sharing experience with others man is using language to make that experience real to himself [. . .] in so doing each individual takes what he can from the shared store of experience and builds it into a world of his own. The idea of personal growth is intrinsically social. It is also consistent with Dewey’s (1902) idea that acquiring knowledge should not be about absorbing something new that is entirely imposed from outside the student’s experience. The task of the teacher is to align students’ learning experience with the content of learning in a developmental journey. (For a detailed discussion, see Leung and Scarino, 2016.) The discussion above indicates quite clearly that in English-speaking environments the ways in which language is used are broadly patterned in terms of types and contexts of social interaction but not fixed in terms of moment-to-moment agentive engagement (see Nicholas and Starks, 2014, ch. 2 and 3), particularly in situations where ethnolinguistic diversity forms the socio-cultural backdrop. In other words, people are not social dudes and they can choose to act on their volition. There is fluidity in the ways in which people interpret social conventions. Similar fluidity can also be found in contexts where English as a lingua franca (ELF) is used. As it has been well attested, in ELF-mediated interactions there is ‘inherent fluidity . . . in the ad hoc, situated negotiation of meaning’ (Seidlhofer, 2009: 242). We would amplify the relevance of this observation to our discussion by suggesting that in ELF contexts there is potentially a liminal element that does not obtain even in interactions involving interlocutors from different ethnolinguistic backgrounds in English-speaking environments such as universities in London (see the extract of a Biology tutorial above). In interactions conducted in a lingua franca, there may well be a shared understanding among the participants that both the conventionalised linguistic forms and functions can be stretched and transformed to suit the communicative needs of the moment. In these interactions putative native speaker ways of doing things with language are not necessarily the only, or the most important, reference point. We are by now familiar with ELF phenomena such as treating non-count nouns as count nouns (e.g. information – informations and research – researches) (e.g. Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey, 2011) and the diverse ways in which interlocutors engage one another in establishing shared meaning and rapport (Batziakas, 2016), including the oft-quoted ‘let-it-pass’ principle that facilitates interactional flow when there is a momentary difficulty in establishing mutual understanding (e.g. Firth, 1996; also see Canagarajah, 2007 in relation to language learning). This ‘freedom to’ puts available shared 67
Constant Leung and Jo Lewkowicz
linguistic resources at the service of effective and felicitous communication in ways that the interlocutors see fit adds to the fluidity discussed above. In a recent effort to expand the conceptual frame of ELF, Jenkins (2015) points to the importance of explicitly recognising the inescapably multilingual dimension in ELF. While it would be fair to say that speakers’ other languages have been recognised as part of the discussion on code-switching in the ELF literature, it is the case that the use of their other languages has been subsumed as part of the ELF repertoire. Jenkins (2015: 61) argues that ‘for ELF users, English is only one language among others present or latent in any interaction. Its multilingual nature therefore needs to be given greater theoretical prominence than hitherto’. From the point of view of our discussion here, this expanded view of ELF as a potentially multilingual language practice is very significant. Since the onset of the Direct Method in the early part of the twentieth century (Celce-Murcia, 2001; Howatt, with Widdowson, 2004, chapter 16), the teaching of English has been largely presented in the popular textbooks and teacher education literature as a monolingual English-only enterprise. The adoption of this approach by large-scale language teaching providers such as Berlitz has served to consolidate its grip on the ELT profession. (For a detailed discussion see Cook, 2010.) Littlewood (2014: 358) calls this the monolingual principle: A practical issue that almost continuously engages teachers’ decision-making in the classroom is the role (if any) that they should accord to the students’ mother tongue. The ‘monolingual principle’ – that only the target language should be used – has been enshrined in most of the methodological proposals that have influenced language teaching over the last century. In many contexts (e.g. Hong Kong and the UK) it is official policy to teach only in the target language or at least to use the mother tongue only as a last resort. In some other contexts (e.g. Mainland China and South Korea), teaching through the mother tongue has been accepted in practice, but official policy now urges teachers to exclude it. Littlewood’s observation that the use of students’ mother tongue in language teaching/learning is supported by recent research accounts that document this practice. For instance, in a study of the classroom practices of four English teachers in a Japanese engineering college, Humphries and Burns (2015: 243) report that these teachers avoid the use of English in some classroom activities that are meant to promote communicative use: The textbooks included activities designed to encourage exploration and discussion of various cultural contexts where English might be used … The teachers often explained these topics at length in Japanese, because ‘it’s quite difficult for them to understand’ [according to one of the teachers]. Moreover, they stated that they often struggled to translate unfamiliar concepts and offer information about overseas locations and international travel. [Another teacher] asserted that the contexts were irrelevant to the students’ everyday lives. He was at a loss to explain this cultural content and omitted many activities. [emphasis added] With the advent of the increasingly popular Content-Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programmes in Europe for second/foreign language teaching, the issues of using students’ mother tongue and the target language have received renewed attention. In CLIL programmes the subject teacher (say a German-speaking Mathematics teacher), who is not necessarily
68
English language teaching
trained in second/foreign language teaching, is required to teach the subject content through the medium of a target language (in Europe English is the often the chosen language). In an exploration of CLIL teachers’ views on the use of languages, Skinnari and Bovellan (2016) find that while they expressed different opinions on the pedagogic efficacy of the use of students’ L1 and the target language generally, using English was sometimes seen as problematic and artificial, especially if they had to teach local or national history and civics, which are very contextually situated. One of the Finnish teachers in their study expresses the following opinion regarding the use English to discuss ‘local’ Finnish social issues: [E]specially in civics, there is so many new kind of things every year, like a: what means ‘uusioperhe’ [reconstituted family in English] or that kind of things and the new kind of words are usually, there is very often the other words which are not (.) even (.) there is no English words for them because they are, like Finnish social security questions. (Skinnari and Bovellan, 2016: 159) Another participant teacher, working in Austria, reported teaching some parts of history and geography through the shared L1 (German) because it was felt that it would be more ‘natural’ to discuss some cultural and historical issues in the students’ mother tongue: I think we are an Austrian school and we have to know Austrian history in German, too […] when I talk about feelings, for example when I talk about concentration camps during the Second World War, I don’t do it in English […] German is kind of the feeling language. (Skinnari and Bovellan, 2016: 159) All in all, despite the persistent curricular and professional insistence on using the target language exclusively in language teaching, there is strong indication that many teachers are resorting to using the mother tongue extensively. Littlewood (2014: 358) suggests that in China and South Korea, for instance, students’ mother tongue is used ‘as much as 70 per cent or even 90 per cent of the time’.
Concluding remarks If we return to the questions posed by Hymes (1972: 277) – ‘when to speak, when not, and as to what to talk about with whom, when, in what manner’, we will find that we are dealing with an increasingly complex and dynamic range of circumstances in which English is used in the world today. There is therefore a very strong case for re-examining the conceptual and pedagogic appropriateness and adequacy of the established CLT paradigm, as it is currently being advocated by a number of ELF scholars (see, for example, Dewey 2012, 2014). Nowhere is this more pertinent than in the ways that the social dimension has been interpreted and translated into pedagogic approaches and teaching materials. Recognising diversity and fluidity, however, can raise further conceptual and practical issues for ELT. In face of what seems to be an inexorable movement towards greater diversity and fluidity as the use of English continues to spread into different educational, professional and social domains across the world, how do we deal with the multiple and always emergent and malleable language norms and practices? And how do teaching approaches and materials cope with this flux?
69
Constant Leung and Jo Lewkowicz
Given the diversity of English language use and language users it would seem necessary to look more carefully at local needs of individual learner groups, i.e. to move away from the international, universally (un)acceptable, bland textbook to more local solutions (Gilmore, 2007). This would invariably require more professional training for teachers to gain confidence in selecting and/or adjusting materials appropriately for their learners’ needs as routine practice (see Dewey and Patsko, Chapter 35 this volume; see also e.g. Bayyut and Akcan, 2014, section 2; Vettorel, 2014). For this kind of professional practice to be adopted there would need to be a persistent effort on the part of curriculum managers (in both publicly funded and commercially operated institutions), materials writers and publishing houses to actively promote the idea of ‘localisation’ to extend classroom pedagogy and materials production. The ‘universal’ textbook can be regarded as one of the starting places for the planning of teaching content, and the local extensions should be seen as a vital part of a responsive curriculum and pedagogy. From the point of view of teacher professionalism, there would need to be a concerted effort to encourage teachers to examine the relevance and pedagogic merit of any recommended teaching guidelines and materials, and to engage in reflexive examination of their own classroom practice and educational values in relation to students’ language learning needs. Reflexivity here means the preparedness and readiness to turn one’s own thinking (and conduct) on itself, thus making it available as an object of critical self-examination (see Mann, 2016, ch. 1). This capacity for reflexive examination of one’s own thoughts and actions is an important part of independent professionalism (Leung, 2009, 2013), and it can facilitate the development of local curriculum and pedagogic extensions. Such an approach that would in itself acknowledge ELF as a legitimate language practice, not a deviation from the norm, would have a number of additional advantages. It would allow teachers to encourage their students to use all the linguistic resources available to them – be that their knowledge of the L2 as well as their L1. Teachers themselves could determine what is relevant for their learners in terms of models of language and language use, in addition to (or even instead of) the ones imposed by others including textbooks and official curriculum statements. This would help to ensure that learners are better able to engage in the language learning classroom to build confidence in expressing themselves and their ideas rather than the ideas of a third party, unknown to them.
Note 1 Transcription key: S – student T – tutor (.) pause of up to one second = latching ? rise in intonation (word) unclear words [ ] noises and comments related to the utterance
Related chapters in this handbook 35 Dewey and Patsko, ELF and teacher education 42 Baird and Baird, English as a lingua franca: changing ‘attitudes’ 70
English language teaching
Further reading Burns, A. (ed.) (2005). Teaching English from a global perspective. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Kramsch, C. (2011). Language and culture. In J. Simpson (ed.), The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 305–317). Abingdon: Routledge. Omoniyi, T. (2014). English as an international language/English as a lingua franca in postcolonial and neomillenial contexts. In C. Leung and V.B. Street (eds), The Routledge companion to English studies (pp. 100–117). London: Routledge. Pennycook, A. (2011). Language, localization, and the real: hip hop and the global spread of authenticity. In Li Wei (ed.), The Routledge applied linguistics reader (pp. 113–124). London: Routledge.
References Akbari, R. (2008). Transforming lives: introducing critical pedagogy into ELT classrooms. ELT Journal, 62(3), 276–283. Batziakas, V. (2016). Investigating meaning-making in English as a lingua franca (ELF). Unpublished PhD thesis. King’s College London. Bayyurt, Y. and Akcan, S. (eds) (2015). Current perspective on pedagogy for English as a lingua franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Bell, R.T. (1981). An introduction to applied linguistics: approaches and methods in language teaching. London: Batsford Academic and Educational. Breen, M. (1985). The social context for language learning: a neglected situation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1, 135–158. Brumfit, C.J. and Johnson, K. (1979). The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Byram, M. and Parmenter, L. (eds) (2012). The common European framework of reference: a case study of cultural politics and global educational influences. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 91(focus issue), 923–939. Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to language pedagogy. In J. Richards and J. Schmidt (eds), Language and communication (pp. 2–27). London: Longman. Canale, M. (1984). A communicative approach to language proficiency assessment in a minority setting. In C. Rivera (ed.), Communicative competence approaches to language proficiency assessment: research and application. (pp. 107–122). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980a). A domain description for core FSL: communication skills. Ontario: Ministry of Education. Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980b). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. Candlin, C.N. (1981). Form, function and strategy in communicative curriculum design. In C. N. Candlin (ed.), The communicative teaching of English: principles and an exercise typology (pp. 24–44). Harlow: Longman. Celce-Murcia, Marianne. (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd edn). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Cook, G. (2010). Translation in language teaching: an argument for reassessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Retrieved 17 July 2015, from www.gutenberg.org/ files/29259/29259-h/29259-h.htm Dewey, M. (2012). Towards a postnormative approach: learning the pedagogy of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(1), 141–170. Dewey, M. (2014). Pedagogic criticality and English as a lingua franca. Journal of the Spanish Association of AngloAmerican Studies, 36(2), 11–30. Dixon, J. (1967). Growth through English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eales, F. and Oakes, S. (2016). Speakout: upper intermediate students’ book with active book. 2nd edn). London: Pearson. 71
Constant Leung and Jo Lewkowicz
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: on ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(2), 237–259. Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 40, 97–118. Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold. Howatt, A.P.R. and Widdowson, H.G. (2004). A history of English language teaching (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Humphries, S. and Burns, A. (2015). ‘In reality it’s almost impossible’: CLT-oriented curriculum change. ELT Journal, 69(3), 239–248. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). London: Penguin. Hymes, D. (1977). Foundations in sociolinguistics: an ethnographic approach. London: Tavistock. Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice, 2(3), 49–85. Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44(3), 281–315. Latham-Koeig, C., Oxenden, C. and Seligson, P. (1996). English file. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leung, C. (2009). Second language teacher professionalism In A. Burns and J.C. Richards (eds), Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 49–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leung, C. (2013). Second/additional language teacher professionalism: What is it? In M. Olofsson (ed.), Symposium 2012: Lärarrollen I svenska som andraspräk (pp. 11–27). Stockholm: Stockholms universitets förlag. Leung, C. (2014). Communication and participatory involvement in linguistically diverse classrooms. In S. May (ed.), The multilingual turn: implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 123–146). New York: Routledge. Leung, C. and Lewkowicz, J. (2013). Language communication and communicative competence: A view from contemporary classrooms. Language and Education, 27(5), 398–414. Leung, C. and Scarino, A. (2016). Reconceptualizing the nature of goals and outcomes in language/s education. The Modern Language Journal, 1000(S1), 81–95. Leung, C. and Street, B. (2012). English in the curriculum: norms and practices. In C. Leung and B. Street (eds), English: a changing medium for education (pp. 1–21). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Leung, C. and Street, B. (2014). Classroom constructions of language and literarcy activity. In Prinsloo, M. and Stroud, C. (eds), Educating for Language and Literarcy Diversity (pp. 23–44). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Littlewood, W. (2014). Communication-oriented language teaching: Where are we now? Where do we go from here? Language Teaching, 47(3), 349–362. Mann, S. (2016). The research interview: reflective practice and reflexivity in research processes. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Morrow, K. (1981). Principles of communicative methodology. In K. Johnson and K. Morrow (eds), Communication in the classroom (pp. 59–66). Harlow, Essex: Longman. Nicholas, H. and Starks, D. (2014). Language education and applied linguistics: bridging the two fields. London: Routledge. Seidlhofer, B. (2009). Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. World Englishes 28(2), 236–245. Quinones, K. and Karol, D. (2004). English no problem: language for home, school, work and community. New York: New Readers Press. Quirk, R. (1990). Language varieties and standard language. English Today 25(1), 3–10. Rea, D. and Clemenston, T. (2011). English unlimited intermediate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Savignon, S.J. (1983). Communicative competence: theory and classroom practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Siqueira, D.S.P. (2015). English as a lingua franca and ELT materials: Is the ‘plastic world’ really melting? In Y. Bayyurt and S. Akcan (eds), Current perspectives on pedagogy for English as a lingua franca (pp. 239–257). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton 72
English language teaching
Skinnari, K. and Bovellan, E. (2016). CLIL teachers’ beliefs about integration and about their professional roles: perspectives from a European context. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore and U. Smit (eds), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 145–170). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Soars, J. and Soars, L. (1984). Headway intermediate. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Soars, L. and Soars, J. (2009). New headway intermediate (4th edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stephenson, H. and Highes, J. (2013). Life intermediate. Hampshire: Cengage Learning. Stern, H.H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vettorel, P. (2014). English as a Lingua Franca in Wider Networking. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton Widdowson, H. (1975). Language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. (1978). Learning language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
73
6 Cognitive perspectives on English as a lingua franca Christopher J. Hall
Introduction Although there is a formidable body of psycholinguistic work on the processing, representation, and development of English in learners and multilingual users, researchers have not been centrally concerned with the cognitive resources and processes underlying ELF. Several publications have addressed the cognitive dimensions of the phenomenon to a greater or lesser extent, but so far there has been almost no empirical research, and no assessment that distinguishes ELF from other non-native English speaker (NNES) contexts of usage. As well as reviewing relevant published studies, therefore, this chapter attempts to provide some foundations for a fuller cognitive account. It tries to isolate what I take to be the distinctive nature of the phenomenon, namely the processing of English in interactions between heterolinguals (people with different L1s). It also explores how models of mental representation, processing, and development can contribute to the broader goal of ELF research to problematize traditional monolithic views of English. A cognitive account must start by acknowledging the enormous variation in the depth and breadth of L2 mental resources brought to ELF interaction, the extent to which users can control these resources automatically or deliberately, and the degree to which they converge with or diverge from those used by native English speakers (NESs). In the early days of ELF research, when the object of enquiry was understood by many to be an emerging global variety of English arising from sustained interaction between heterolingual NNESs, questions about how such a variety might be mentally represented and processed by fluent users would have been legitimate (although they were not posed). But it is now clear that ELF is more coherently conceptualized as a communicative mode or situation, rather than a linguistic system that may be learned to different levels of individual proficiency (cf. e.g. Mortensen, 2013). Different kinds of NNESs will be more or less successful communicators in the ELF mode and, independently of this, their mental resources will align to different degrees with the norms of NES standardized varieties. NESs also participate in ELF interactions, and they too will bring variable resources to the communicative event, deploying these resources variably, with variable success. To further complicate matters, many ELF scholars and commentators (including almost all of those referred to in this chapter) continue to present ELF 74
Cognitive perspectives on ELF
as a linguistic system, a kind of English, using terms like ELF user/speaker and contrasting it with English as a native language (ENL). This problem remains a serious obstacle for a cognitive account of ELF. The chapter is divided into three main sections. The first discusses cognitive ontologies of English in the light of ELF research, exploring usage-based approaches and the role of usage norms. The second addresses how ELF-informed cognitive research can shed light on the assumed dichotomy, more broadly viewed, between native speakers (NSs) and non-native speakers (NNSs). The third deals with the nature of the mental resources used in ELF processing. The chapter ends with some general conclusions and suggestions for further research.
ELF and cognitive ontologies of English By highlighting settings in which common norms cannot be guaranteed and are not under development at a community level, ELF studies have provoked a significant shift in scholarly thinking about NNS Englishes. Hitherto, the issue had been dominated by: (a) second language acquisition (SLA) research, assuming “inner-circle” national standard varieties as learning targets; and (b) World Englishes studies, focused on emerging “outer-circle” national varieties. In “expanding-circle” contexts, where ELF prospers, English is more of an individual, cognitive phenomenon, playing little role in interaction between colingual community members (Schell, 2008). In such contexts, users develop similar idiolects not because of the population-level diachronic processes that lead to indigenized varieties, but as a result of individual cognitive processes of crosslinguistic influence from a common L1. Mauranen (2012; Chapter 1 this volume) calls these Englishes “similects” and characterizes the ELF mode as one of “second-order language contact,” in which users of different similects interact (Mauranen, 2012: 29). ELF therefore exemplifies a cognitively marked phenomenon because it involves language processing in circumstances where the assumption of shared (or target) community norms cannot be taken for granted. In traditional cognitive ontologies of language, this assumption is the default (cf. e.g. Jackendoff, 2011: 587). The family of theoretical approaches collectively called usage-based linguistics (UBL) has been recognized by several researchers as a particularly appropriate framework for addressing the cognitive dimensions of ELF (e.g. Mauranen, 2012; Alptekin, 2013; Mackenzie, 2014; Vetchinnikova, 2015), although ELF has not been discussed in the mainstream UBL literature. In UBL, language is conceptualized as a cognitive resource constructed and continuously developing on the basis of analyses of the frequency and distribution of form-meaning pairings in the input experienced during usage events (Goldberg, 1995; Langacker, 2000; Tomasello, 2003; Ellis, 2008). Systematic patterns of language are not determined “top-down,” as rules conforming to hard-wired universal principles, but rather emerge “bottom-up,” on the basis of variable, socially contextualized, individual experience. Consistent with UBL, Complexity Theory provides a way of conceptualizing the constantly shifting and socially contingent nature of individual language knowledge deployed in ELF (cf. Larsen-Freeman, 2015; Chapter 4 this volume). In the ontological framework developed by Hall (2013), these individual resources are conceived as part of polylingually constituted “I-registers”: mentally represented idiolectal knowledge deployed in, and changed by, ELF and other usage modes. For an example of a usage-based characterization of part of an I-register used regularly in ELF mode, see Hall, Joyce, and Robson (2017). 75
Christopher J. Hall
But most UBL accounts of English do not provide an exact fit for ELF. Usage-based linguists generally assume a supra-mental ontological category of language that holds at the community level, and in fact most work within the approach is concerned with group knowledge of national varieties (cf. Hilpert, 2014: 191–194). From the usage-based perspective of Cognitive Linguistics, for example, Langacker (2008) specifies that “a language is characterized as the set of internalized structures (conventional units) that enable its users to speak and understand” (p. 19), distinguishing between “what a single speaker knows and the collective knowledge of a whole society” (p. 30). Furthermore, “[a]n individual’s notion of what an expression means [. . .] includes an assessment of its degree of conventionality in the speech community” (p. 30). In UBL, the individual (cognitive) view and the community (social) view of language are distinguished by the concepts of entrenchment and conventionality. Entrenchment is the process by which repeatedly encountered tokens of language input cause the associated neural event type to be stored and accessed as a unit in memory as “an established routine that can be carried out more or less automatically once it is initiated” (Langacker, 1987: 100). Contrasting with the individualized nature of entrenchment, “[c]onventionality implies that something is shared—and further, that it is recognized as being shared—by a substantial number of individuals” (p. 72). Croft (2000: 7) interprets this in terms of Clark’s (1985) notion of common ground, which he takes as a mental construct. For some UBL scholars, the intersubjective role of conventionality in linguistic interaction can only be fully understood by looking beyond individual minds to joint cognition (cf. Harder, 2010; Verhagen, 2015: 239). On a UBL account, then, ELF interaction may be interpreted as an exercise in joint cognition to which individual heterolingual participants bring repertoires of mentally represented linguistic resources that they have constructed on the basis of prior experience (including L1 influence). Differing from the standard UBL view of interaction, however, the common ground assumed by ELF participants will include shared communicative principles but not predetermined linguistic norms. Yet patently ELF interactants assume that their linguistic resources will be sufficiently aligned for effective linguistic communication to result—in other words, they will assume they are all speaking a version of English. For some ELF scholars, what holds these Englishes together as a unified resource is not group conventions but the virtual language: “that resource for making meaning immanent in the language which simply has not hitherto been encoded” (Widdowson, 1997: 138; cf. also Seidlhofer 2011: 109–120; Hülmbauer, 2013). Seidlhofer and Widdowson define “the language” (“virtual English”) in terms of a set of abstract constitutive rules, which may be realized (encoded) variably, giving rise to systems that have regulative conventions, e.g. “Standard English” (SE), but also others that do not conform to such conventions, such as the Englishes involved in ELF interaction. The precise ontological status of “virtual language” has not been spelled out in published treatments, and has been interpreted as an idealized monolithic system existing independently of users (Hall, Wickasono et al., 2017) and as completely incompatible with UBL (Vetchinnikova, 2015). Yet there are indications that Widdowson and Seidlhofer conceptualize it as mentally constituted and indeed consistent with UBL: Widdowson contends that “[“ELF users”] are performing on the basis of their knowledge/awareness of virtual rules which, as learners, they have somehow abstracted out of the actual language data they have been taught” (2010, personal communication; cf. also Seidlhofer, 2011: 120). In this view, English is understood not as the “conventional units” shared by its users, but rather the abstract rules they construct developmentally and employ to
76
Cognitive perspectives on ELF
formulate utterances. NES production is normally constrained in usage by the particular regulative conventions of the communities to which they belong, but NNESs in ELF mode exercise greater freedom. In order to be able to assess this issue more fully, we first address the fundamental question of whether—and if so to what extent—the acquisition, storage, and processing of English are intrinsically different for NESs and NNESs, in and out of ELF mode.
ELF and cognitive aspects of the NS/NNS dichotomy Neuropsychological accounts of the NS/NNS dichotomy formulated by Ullman (cf. 2015) and Paradis (cf. 2009) have been applied to ELF directly by Alptekin (2011, 2013) and indirectly by Hall (2014; Hall and Wicaksono, 2013). In separate but essentially similar models, Ullman and Paradis contend that L2 users rely more on declarative memory systems than procedural memory systems for learning and using grammar. Declarative memory is used to develop, process, and store idiosyncratic information that cannot be predicted on the basis of patterns in sensory input (e.g. the arbitrariness of word forms). Much of this knowledge is explicit, in the sense that it is available to conscious awareness and may be intentionally (deliberately) learned. Procedural knowledge is used for skills involving the sequencing and categorization of information. It is acquired implicitly (i.e. without awareness or intention), and gradually becomes automatized through extended practice (“entrenched” in UBL). Procedural memory systems control L1 grammar, including syntactic, morphological, and phonological regularities. The two types of memory are claimed to be physically instantiated in distinct neuroanatomical structures (although see Cabeza and Moscovitch, 2013). According to Ullman, declarative memory systems are recruited for semantic and lexical learning in both L1 and L2. For grammar, however, there are differences related to age of acquisition and exposure: pre-adolescent learners of L1 and L2 rely on procedural memory, but adult L2 learners depend on declarative memory, at least at early stages and in the absence of rich and prolonged experience with the language. Ullman suggests that in addition to maturational constraints, this has to do with the learning contexts typical of adult L2: instructed learning being less likely than uninstructed “immersion-like” learning to lead to “native-like” grammatical knowledge and processing, because the relative lack of opportunities for practice results in dependence on declarative knowledge (cf. DeKeyser, 2007). Alptekin (2011) used this research to argue that the English knowledge of a “‘typical’ ELF user” is fundamentally different from that of ENL users, because it “stem[s] from different cognitive resources and [is] the outcome of different cognitive processes” (p. 159). For him, most “ELF users” will have learned English using declarative memory systems as adolescents or adults, in instructional contexts, and so in post-instruction usage will rely on controlled lexical and semantic processing. He argued that there are two reasons why the forms used in ELF will differ from those used in ENL: first, “ELF users” cannot access their learned grammatical knowledge efficiently enough in online processing because it is not proceduralized, leading to the omission of forms that are obligatory in standardized versions of ENL; second, proceduralized knowledge from their L1 might transfer to L2 production, leading to the commission of forms that do not occur in ENL grammars. Alptekin (2011: 160) claimed that the evidence that NNES ELF interactants understand each other better than NESs do is consistent with this account, because the former have “identical cognitive resources and processes underlying output production.”
77
Christopher J. Hall
Unlike Alptekin, Hall and colleagues (Hall and Wicaksono, 2013; Hall, 2014) use the declarative/procedural distinction to emphasize the cognitive commonalities of NNS and NS knowledge types and processing modes. They contend that both NNESs and NESs can and do develop proceduralized knowledge of English, and that the Englishes developed in procedural memory will inevitably differ from the community norms of SE in both cases. In infancy, NSs develop implicit grammatical knowledge on the basis of the speech events they are exposed to and participate in, resulting in idiolects that conform to local community (often dialectal) norms. As a consequence of schooling and the development of literacy practices, they subsequently develop knowledge of SE through second dialect acquisition (Siegel, 2010). This knowledge will be variable across individuals (Dąbrowska, 2012) and for most NESs will initially be declarative, deployed using controlled processing. Depending on social experience, procedural control of SE norms will develop to different degrees. For NNESs, the sequence is reversed but the outcome is similar: learners are typically exposed to SE as the learning target, and they develop explicit knowledge of it initially in declarative memory systems. But their usage and experience of English both within and beyond instructional contexts will inevitably lead to parallel development of implicit knowledge in procedural memory systems (Ellis and Wulff, 2015: 86–87). The knowledge thus acquired will be influenced by the L1 system as well as the NNS Englishes to which the learner is exposed. For learners who go on to use English regularly in ELF contexts, procedural knowledge of English will become entrenched, and will become increasingly likely to diverge from SE norms. Alptekin (2011) claimed that ELF and ENL (usage) are fundamentally different because, unlike NESs, NNES participants in ELF cannot recruit procedural memory systems for the acquisition and processing of grammar. Yet neither Ullman nor Paradis discount the possibility that NNSs can develop proceduralized grammatical knowledge. In fact, there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that NNSs with high levels of proficiency process L2 grammatical structures essentially the same way as NSs (e.g. Clahsen and Felser, 2006; Kaan, 2014), using the same areas of the brain (e.g. Green, 2003; Abutalebi and Della Rosa, 2012). Hall (2014) contends that much of the evidence about “native-like” knowledge and processing in NNSs is actually moot, based as it is on the construct of proficiency, which is defined in SLA primarily, but uncritically, in terms of “accuracy.” The employment of accuracy-based measures of language use, such as error rates and grammaticality judgements, conflates “nativeness” (proceduralized grammatical processing) with conformity to exogenous norms like SE. Assuming a cognitive ontology of English consistent with UBL, the inclusion of “accuracy” as a criterion to measure knowledge of English is a category error.
Language resources and language processing in ELF Much of the published discussion of ELF processing concerns issues that are common to all L2 usage, whether with heterolinguals, colinguals, or monolinguals. It has tended to adopt the mainstream ontology of English as a set of “conventional units” that are not completely known by NNESs in the interaction. Mauranen’s (2012) account, for example, characterizes ELF interaction between NNSs in terms of lack of entrenchment and limited automatization. Like Alptekin (2011), she contends that the less entrenched linguistic forms of “ELF users” will have “insufficient or partial” memory representations, compounded by “insufficient access routes to the target item.” This leads to “approximation,” the production of an item that “deviates from or falls short of the target [. . .]” (p. 42), understood as the conventional
78
Cognitive perspectives on ELF
NES norm in SE. But the discussion in the two preceding sections suggests that the distinctive feature of ELF from a cognitive perspective is that NNESs who operate regularly in ELF mode will not assume predetermined shared norms. In much ELF performance, the NES target (if known and/or consciously valued), will not be relevant. ELF interactants will employ proceduralized linguistic resources that conform only partially with the conventions of NESs (and of the similects used by their interlocutors). They engage successfully in joint cognition because of shared communication strategies, a collaborative disposition, and the deployment of linguistic resources shaped by similar Englishing experiences (possibly in the form of overlapping sets of abstract rules distilled from these experiences). An issue that pertains specifically to ELF, then, is whether the absence of an assumption of shared norms leads NNESs in ELF mode to be more creative with their resources in production than they would be when interacting with NESs, where the pressure to align with “target” norms is higher. Data from corpus studies have been used to show that the ELF mode involves elevated levels of NNES creativity/innovation (e.g. Pitzl, 2012), though this has not been explicitly compared with non-ELF usage. The common occurrence of nonconventional, innovative forms, both morphological and syntactic, has been interpreted by Seidlhofer (2009) as evidence that processing in ELF operates according to Sinclair’s (1991) “open choice principle” (OCP), whereby utterances are assembled from atomic units by rule. Sinclair contrasts the OCP with the “idiom principle” (IP), according to which utterances are assembled from “semi-preconstructed phrases” (p. 110), i.e. multi-word expressions (MWEs) or formulaic language. This is consistent with Wray’s (2002) argument that adult L2 learners differ from NSs because they “will fall into the process of analysis” (p. 259), whereas the latter “start with big units and analyze them only as necessary” (p. 211). Wray and Grace (2007) relate the use of formulaic language (consistent with the IP) with esoteric (intra-group) communication, and suggest that more transparent language use (consistent with the OCP) evolves in situations of exoteric (inter-group) communication, including lingua franca usage (pp. 551–555). Conflicting with this position, a recent review of empirical studies of the online processing of MWEs in both L1 and L2 (Siyanova-Chanturia and Martinez, 2015) concludes that both NSs and proficient NNSs are sensitive to the frequency of MWEs and that this has an effect on the way they are processed and stored. The evidence reviewed suggests that NSs process frequent MWEs more quickly than novel control strings, and are able to use their previous knowledge of them to better predict subsequent input. For NNSs, the evidence is restricted to comprehension, mostly of idioms with different degrees of compositionality, and almost uniquely with “proficient” users. But Siyanova-Chanturia et al. (2011) showed that lower proficiency NNSs had essentially the same reading speeds for frequent binomials (e.g. bride and groom) and their reversed novel versions (groom and bride), whereas NSs and higher proficiency NNSs were faster with the former than the latter. They take this as evidence for the UBL position on mental representation: that language knowledge, for both L1 and proficient L2 users, is stored in units that include but also regularly extend beyond the single lexical item, and furthermore, that the degree of entrenchment of these chunks, and consequently their availability for automatized use, is a function of their frequency in the input. Given that proficiency is in part a function of experience with the language, and experience determines subjective frequency counts, the conclusion that the IP operates in L2 processing seems more consistent with the psycholinguistic evidence (e.g. Kaan, 2014) than one in which lexical items can only be combined by grammatical rule (i.e. the OCP).
79
Christopher J. Hall
Studies of idiom use in ELF corpora (e.g. Pitzl, 2012; Franceschi, 2013) have yielded numerous examples of “approximation” to NES norms, and this has been taken as evidence by Seidlhofer (2009, 2011) and others for dependence on the OCP in ELF mode. Other ELF researchers, however, adopting a more explicitly cognitive perspective and taking into consideration also non-idiom MWEs, have questioned this argument (Mauranen, 2009, 2012; Carey, 2013; Vetchinnikova, 2015). They suggest that such examples do indeed reflect the IP in action, but that the MWEs are less entrenched in NNESs, and for this reason only approximate the target (NES) form. For example, Carey (2013) found that in academic ELF (both written and spoken), high frequency MWEs were used mostly conventionally, and indeed more frequently than in ENL, whereas those with lower frequency were more prone to approximation. Following Mauranen (2009), he concluded from this that “ELF users” store and retrieve the “functionally fixed” semantic chunks that underlie unstable lexicogrammatical forms. Mauranen (2012: 42–44) argues that in ELF interactions, approximated forms will typically be processible for meaning by interlocutors on the basis of shallow or “fuzzy” processing driven by context and lexical knowledge rather than exhaustive parsing (cf. Clahsen and Felser, 2006), resulting in communicative success. Vetchinnikova (2015) makes a similar argument on the basis of an examination of the language that participants in academic ELF experienced in the genre, as well as their own production. Her data suggest that these individuals build individual repertoires that include MWEs recycled from the input to which they have been exposed, but often in “approximate” form at the level of “unit of meaning.” This evidence suggests that, consistent with the IP, NNESs who have considerable experience using English have access to stored MWEs or conceptual/semantic chunks when processing in ELF. Yet by demonstrating that the IP is operative at semantic or lexicogrammatical levels in ELF usage, one cannot conclude that the OCP is entirely inoperative. The process of approximation, for example, would seem to require constructional knowledge at some level of lexico-grammatical abstraction from the unanalyzed “target” form, whether a semantically related item is substituted for a conventional one, or two conventional phrases are blended (Taylor, 2012). In other words, the processes can only occur if the user has analyzed the internal structure of a MWE to some extent. UBL approaches provide a psycholinguistically plausible model of language knowledge that can account for the joint operation of the IP and OCP in processing. In construction grammar (Goldberg, 1995; Hilpert, 2014: ch. 6), for example, individual knowledge of language takes the form of an inventory of constructions (form-meaning mappings), which range along a continuum from single items like words (e.g. view), through semi-fixed expressions with variables (e.g. in my N, where N can be replaced with view, opinion, perspective, etc.), to completely abstract constructions (e.g. prepositional phrase). At the abstract end of the continuum, constructions resemble rules, in the sense of regularities that users extract from lexical material (cf. Culicover and Jackendoff, 2005: 39–40). Here, perhaps, we have a cognitive interpretation of the notion of English as “virtual language”: a mental repertoire of possibilities for novel English constructions determined “bottom-up” by individual experience. On this interpretation, there will be as many “virtual Englishes” as there are users of English, the degree of variation between them constrained by (degrees of) mutual intelligibility, influence from other language knowledge (similects), and (conscious or unconscious) sensitivity to conventional norms. Given that processing in ELF mode is characterized by the absence of the assumption of predetermined community conventions, we cannot discount the possibility that some of the
80
Cognitive perspectives on ELF
novel, creative, or unconventional forms found in transcripts of ELF interaction have been produced via processing according to the OCP, i.e. using the resources of the user’s “virtual English.”
Conclusions and future research This overview has concentrated on issues that have arisen in cognitively oriented commentary on ELF, and has attempted to develop some foundations for a coherent cognitive account of the phenomenon. Two major controversies we have addressed are the extent to which ELF interaction relies on fundamentally different cognitive resources and processes compared with NES–NES interaction and the extent to which processing in ELF interaction relies on the IP as opposed to the OCP. With reference to the former, the evidence appears to suggest that the similarities are greater than the differences, and that the main difference stems from the absence of an assumption of predetermined norms. With reference to the latter, it would appear that, as in NES–NES interaction, both principles are in operation, although to different extents, depending on the degree of entrenchment and reliance on procedural memory that individual experience results in. Several issues remain unaddressed. One is the presence of NESs in ELF interaction. There is a substantial body of research on the processing of NNS speech by NSs, much of it perpetuating the traditional monolithic view that NNS speech is inherently “defective” and therefore difficult to process (e.g. Millar, 2011). But there is no research, as far as I know, on processing by NESs who operate consistently, or very frequently, in ELF mode (and little on intelligibility between NNES heterolinguals: cf. Pickering, 2006). Another issue that requires more attention is the role of cross-linguistic influence and language competition in processing in ELF mode. There is abundant evidence that bilinguals are able to operate in both monolingual and bilingual modes (Grosjean, 2013), and there is much discussion in recent ELF literature about the inherently bilingual nature of the phenomenon (Hülmbauer, 2013; Jenkins, 2015); but there has not yet been any discussion of (or empirical evidence concerning) the issue of whether ELF mode inevitably entails a bilingual processing mode. Related to this issue, there has been interesting psycholinguistic work on Slobin’s (1996) notion of “thinking for speaking”: the conceptual packaging, conditioned by linguistic experience (and therefore differing cross-linguistically), that a speaker carries out in order to formulate appropriate linguistic expressions. Slobin (1996: 89 ff.) points out that “first-language thinking” might explain some “second-language speaking” patterns, and SLA research suggests this to be the case, but that “second-language thinking” can be developed (Stam, 2010). It would be interesting to explore whether expert NNESs are more likely to maintain “firstlanguage thinking” in ELF mode than when interacting with NESs. Finally, there may be potential for cognitive work on social alignment in ELF (cf. Weatherholtz et al., 2014). The position I have adopted here suggests that for such research to be effectively pursued, there are some basic matters that still need to be resolved. One is the fundamental issue of what it is that scholars understand ELF to be. Persistent representation of ELF as though it were a linguistic system that has users (who can represent it mentally, process it, and dynamically modify it through usage) is an obstacle to a cognitive understanding of the phenomenon. A second problematic issue is the lingering influence of monolithic conceptualizations of English (Hall, 2013), where uncritical reference is made to “target” configurations (i.e. the forms of SE, which have no clear psycholinguistic status). A third obstacle is the broad focus that discussions of ELF processing adopt, where little attempt is
81
Christopher J. Hall
made to distinguish between NNESs operating in ELF mode and interacting with NESs or colinguals. Evidently, cognitively oriented research on ELF has hardly begun.
Related chapters in this handbook 1 Mauranen, Conceptualising ELF 4 Larsen-Freeman, Complexity and ELF 7 Seidlhofer, Standard English and the dynamics of ELF variation 8 Widdowson, Historical perspectives on ELF 19 Pitzl, Creativity, idioms and metaphorical language in ELF 20 Ranta, Grammar in ELF 22 Hynninen and Solin, Language norms in ELF
Further reading Alptekin, C. (2011). Beyond ENL norms in ELF use: a cognitive perspective on ELF output. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 2, 148–165. Hall, C.J. (2013). Cognitive contributions to plurilithic views of English and other languages. Applied Linguistics, 34, 211–231. Hall, C.J. (2014). Moving beyond accuracy: from tests of English to tests of “Englishing.” ELT Journal, 68, 4, 376–385. Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: what is different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 2, 257–282. Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
References Abutalebi, J. and Della Rosa, P.A. (2012). How the brain acquires, processes, and controls a second language. In Faust, M. (Ed.), The handbook of the neuropsychology of language (pp. 516–538). Oxford: Blackwell. Alptekin, C. (2011). Beyond ENL norms in ELF use: a cognitive perspective on ELF output. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 2, 148–165. Alptekin, C. (2013). English as a lingua franca through a usage-based perspective: merging the social and the cognitive in language use. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26, 2, 197–207. Cabeza, R. and Moscovitch, M. (2013). Memory systems, processing modes, and components: functional neuroimaging evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 1, 49–55. Carey, R. (2013). On the other side: formulaic organizing chunks in spoken and written academic ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2, 2, 207–228. Clahsen, H. and Felser, C. (2006). How native-like is non-native language processing? TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 12, 564–570. Clark, H.H. (1985). Language use and language users. In G. Lindzey and Aronson, E. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 179–231). New York: Harper & Row. Croft, W.A. (2000). Explaining language change: an evolutionary approach. London: Longman. Culicover, P.W. and Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars: individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 3, 219–253. DeKeyser, R. (Ed.) (2007). Practice in a second language: perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
82
Cognitive perspectives on ELF
Ellis, N. (2008). The dynamics of second language emergence: cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 2, 232–249. Ellis, N. and Wulff, S. (2015). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In VanPatten, B. and Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: an introduction (2nd ed., pp. 75–93). London: Routledge. Franceschi, V. (2013). Figurative language and ELF: idiomaticity in cross-cultural interaction in university settings. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2, 1, 75–99. Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Green, D.W. (2003). Neural basis of lexicon and grammar in L2 acquisition. In van Hout, R., Hulk, A., Kuiken, F., and Towell, R. (Eds.), The lexicon-syntax interface in second language acquisition (pp. 197–218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Grosjean, F. (2013). Bilingual and monolingual language modes. In Chapelle, C. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 489–493). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Hall, C.J. (2013). Cognitive contributions to plurilithic views of English and other languages. Applied Linguistics, 34, 211–231. Hall, C.J. (2014). Moving beyond accuracy: from tests of English to tests of “Englishing.” ELT Journal, 68, 4, 376–385. Hall, C.J., Joyce, J., and Robson, C. (2017). Investigating the lexico-grammatical resources of a non-native user of English: the case of can and could in email requests. Applied Linguistics Review, 8, 1, 35–59. Hall, C.J. and Wicaksono, R. (2013). Changing Englishes: an interactive course for teachers. Available online at: www.yorksj.ac.uk/changing-englishes (accessed April 21, 2017). Hall, C.J., Wicaksono, R., Liu, S., Qian, Y., and Xu, X. (2017). Exploring teachers’ ontologies of English: monolithic conceptions of grammar in a group of Chinese teachers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27, 1, 87–109. Harder, P. (2010). Meaning in mind and society: a functional contribution to the social turn in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Hülmbauer, C. (2013). From within and without: the virtual and the plurilingual in ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2, 1, 47–73. Jackendoff, R. (2011). What is the human language faculty? Two views. Language, 87, 3, 586–624. Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice, 2, 3, 49–85. Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: what is different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4, 2, 257–282. Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: volume 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R.W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow, M. and Kemmer, S. (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Langacker, R.W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: a basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Complexity theory. In VanPatten, B. and Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: an introduction (2nd ed., pp. 227–244). London: Routledge. Mackenzie, I. (2014). English as a lingua franca: theorizing and teaching English. London: Routledge. Mauranen, A. (2009). Chunking in ELF: expressions for managing interaction. Journal of Intercultural Pragmatics, 6, 2, 217–233. Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Millar, N. (2011). The processing of malformed language. Applied Linguistics, 32, 2, 129–148. Mortensen, J. (2013). Notes on English used as a lingua franca as an object of study. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2, 1, 25–46. Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pickering, L. (2006). Current research on intelligibility in English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 219–233.
83
Christopher J. Hall
Pitzl, M.-L. (2012). Creativity meets convention: idiom variation and re-metaphorization in ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1, 1, 27–55. Schell, M. (2008). Colinguals among bilinguals. World Englishes, 27, 1, 117–130. Seidlhofer, B. (2009). Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a lingua franca. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6, 2, 195–215. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Siegel, J. (2010). Second dialect acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Siyanova-Chanturia, A. and Martinez, R. (2015). The idiom principle revisited. Applied Linguistics, 36, 5, 549–569. Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., and van Heuven, W.J.B. (2011). Seeing a phrase “time and again” matters: The role of phrasal frequency in the processing of multiword sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 3, 776–784. Slobin, D.I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In Gumperz, J.J. and Levinson, S. (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stam, G. (2010). Can an L2 speaker’s patterns of thinking for speaking change? In ZhaoHong, H. and Cadierno, T. (Eds.), Linguistic relativity in SLA (pp. 59–83). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Taylor, J.R. (2012). The mental corpus. How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ullman, M.T. (2015). The declarative/procedural model: a neurobiologically motivated theory of first and second language. In VanPatten, B. and Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: an introduction (2nd ed., pp. 135–158). London: Routledge. Verhagan, A. (2015). Grammar and cooperative communication. In Dąbrowska, E. and Divjak, D. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 232–252). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Vetchinnikova, S. (2015). Usage-based recycling or creative exploitation of the shared code? The case of phraseological patterning. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4, 2, 223–252. Weatheroltz, K., Campbell-Kibler, K., and Florian Jaeger, T. (2014). Socially mediated syntactic alignment. Language Variation and Change, 26, 387–420. Widdowson, H.G. (1997). EIL, ESL, EFL: global issues and local interests. World Englishes, 16, 135–146. Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wray, A. and Grace, G.W. (2007). The consequences of talking to strangers: evolutionary corollaries of socio-cultural influences on linguistic form. Lingua, 117, 543–578.
84
7 Standard English and the dynamics of ELF variation Barbara Seidlhofer
Introduction Over its (still quite brief) history, ELF research, as well as resistance to it, has been much concerned with the theoretical and practical issue of how the conceptualization of ELF relates to Standard English (StE), and to standard language ideology more generally. The unprecedented spread of ‘English’ in the wake of globalization has brought up for reconsideration many basic and well-established assumptions about language and languages: assumptions about the stability and distinctiveness of linguistic systems, about monolingual norms and communal identity and the nature of native speaker competence, all of which are intricately bound up with notions of the standard language. This chapter will consider the nature of standardization, StE, and standard language ideology and how these relate to folk and expert notions of ‘English’. It will then scrutinize and (re-)evaluate the basic assumptions that are closely connected with StE and so result in particular beliefs and attitudes, practices and policies. The reasoning underlying this chapter is that an awareness of the way these common assumptions relate and operate enables us to develop a better understanding of the nature of ELF communication.
Things fall apart? This changes everything? It is a sociolinguistic commonplace that all natural languages are variable, continually in flux, complex and endlessly emergent (Larsen-Freeman, Chapter 4 this volume). But English, as the global means of communication that it has become over recent decades, is a special case altogether. As a truly post-modern phenomenon, it is used by speakers from all walks of life in all continents, with hundreds of different first languages and varying degrees of ‘proficiency’, and in a way that demonstrates very clearly that communicative effectiveness is frequently a function of variability, of the destabilization of established linguistic norms. This represents a challenge to linguists and laypersons alike, to English teachers and teacher educators, activists and policy makers. In some quarters, concerns have been voiced that, to quote W.B. Yeats, Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold, Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. 85
Barbara Seidlhofer
Certainly the centre as represented by Kachru’s inner circle, “the traditional bases of English” (Kachru 1985: 12) cannot hold – their English falls apart into a diversity of different forms and functions. Does that mean that anarchy is loosed upon the world? It is certainly true that the present state of affairs in a globalized world changes many wellentrenched assumptions about English, and more generally about the way we think about languages and the communities that use them. It is, then, of the nature of languages to be intrinsically unstable: they quite naturally vary in their use as users exploit their pragmatic possibilities to express themselves in different contexts and for different purposes. Languages are continually emergent because they are necessarily adaptive to ever-changing circumstances. But at the same time, humans find it difficult to live with uncertainty: we need to assume some relative fixity, some stability that we can rely upon. So for some intents and purposes it makes sense to assume that languages are in a steady state, and to operate with notions of a standard language. The question is: for what intents and purposes? And for whose intents and purposes? In defining communal and cultural identity, language users will themselves think of their own first language(s) as distinct, as a means of establishing their insider status and excluding outsiders. So for their intents and purposes there are distinct languages and communities. These are essentially folk linguistic concepts that linguists have also found it convenient to adopt. The identification of separate languages and cultures is based on historical circumstances, on the existence of relatively stable, small-scale communities and restricted networks of interaction. But what if people from other primary cultures and communities appropriate a language not originally their own and make it their own? We now live in a globalized world of digitalized networks and mobile, scattered communities – and, to all intents and purposes, to use the words of the title of Naomi Klein’s 2014 book about capitalism and the climate, This Changes Everything.
Standard English and standardization StE, “conceived of as unmarked, stable, and uniform” (Johnston and Lange 2006: 192) presupposes a stability that is an illusion, and has proved to be elusive of any linguistic definition: “standard languages are fixed and uniform-state idealisations – not empirically verifiable realities” (J. Milroy 1999: 18). Nevertheless, StE persists in that, as Bex puts it, it does capture the folk belief that there ought to be a ‘correct’ way of speaking and writing … and that this ideal should be enshrined both in reference works and in the utterances of authorities. In this sense, Standard English is a descriptive term which describes and regulates those forms of English which are regarded as social markers of status. (Bex 1993: 256) The description and regulation of high-status forms of English happens in a deliberate and perpetual process of standardization, for which J. Milroy provides a general definition, “the imposition of uniformity upon a class of objects” (2001: 351). This means that natural languages, which are by their nature non-uniform and variable, do not just become standard, they have standardization imposed upon them. The motivation for standardization is to stabilize the language in order to establish effective communicative conventions and a sense of common, often national, identity and security. There is also a practical motivation in
86
Standard English and ELF variation
providing institutional norms against which individual linguistic behaviour can be measured; hence the standard language is equated with standards of linguistic behaviour and educational achievement. While other standard languages, such as French, for example, are associated with national institutions such as academies, it is much less clear who undertakes the standardization of English, who has (had) the authority to do so. Apart from literary authors, especially in the eighteenth century (Wright 2006; Hickey 2015; Widdowson, Chapter 8 this volume), it is mainly language experts such as lexicographers and grammarians who decide what counts as the English standard language – which is then imposed by different kinds of institutional authority. StE is, then, an institutionalized construct, and only really possible when the language is written. And being dependent on literacy, StE is closely associated with education, as “the dialect normally used in writing, for teaching in schools and universities, and the one most often heard on British radio and television” (Hughes, Trudgill and Watt 2013: 13). It is, however, “a variety that is never perfectly and consistently realized in spoken use” (J. Milroy 2001: 543). As Trudgill and Hannah (2013: 2) explain, “although Standard English is the kind of English in which all native speakers learn to read and write, most people do not actually speak it” – where “people”, one needs to note, is intended to refer only to native speakers of English. For Milroy and Milroy (2012: 19), a standard language can only be “an idea in the mind rather than a reality – a set of abstract norms to which actual usage may conform to a greater or lesser extent”. The standard, primarily written, (supposedly) stable, careful usage of English by ‘educated speakers’ is, then, a privileged variety representing a prestige linguistic norm recognised in particular communities and set up as gatekeeping for the achievement of education and therefore social status. StE is also the variety with a historical pedigree, which in turn is seen to bestow legitimacy on it in the eyes of both laypersons and many linguists (and relegates other forms to the status of “illegitimate offspring” (Mufwene 2001)). ‘Major’ European languages that have a long history of standardization such as English, French and Spanish have then constituted the basis for most – consequently monolingual – linguistic theorizing and description. So separate standard languages have generally become the unmarked, ‘normal’ languages providing the data for linguistic research, which in turn (wittingly or unwittingly) has fed into and perpetuated the standard language ideology that sees imposed language uniformity via one and only one legitimate standard variety as desirable and beneficial for society (cf. J. Milroy 1999; 2001 for an extended discussion of this process). Countless books and articles have been written about standardization and StE, its historical development and its current significance. Even since 2000 several new books have appeared (e.g. Hickey 2015; Locher and Strässler 2008; Wright 2006) and classics on the topic have seen several new editions (e.g. Milroy and Milroy 2012; Trudgill and Hannah 2013). There is then a continuing preoccupation with StE, no doubt because the concept proves so elusive: as Bex (1993: 257) puts it, “Standard English is a powerful social myth rather than a linguistically delimited variety”. But this myth “is not just a reified social dialect, but rather an ideological construct against which deviance and difference are measured”, and to “deviate from the standard is to be foreign, uneducated, criminal, deviant” (Pennycook 2000: 118, paraphrasing L. Milroy 1999 and Lippi-Green 1997). Furthermore, this ideology is based on an apparent contradiction. StE, as pointed out earlier, is established on the basis of the written language and is not spoken by the majority of English native speakers. Given the tenet in linguistics
87
Barbara Seidlhofer
that the spoken language is primary, it seems curious that StE should be accorded primacy as representing the language since it clearly does not represent the reality of how the language is actually spoken. Where native speaker spoken usage is concerned, there is a recognition, even a celebration, of dialectal variation that does not conform to StE norms. The same recognition is not extended to non-native speakers, however, and where their usage varies from the standard it is stigmatized as defective, as non-English. So effectively non-native users of the language have conditions of conformity imposed upon them that native speakers themselves do not meet within their inner-circle communities. Thus the ideology of the standard language insists on ideal standards of ‘proper’ linguistic behaviour.
Standard and standards Because StE, while assumed to be a linguistic entity is essentially ideologically constructed, the discussion of the description of StE carried out on the structure of the language itself tends to be intermingled with the prescriptive notion of ‘standards’, and the use of non-Standard English to be taken as evidence of intellectual deficiency, of a failure to meet the standards of proper thinking that society promotes through education. It is precisely “this interrelationship between linguistic form and social discrimination that enables us to refer to the conceptualisation of ‘Standard English’ as ideological in its nature” (Bex and Watts 1999:13). That this applies to StE in L1 situations is well documented by Labov, particularly in his paper “The logic of non-standard English” (Labov 1969), where he argues against the idea that the use of non-standard English indicates a lack of communicative and cognitive ability on the part of its users (Widdowson, Chapter 8 this volume). What is non-standard is therefore stigmatized as defective – a view with which researchers in ELF are all too familiar (see Jenkins 2007: ch. 2). As Jenkins neatly summarizes it, “[f ]or many, then, ELF represents a decline in standards just as, for them, any departure from the standard necessarily represents a decline in standards” (Jenkins 2007: 35, original emphasis). The linking of StE with standards also carries the implication that the use of non-standard English not only reveals the failure to conform to what is socially required but is even positively anti-social. As J. Milroy points out, there is a marked tendency to associate “tolerance of variation with ‘permissiveness’ and further identify linguistic ‘permissiveness’ with moral permissiveness” (J. Milroy 1999: 20). Effectively, therefore, the advocacy of StE imposes a set of conditions on ‘correct’ or ‘proper’ behaviour. These conditions are essentially fixed rules for social conduct established by institutional authority. I return here to the points made earlier about the fiction of linguistic stability over time: although standards necessarily represent values established as valid in the past, they carry with them the assumption of unaltered validity in the present without regard to how circumstances may have changed. Such a conservative perspective, which assumes a continuing stable state of affairs, seems especially questionable in the rapidly changing contemporary world, where adaptability is at a premium.
ELF and StE ideology So far I have been focusing on standardization and Standard English as it has developed and been discussed with reference to Kachru’s inner circle, rather than how all this plays out for English as spread across the whole globe. And it is with respect to this global context that it is particularly striking how deeply entrenched standard language ideology is in the shape of StE as described and prescribed in British and American works of reference. For what we observe 88
Standard English and ELF variation
here is the assumption – sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit – that a national standard language should be valid and relevant not only within a particular country but globally.1 Standard English = the whole of English ELF research has documented and described countless ELF interactions in which speakers communicate, and commune, without fully adhering to StE correctness (as indeed is the case in native-speaker contexts too). Therefore, one aspect of standard language ideology particularly relevant to ELF thinking is the odd, clearly counterfactual assumption widely held among both linguistics experts and laypersons that StE constitutes English in its entirety, the English language. We see this manifested in titles of reference books – to pick some random examples from a shelf in my office: there is the Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners and the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, the Cambridge Grammar of English, the Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English, and Practical English Usage. But while these titles suggest a general, all-encompassing coverage of ‘English’, they actually just denote Standard English. As J. Milroy explains, in ‘standard language cultures’ the awareness of a superordinate standard variety is kept alive in the public mind by various channels (including the writing system and education in literacy) that tend to inculcate and maintain this knowledge – not always in a very clear or accurate form – in speakers’ minds. The main effect of these is to equate the standard language – or what is believed to be the standard language – with the language as a whole and with ‘correct’ usage in that language, and this notion of correctness has a powerful role in the maintenance of the standard ideology through prescription. (J. Milroy 1999: 18) There is a great discrepancy, then, between this perception of StE as English tout court, and English in the world, for StE (if one assumes it is a descriptive reality rather than only a myth) covers only a tiny portion of ‘all of English’. Excluded here are not only the myriad rural and urban local dialects of Kachru’s inner circle but all ways of speaking English across all the circles (Kachru 1992). The fact that neither publishers nor authors/compilers of reference works such as the ones mentioned above regard it as necessary to specify that they are equating ‘English’ with ‘Standard English’ indicates just how deeply engrained and taken for granted the prevalence and assumed general, global relevance of StE is. In this line of thinking, then, StE is English, and what is not StE therefore is not English. Standard English = native-speaker English? As we have seen above, StE is above all an ideological construct, and notoriously elusive. Equally elusive is the idea of the native speaker – and similarly abundant is the volume of writings that it has spawned (e.g. Coulmas 1981; Davies 2003, 2012; Paikeday 1985). The indeterminate status of the concept has not, however, prevented it from being assigned supreme significance for theoretical, descriptive and applied linguistics. As Brutt-Griffler (2002: 17) observes, “[i]t has become something of an article of faith that the study of linguistics centers on the monolingual individual – the native speaker”. The question of how the concepts 89
Barbara Seidlhofer
‘Standard English’ – equated, as we have seen, with English as such – and ‘native speaker’ relate is of particular interest in the era of globalization, in which one language has morphed from an insular vernacular with relatively few native speakers to a ‘world language’ used as a lingua franca, predominantly by non-native speakers. It is because StE is represented as ‘proper’ English that it is prescribed as the model for learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). But here, the imposition of a standard is extended even further. Sociolinguists have been at pains to point out that StE is a dialect that can be spoken in a variety of different accents, so there is no standard accent. It is intriguing in this respect to look back at the Kingman Report (1988), a document prepared by a government-appointed committee to enquire into the teaching of English in Britain. In it we find the following statement about StE: 33. Since it holds this important role in the written form, it is also used to communicate across local areas and between regions in a spoken form. In its spoken form it may be pronounced with many different regional accents – e.g. Devon, Cheshire, Midlands, Northumbrian, East Anglian. And it is also spoken far beyond these islands in Australian, American, Jamaican and Indian accents, as well as by speakers using English as a foreign language and speaking it with Japanese or Brazilian or Russian accents. There is one accent of English which is used by a minority of speakers in Britain called ‘Received Pronunciation’... This accent is the standard for foreign students of English in Britain, but is not used as the model of English pronunciation in British schools, since speakers may be rightly proud of their regional pronunciation, which identifies where they come from. (Kingman 1988: 14, emphasis added) According to this report, there is then a standard accent as far as foreign students are concerned, and not only those in Britain one might add, as is borne out by courses in spoken English everywhere that are based on a model of so-called British (or American) pronunciation. Note, also, that there is no need perceived in this report to grant “foreign students of English” the same right to be “proud of their regional pronunciation, which identifies where they come from”. About a decade later, early ELF research prepared the ground for proposals for the acknowledgement of these “foreign students’” accents as perfectly legitimate L2 sociolinguistic variation and expression of identity (Jenkins 2000).2 The odd claim we are confronting here is that a national standard language should have global validity as a communicative currency. This view is most clearly exemplified by authorities on StE, particularly leading authors of major grammars of StE such as Randolph Quirk (Quirk et al. 1972; Quirk et al. 1985), when they pronounce on the teaching of English in the outer and expanding circles. In a paper in which he reacts to the “half-baked quackery” (1990: 9) of calling into question the strict insistence on StE for all purposes of EFL teaching in all contexts, Quirk argues that standards of communication in English depend on conforming to StE, “freely current throughout the world” and described in “the best grammars and dictionaries” (p. 10). And with reference to a study into the differences between native and non-native speakers’ intuitions about French in France he infers – for English in the world – that the distinction “of greatest importance educationally and linguistically is that between native and non-native” (p. 6). Quirk concludes that this implies “the need for native teacher support and the need for non-native teachers to be in constant touch with the native language” (p. 7). It seems, then, that the notions of ‘nativeness’ and ‘standard’ are here conflated to such an extent that they become mutually dependent, indistinguishable and even identical. 90
Standard English and ELF variation
However, they are of course independent in principle: a majority of native English speakers are speakers of non-standard English, and countless non-native English speakers are users of StE. Quirk’s paper creates the impression that it is only (a minority of) native speakers of English who can be trusted to speak proper English up to the standards that any communication situation, anywhere in the world, might require. In this line of thinking, then, StE and native English are the same. What then if we follow the two lines of reasoning, or tacit assumptions at any rate, that a) StE is the whole of English and b) StE is the same as native English? The combination of these two equations results in the conclusion that native English also is the whole of English, and therefore non-standard non-native English is not recognized as English on two counts. In other words, the variable, often non-standard and predominantly non-native English usage observed in all kinds of ELF interaction (and captured in ELF corpora) “just isn’t English”, as May (2000) complains in an article in The Times (see Seidlhofer 2011: ch. 2 for an extended discussion).
‘Compare and contrast’: StE and ELF perspectives on some familiar concepts In 2006, Clyne called English “the most pluricentric and international of all languages” (2006: 99). ELF research in the intervening years has moved on from the idea of an English with many ‘centres’ and used between ‘nations’, and has focused more on deconstructing and challenging the central concepts that constitute the backdrop of standard language ideology that ELF theorizing has had to contend with. This process happened in a succession of (overlapping) phases, starting with fundamental challenges to pedagogic orthodoxy in core areas of ELT (Jenkins 2000) and to received ideas about the scope of description of ‘English’ (Seidlhofer 2001; see also Part III of this volume). Subsequent work focused on attitudes to ELF and ELF research (Jenkins 2007; see also Baird and Baird, Chapter 42 this volume) and on undertaking actual descriptions of ELF interactions, in various domains and speech event types (Cogo and Dewey 2012; Mauranen 2012). Concurrently, ELF researchers also engaged with broader theoretical issues in the context of globalization (e.g. Dewey 2007; Seidlhofer 2007). More recently, research foci have been ELF and “the politics of academic English language policy” (Jenkins 2014, her subtitle; see also Part V of this volume) and questions of how the study of ELF relates to frameworks of multilingualism and (trans)languaging and thus to conceptualizations of ‘language’ as such (e.g. Hülmbauer and Seidlhofer 2013; Cogo, Chapter 29 this volume; Jenkins 2015). In all of these phases ELF research has had to grapple with the forces of native standard language ideology. In order to compare the study of English as carried out within frameworks explicitly or implicitly in keeping with standard language ideology with the study of ELF communication, it will be instructive to look at key arguments in an important article dealing with “language ideologies and the consequences of standardization” (J. Milroy 2001, title) and to explore how these appear in a different light when examined through ‘an ELF lens’ – and thus what ELF thinking is up against. In his 2001 paper, published in the Journal of Sociolinguistics, J. Milroy explores what effects standard language ideology has had on attitudes to language, mostly English, held by linguists and also by laypersons (assumed to be native speakers). He investigates the influence this standard language ideology has had on linguistic theorizing and empirical research, which in turn has tended to perpetuate this ideology. He emphasizes that “standard language cultures are not universal”, despite the fact that users of, and linguists working on, the most 91
Barbara Seidlhofer
widely used ‘major’ languages of the world tend to assume that they are.3 The examples provided in this paper all relate to English and so lend themselves particularly readily to investigation from an ELF perspective. Three related central concepts at work here are correctness, competence and linguistic integrity. Correctness J. Milroy explains that an extremely important effect of standardization has been the development of consciousness among speakers of a ‘correct’, or canonical, form of language. In what I have above called standard-language cultures, virtually everyone subscribes to the ideology of the standard language, and one aspect of this is firm belief in correctness. (2001: 535, original emphasis) In StE ideology there is, then, a high premium on correctness, meaning that native speakers of English are under pressure to (be able to) conform to correct standard usage, at least in writing and in situations requiring careful language use. It is interesting that this criterion, and this expectation, has been transferred wholesale to contexts where English is taught, learnt and used as an additional language. It is assumed that standards of English made and upheld by speakers of English as a native language (ENL) in their ENL communities are considered automatically relevant and valid in quite different communities, and when no native speakers of English may even be present. As we have seen above, the native speaker ideal rules supreme, not just at home. And so it is that StE correctness constitutes the learning target and the criterion for success when it comes to teaching English as a foreign language. Not meeting this target is seen, according to current orthodoxy, as failing to become communicatively competent, and is sanctioned accordingly in English tests (Harding and McNamara, Chapter 45 this volume; McNamara 2014). In reference works for EFL teaching we see non-standard forms explicitly proscribed, even in emphatically descriptive contemporary grammars that also encompass casual spoken English. To pick just one example of many, according to the Cambridge Grammar of English, which carries on its cover a ‘Real English Guarantee’ and claims to be based on an international corpus, About is not used with the verb discuss: We wanted to discuss the arrangements for Chinese New Year. (We wanted to discuss about the arrangements for Chinese New Year.) (Carter and McCarthy 2006: 23, 5f) and this passage is marked with an “error warning symbol”. Similarly, the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary offers “You cannot say” proscriptions in “Help” notes, e.g.: You cannot say ‘discuss about something’: I discussed about my problem with my parents. (OALD, 2010, s.v. discuss) The graphic strike-out seems to suggest that there is, in the teaching and learning of English an a priori assumption that communicative success depends on strict adherence to the norms of StE. This ‘Real English’ (though not all that real as just a small minority of speakers 92
Standard English and ELF variation
actually speak it) is proclaimed to be what learners and teachers of English need: the English as recorded in standard grammars and dictionaries, proper English, Standard English. Teachers and learners have been well schooled in standard language ideology, in the assumption that anything that does not conform to the standard language is by definition incorrect, defective, undesirable. So these pronouncements serve to maintain the institutionally sanctioned ideology enshrined in curricula, textbooks and official examinations, the now virtually globally adopted Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe 2001) being a prime example of such standardization (Moore 2011). Again, the reason why these proscriptions are given is to maintain stable and uniform standards – efforts that run counter to the contemporary reality of how the language is actually used globally. The OALD and the Cambridge Grammar assume the authority to tell users of English what they “cannot say”. But the fact is that on the actual evidence of the ELF corpora VOICE, ELFA and ACE, speakers can say these things, and do: discuss about is used, by speakers from a very wide range of L1 backgrounds in a great variety of speech event types, as are many if not all of the other linguistic forms that are proscribed in these standard works of reference, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this non-standard use causes any problems for the interlocutors. Empirical ELF research, then, shows that there is absolutely no generally valid, straightforward relationship between communicative effectiveness and correctness in terms of StE – just as we know there is no such relationship for speakers of regional ENL dialects. Observing the dynamics of ELF use we see very clearly that communicative effectiveness cannot be guaranteed through grammatical correctness – in fact, quite often the opposite is the case, that non-standard forms that speakers create and converge on ad hoc in processes of accommodation and analogy seem to facilitate communication in certain contexts (Cogo and Dewey 2012; Hülmbauer 2013). Nevertheless, ELT orthodoxy has it that what is regarded as competence in English is not the creative exploitation of available communicative resources but adherence to correct StE forms (see also Kohn 2011). Competence The ability to produce ‘correct’ linguistic forms is, then, closely linked to the notion of competence, which in turn is often invoked in the expression ‘native-speaker competence’. Linguists have long been at pains to explain that just like discrete varieties do not exist as such but are idealizations, or convenient fictions (Seidlhofer 2011: ch. 3; Trudgill 1999: 122), so the notion of competence is an idealized construct too – most prominently captured in Chomsky’s familiar definition as the linguistic knowledge of “an ideal speaker-listener in a completely homogeneous speech community, who knows his language perfectly” (Chomsky 1965: 3). Of course completely homogeneous speech communities do not exist, and Chomsky does not claim that there actually is such a thing – it simply suits his theorizing purpose to think of communities as if they were homogeneous, just as it suits sociolinguists to think of varieties as if they were discrete. Nevertheless, the conviction persists in many minds that ideal speaker-listeners knowing their language perfectly actually exist, that there is such a thing as complete native-speaker competence. Despite much agonizing debate about the impossibility of actually defining the ‘native speaker’ (Davies 2003), the concept nevertheless has the status of an aspirational ideal in ELT, and persists in SLA research in the concept of interlanguage, a continuum of acquisition whose terminal point is native-speaker competence. There is, then, a ‘common sense’ conviction at large that there are languages, discrete, complete and self-enclosed, which their native speakers know in their entirety – that there is, in short, a well-defined, or at least a definable competence in 93
Barbara Seidlhofer
a language. Interestingly, J. Milroy points out that a powerful effect of standard language ideology in the UK and the USA is that another dimension is added to this conviction, so that the general public, including those who make judgements about correctness, are often willing to admit that they themselves make mistakes and are not competent in their own knowledge of the language. They require the guidance of privileged authorities. … The (usually unnamed) authorities on whom speakers (and their teachers) depend have privileged access to the mysteries of language and have something of the status of high priests. (2001: 536, 537, emphasis added) This short glimpse at expert and folk ideas of correctness and (native-speaker) competence should suffice to illustrate the many different takes on these ideas that co-exist, peacefully or otherwise, in the minds of most language users in standard language cultures. Obviously, on reflection these ideas just do not add up, they are irreconcilable. But beliefs and attitudes are usually reproduced through education, and due to standard language ideology being so well entrenched among Anglo-American linguists and non-linguists, people are not aware of them. As J. Milroy (2001) eloquently argues, linguists themselves are affected by, but also have contributed to, this naturalization process. This, then, is the matrix of contradictory ideas and strongly held convictions that ELF research is confronted with, leading to impassioned rejections of arguments that ELF interactions are worth describing and analysing in their own right, and that the insights thus gained into ELF communication might have pedagogic implications. For example, a German university professor of English linguistics, and one who has published widely on English as a world language, expresses his views of ELF, leaving us in no doubt about his conviction that StE is relevant and mandatory for all purposes, for all speakers in all places: The demand for English will continue and possibly increase, which means that more and more people will acquire broken, deficient forms of English which are adequate to the extent that they permit the communicational functions they were learnt for … However, the incomplete acquisition reflected in such instances will never become the basis for a linguistic norm, which is, and has always been, based on the consent of the learned and guided by the accepted written norm, which has remained surprisingly homogeneous around the globe … There is no danger of such deviant uses ‘polluting’ the standards of native speakers even if they become a minority in the global anglophone community. Int[ernational] E[nglish] will not be corrupted by such uses. (Görlach 2002: 12f) ELF researchers who have discussed possible pedagogical implications of ELF theorizing and description have been accused equally vehemently by English language (teaching) professionals of “bring[ing] the ideal down to the gutter, with no check-point on the way” (Sobkowiak 2005: 141), “inventing a new variety’” and “installing a fledgling ugly duckling” (Maley 2009: 194, 196) and offering a “broken weapon” to L2 users that “risks bringing them stuttering onto the world stage of ELF” (Prodromou 2008: 250). These attitudes driven by standard language ideology have been richly documented and discussed in detail, especially as they relate to ELT, in Jenkins (2007). The traditional conceptualization of ‘competence’ is, of course, incompatible with the communicative capability (Widdowson 2003) for exploiting multilingual resources that we 94
Standard English and ELF variation
see at work in the empirical study of ELF interactions. This research shows that in many, if not most contexts in which English is currently used, speakers do not fully conform to ENL conventions that orthodox pedagogy regards as the hallmark of being ‘competent in the language’. This is not surprising, as these ENL conventions have arisen in quite different local communities of users and are replete with in-group markers of shared sociocultural identity that are, to say the least, irrelevant in ELF situations (see also Baker, Chapter 2 this volume). Linguistic integrity An important factor contributing to the entrenchment of standard language ideology – and one to which work in linguistics has actively contributed – is the historical process of legitimization, which in turn is linked to the idea of linguistic integrity, to ideals of a pure standard language, not contaminated by other languages: The historization of the language requires that it should possess a continuous unbroken history, a respectable and legitimate ancestry and a long pedigree. It is also highly desirable that it should be as pure and unmixed as possible. (J. Milroy 2001: 548f) These idealizations have been so internalized by most people who were socialized in conventional educational settings in standard language cultures that they tend to operate at the subconscious level, are taken for granted – perhaps particularly in the dominant ‘Western’ tradition of Anglo-American linguistics. Mainstream sociolinguistics has been busy describing and delineating varieties, wedded as it has been to conventional (often national) notions of communities inhabiting a certain physical space and engaging in daily face-to-face contact. In European language education policy, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe 2001), despite its proclaimed overall objective of furthering a composite plurilingualism, persists in an ‘enumerative’ and separatist rather than integrationist approach to ‘languages’. As is discernible in some descriptors of language proficiency developed for the Council of Europe’s European Language Portfolio, the orientation is clearly towards monolingual native-speaker norms (cf. Hynninen 2014; Jenkins and Leung 2014; McNamara 2011; Pitzl 2015; Seidlhofer 2011: ch. 8), so that, for example, ‘intelligibility’ is taken to mean being intelligible to native speakers, and being able to understand native speakers. There is no differentiation in this powerful policy document between ‘modern foreign languages’ on the one hand and ‘English’ on the other, as if all ‘languages’ fulfilled the same role in the world and as if people’s objectives for learning them were all the same. These examples show how those socialized in standard language cultures find it hard to accept that the orthodoxy of the unique validity and intrinsic superiority of a single, immutable standard language is undergoing vigorous questioning in ELF research – and perhaps what makes this rethinking particularly difficult to countenance is that it has to do with the extraterritorial development of English, a language with an especially strong tradition of standard language ideology, and where it is particularly true that “‘standard variety’ has been equated with ‘prestige variety’” (J. Milroy 2001: 532). It may therefore take a while yet before insights into ELF communication are taken on board in ‘mainstream’ linguistics and applied linguistics. New proposals in sociolinguistics and applied linguistics for alternatives to standard models have only made it into the ‘critical sectors’ of the mainstream over the last couple 95
Barbara Seidlhofer
of decades, in parallel with the development of ELF research. While there is still a great deal of work being done on ‘code-switching’ and ‘borrowing’ and on neatly delimiting one variety of English from another, it is gradually being recognized that getting to grips with the complex phenomenon of global communication via ELF in our increasingly ‘virtual’ world calls for a broader outlook than can be provided by approaches dependent on standard language orthodoxies. It is only fairly recently that alternatives to thinking of languages as discrete and neatly bounded entities have evolved in ‘Western’ sociolinguistics and applied linguistics, largely by taking on board work pioneered in and on non-standard language cultures (e.g. Mühlhäusler 1996). The ways of thinking that have seen a surge in recent years are more in keeping with the way people in the twenty-first-century “shuttle between communities” (Canagarajah 2005; see also Morán Panero, Chapter 44 this volume). We are encouraged to think through the processes of “disinventing and reconstituting languages” (Makoni and Pennycook 2007), and alternative metaphors for theorizing the dynamics of ELF communication are being offered in terms of transidiomatic practices (Jacquemet 2005), global Englishes and transcultural flows (Pennycook 2007), mobile resources (Blommaert 2010) and translingual practice (Canagarajah 2013; Kimura and Canagarajah, Chapter 24 this volume). Pennycook (2009: 204) suggests that “[w]e need to escape from the circles, tubes and boxes based on nations that have so bedevilled world Englishes and linguistics more generally”.
Standard English and code fixation The well-entrenched notion of monolingual competence, so closely linked to correctness and linguistic integrity, that I have briefly discussed would seem to be based on what I have referred to elsewhere (Seidlhofer 2011) as code fixation. It is the code, and more specifically the code that has been institutionally sanctioned as the standard that is given overriding prominence as the essential determinant of effective communication. But as Jakobson pointed out many years ago (1960), the code is only one factor in communication. In his conception, the message form that is produced in a particular communicative event will be drawn from the resources of the code but what linguistic form this takes will depend on a combination of other factors – who the participants are and what linguacultural knowledge they can assume is shared between them, what intents and purposes they have in communicating, and so on. The code is only one factor and participants will make use of it as an expedient resource, exploiting whatever elements of it they have at their disposal that are communicatively appropriate and effective, whether they conform to the norms of StE or not. And the code resources at their disposal will not be confined to those of English. For what has been observed in ELF communication is that interactants do not just put to work elements of a language that they learnt at school, being careful to use them as ‘correctly’ as possible. Rather, ELF users draw on “their multi-faceted multilingual repertoires in a fashion entirely motivated by the communicative purpose and the interpersonal dynamics of the interaction” (Seidlhofer 2011: 108). In these interactions, speakers “are focused on the interactional and transactional purposes of the talk and on their interlocutors as people rather than on the linguistic code itself” in a creative process in which “the code is treated as malleable and adjustable to the requirements of the moment” (Seidlhofer 2011: 98; cf. also Cogo and Dewey 2012; Jenkins 2015; Mauranen 2012; Pitzl forthcoming). In short, ELF 96
Standard English and ELF variation
users “act upon, and sometimes against, norms and standards” (Jørgensen 2008: 164), and what they draw on in this process of (trans)languaging is not linguistic competence in StE but communicative capability (Widdowson 2015). As Garcia and Li Wei (2014: 8) put it, paraphrasing Becker (2000), “language can never be accomplished; and thus languaging is a better term to capture an ongoing process that is always being created as we interact with the world lingually”.
Conclusion As will have become evident, thinking through issues of standardization and how they relate to ELF constitutes a complex challenge as “the idea of what is believed to constitute a ‘language’ can hardly escape the influence of the standard ideology” (J. Milroy 2001: 539, original emphasis). Studying the fluidity of ELF practices in today’s world thus raises issues of general theoretical significance and points us to the urgent need to re-think not only the status and roles of English but also our conceptualizations of the nature of language and communication in general. The challenge of understanding ELF in relation to centuries-old ideas about standardization is embedded in the general challenge of understanding the changed circumstances of the contemporary globalized world in relation to definite ideas about borders and boundaries between communities, cultures and languages, which had seemed so secure for so long.
Notes 1 This assumption, so starkly evident in international higher education, is documented and critiqued in Jenkins (2014): “[I]f English is the language of international H[igher] E[ducation], it is not appropriate for it to be a national version of HE’s Anglophone minority” (Jenkins 2014: 206. original emphasis). See also Part V of this volume. 2 For other observations on the Kingman report from the perspective of “verbal hygiene” see Cameron 1995. 3 There is an interesting parallel here with the assumption that the findings of second language acquisition research are universally applicable, but as Tarone, Bigelow and Hansen (2009) point out, they are for the main part based on studies of literate subjects only.
Further reading Jenkins, J. (2007) ‘ELF and standard language ideology’ and ‘Language attitudes’ Chapters 2 and 3 of English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Milroy, J. (2001) ‘Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 5 (4): 530–555. Seidlhofer, B. (2011) ‘Standard English and real English’ and ‘Reconceptualizing ‘English’. Chapters 3 and 4 of Understanding English as a Lingua Franca, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
References Becker, A.L. (2000) Beyond Translation: Essays Toward a Modern Philology, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Bex, A. R. (1993) ‘Standards of English in Europe’, Multilingua 12 (3): 249–264. Bex, T. and Watts, R.J. (eds) (1999) Standard English: The Widening Debate, London: Routledge. Blommaert, J. (2010) The Sociolinguistics of Globalization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002) World English: A Study of its Development, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cameron, D. (1995) Verbal Hygiene, London: Routledge. 97
Barbara Seidlhofer
Canagarajah, A.S. (ed.) (2005) Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and Practice, New York: Routledge. Canagarajah, A.S. (2013) Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations, New York: Routledge. Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (2006) Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide. Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, N. (1965) Syntactic Structures, London: Mouton. Clyne, M. (2006) ‘Some thoughts on pragmatics, sociolinguistic variation and intercultural communication’, Intercultural Pragmatics, 3 (1): 95–105. Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2012) Analysing English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-Driven Investigation, London: Continuum. Coulmas, F. (ed.) (1981) A Festschrift for Native Speakers, Gravenhage: De Gruyter Mouton. Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davies, A. (2003) The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Davies, A. (2012), ‘Native speaker’. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Online. Available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0855/full (accessed 23 August 2016). Dewey, M. (2007) ‘English as a lingua franca and globalization: an interconnected perspective’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17 (3): 332–54. Garcia, O. and Li Wei (2014) Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Görlach, M. (2002) Still More Englishes, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hickey, R. (ed.) (2015) Standards of English: Codified Varieties around the World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hughes, A., Trudgill, P. and Watt, D. (2013) English Accents and Dialects: An Introduction to Social and Regional Varieties of English in the British Isles (5th edition), London: Routledge. Hülmbauer, C. (2013) The Real, the Virtual and the Plurilingual: English as a Lingua Franca in a Linguistically Diversified Europe, PhD dissertation, University of Vienna. Hülmbauer, C. and Seidlhofer, B. (2013) ‘English as a lingua franca in European Multilingualism’. In A.-C. Berthoud, F. Grin and G. Lüdi (eds) Exploring the Dynamics of Multilingualism: The DYLAN Project, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 387–406. Hynninen, N. (2014) ‘The Common European Framework of Reference from the perspective of English as a lingua franca: What we can learn from a focus on language regulation’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3 (2): 293–316. Jacquemet, M. (2005) ‘Transidiomatic practices: language and power in the age of globalization’, Language and Communication, 25(3): 257–277. Jakobson, R. (1960) ‘Closing statement: linguistics and poetics’, Style in language 350: 377. Jenkins, J. (2000) The Phonology of English as an International Language: New Models, New Norms, New Goals, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2007) English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2014) English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Politics of Academic English Language Policy, Abingdon and New York: Routledge. Jenkins, J. (2015) ‘Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca’, Englishes in Practice 2 (3): 49–85. Jenkins, J. and Leung, C. (2014) ‘English as a lingua franca’. In Antony John Kunnan (ed.) The Companion to Language Assessment, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1607–1616. Johnston, A.J. and Lange, C. (2006) ‘The beginnings of standardization: an epilogue’. In U. Schaefer (ed.) The Beginnings of Standardization: Language and Culture in Fourteenth-Century England, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 183–200. Jørgensen, J.N. (2008) ‘Polylingual languaging around and among children and adolescents’, International Journal of Multilingualism, 5 (3): 161–76. Kachru, B.B. (1985) ‘Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle’. In R. Quirk and H.G. Widdowson (eds) English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Languages and Literatures, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–30. Kachru, B.B. (ed.) (1992) The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures (2nd edition), Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. 98
Standard English and ELF variation
Kingman, J. (1988) Report of the Committee of Inquiry Into the Teaching of English Language: Appointed by the Secretary of State Under the Chairmanship of Sir John Kingman, London: HM Stationery Office. Kohn, K. (2011) ‘English as a lingua franca and the Standard English misunderstanding’. In A. De Houwer and A. Wilton (eds), English in Europe Today: Sociocultural and Educational Perspectives, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 71–94. Labov, W. (1969) ‘The logic on non-standard English’. In J. Alatis (ed.) Georgetown Monographs on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, vol. 22, pp. 1–44. Lippi-Green, R. (1997) English with an Accent: Language, Ideology and Discrimination in the United States. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. Locher, M.A. and Strässler, J. (2008) Standards and Norms in the English Language, Berlin: De Gruyter. McNamara, T. (2011) ‘Managing learning: authority and language assessment’, Language Teaching 44 (4): 500–515. McNamara, T. (2014): ‘30 years on – evolution or revolution?’ Language Assessment Quarterly 11 (2): 226–232. Makoni, S. and Pennycook, A. (eds) (2007) Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Maley, A. (2009) ‘ELF: a teacher’s perspective’, Language and Intercultural Communication, 9 (3): 187–200. Mauranen, A. (2012) Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. May, D. (2000) ‘It just isn’t English’, The Times, 24 March, p. 4. Milroy, J. (1999) ‘The consequences of standardisation in descriptive linguistics’. In T. Bex and R.J. Watts (eds) Standard English: The Widening Debate, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 16–39. Milroy, J. (2001) ‘Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 5 (4): 530–555. Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (2012) Authority in Language (4th edition), London: Routledge. Milroy, L. (1999) ‘Standard English and language ideology in Britain and the United States’. In Bex, T. and Watts, R.J. (eds) Standard English: The Widening Debate, London: Routledge, pp. 173–206. Moore, R. (2011) ‘Standardisation, diversity and enlightenment in the contemporary crisis of EU language policy’, Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies 74. King’s College London. Mufwene, S. (2001) The Ecology of Language Evolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mühlhäusler, P. (1996) Linguistic Ecology: Language Change and Linguistic Imperialism in the Pacific Region, London: Routledge. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2010) (8th edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paikeday, T.M. (1985) The Native Speaker is Dead! Toronto and New York: Paikeday Publishing. Pennycook, A. (2000) ‘Disinventing Standard English’ [Review of Bex and Watts 1999], English Language and Linguistics, 4 (1): 115–124. Pennycook, A. (2007) Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows, London: Routledge. Pennycook, A. (2009). ‘Plurilithic Englishes: towards a 3D model’. In K. Murata and J. Jenkins (eds) Global Englishes in Asian Contexts. Current and Future Debates. London: Continuum, pp. 194–207. Pitzl, M.-L. (2012) ‘Creativity meets convention: idiom variation and remetaphorization in ELF’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1 (1): 27–55. Pitzl, M.-L. (2015) ‘Understanding and misunderstanding in the Common European Framework of Reference: What we can learn from research on BELF and Intercultural Communication’. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4 (1): 91–124. Pitzl, M.-L. (forthcoming.) Creativity in English as a Lingua Franca, Berlin: De Gruyter. Prodromou, L. (2008) English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-based Analysis, London: Continuum. Quirk, R. (1990) ‘Language varieties and standard language’, English Today 21: 3–10. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1972) A Grammar of Contemporary English, London and New York: Longman. Quirk R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London: Longman. 99
Barbara Seidlhofer
Seidlhofer, B. (2001) ‘Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a lingua franca’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11 (2): 133–158. Seidlhofer, B. (2007) ‘English as a lingua franca and communities of practice’. In S. Volk-Birke and J. Lippert (eds) Anglistentag 2006 Halle Proceedings, Trier: WissenschaftlicherVerlag Trier, pp. 307–318. Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sobkowiak, W. (2005) ‘Why not LFC?’ In K. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk and J. Przedlacka (eds) English Pronunciation Models: A Changing Scene, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 131–149. Tarone, E. Bigelow, M. and Hansen, K. (2009). Literacy and Second Language Oracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Trudgill, P. (1999) ‘Standard English: what it isn’t’. In T. Bex and R.J. Watts (eds) Standard English: The Widening Debate, London: Routledge, pp. 117–128. Trudgill, P. and Hannah, J. (2013) International English: A Guide to the Varieties of Standard English (5th edition), London: Routledge. Widdowson, H.G. (2003) Defining Issues in English Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H.G. (2015) ‘ELF and the pragmatics of language variation’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4 (2): 359–372. Wright, L. (2006) The Development of Standard English, 1300–1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
100
8 Historical perspectives on ELF H.G. Widdowson
Introduction: a recurring theme It has become a truism to say that the extent to which English is now used as a lingua franca is unprecedented in that it has become an all-pervasive feature of a globalized world. But although the extent of its use is unprecedented, it is, of course, by no means the only example of a language that, originally confined to and defined by a relatively small community of users, has spread beyond its borders to become an international means of communication. In this respect, it can be said that ELF is a new phenomenon in degree but not in kind. And as with other languages, the extension into lingua franca use quite naturally involves variation and change as the language is adapted to meet the needs of different communicative contexts and purposes. The study of ELF is essentially the study of adaptive variation and under what conditions this is activated. As such, it too has its precedents, for the study of linguistic variation has long been central to sociolinguistic enquiry. A recurring theme here is the tension between variation as a pragmatic communicative expediency and variation as the expression of social identity. People invest their language with sociocultural values that they quite naturally seek to preserve and protect. If, as in the case of a lingua franca, a language is appropriated by outsiders and adapted to suit their own communicative requirements, the integrity of the language as representing these values would seem to be undermined. So it is that the intrinsic tendency of English, like any other language, to spread and mutate and continually adapt itself to different conditions has often caused alarm and despondency among linguistic preservationists who claim to have custody over the language and its ‘proper’ use. In their view, this tendency calls for intervention to ensure that if there is to be variation, it can be controlled so the communicative and communal integrity of the language is not compromised.
Prescriptions of appropriate language This attitude to English is all too evident in current reactions to the uncontrolled spread of the language in its use as a lingua franca, as ELF researchers know all too well.
101
H.G. Widdowson
But the attitude itself goes back a long way. In 1712, for example, Jonathan Swift published a pamphlet entitled ‘A proposal for correcting, improving and ascertaining the English tongue’, in which he inveighs against ways in which the language is corrupted, how it is full of what he calls ‘manglings and abbreviations’ (Swift 1712). In the previous century, we find Sir Thomas Sprat also complaining about the abuse of English. His objection, however, is not to the mangling of linguistic forms but to the extravagant eloquence of their use, what he refers to as ‘the luxury and redundance of Speech, this vicious abundance of phrase, this trick of metaphors, this volubility of tongue, that makes so great a noise in the world’ (1667: 111–113). Sprat was one of the founders of the Royal Society, established for the ‘Improving of natural knowledge’ and his hostility to eloquence is because he sees it as a threat to its mission. As he puts it, There is one thing more about which the Society has been most solicitous, and that is the manner of their discourse; which, unless they had been very watchful to keep in due temper, the whole spirit and vigor of their design had been soon eaten out by the luxury and redundance of speech. (Sprat 1667: 111–113) The necessary manner of discourse, he believed, was ‘a close, naked, natural way of speaking, positive expressions; clear senses; a native easiness: bringing all things as near the mathematical plainness as they can’ (Sprat 1667: 111–113). Sprat is effectively presenting the case for English for Specific Purposes (ESP), the specific purpose here being the advancement of science. This was, he believed, a variety of English used by ‘Artizans, Countrymen, and Merchants’ in contrast to the vicious verbiage of ‘Wits or Scholars’. It is of interest to observe that some 250 years later, Peter Strevens sounds a similar note in his article significantly entitled ‘Alternatives to Daffodils’ in which he speaks out against the predominance of literary uses of English in language teaching and in favour of what was then called the register of scientific English. He concludes by expressing a Sprat-like view in pedagogic terms: the science and technology student is not at present adequately catered for: current English teaching practice is non-scientific and sometimes anti-scientific ... Perhaps ‘Fair daffodils we weep to see thee haste away so soon’… will give way in some overseas classes to language work more relevant to the science student’s eventual needs. (Strevens 1971: 11) What both Sprat and Strevens argue is that we need to recognize, that to be effective, English has to adapt to different requirements, to be appropriate to different communicative contexts and purposes. But in neither case is there any suggestion that this might involve any structural non-conformity from established linguistic rule. What they are talking about is not the use of a formally abnormal kind of English but the different functional use of what is formally a normal kind of English. The question arises, however, as to whether there are domains of use where conformity to rule does not necessarily meet communicative requirement and that call for some refashioning of the linguistic code itself.
102
Historical perspectives on ELF
Recodifications of English Domains of use naturally multiplied with the expansion of empire but since the spread was a function of colonialism, English, like its colonized users, was under the jurisdiction of its British rulers. Whatever variable encoding occurred in its use, such non-conformity to rule was not sanctioned by authority as legitimate. But when the United States declared independence from colonial rule, a community of native speakers was created that was not bound by such authority and could change the language to suit the needs of the new nation. And Noah Webster set out to do just this: Now is the time and this the country in which we may expect success in attempting changes to language, science, and government. Let us then seize the present moment and establish a national language as well as a national government. (Webster 1789: 405) For Webster, a recodification of English was called for so that it would serve the cause of national identity. The recodification was relatively minor, involving mainly orthographic and lexical innovation, but served its intended symbolic purpose. Over a century later, recodification was deemed necessary for an entirely opposite reason: not to support nationalism but to counter it. For, in Europe, nationalism, in the early part of the twentieth century, was taken to be a major cause of the First World War – Einstein called it ‘an infantile disease’. In consequence, in the aftermath of war, an anti-nationalist sentiment sought to eradicate this disease by the promotion of international understanding. It was in this socio-political context that Ogden devised his Basic English (Ogden 1930). Unlike Webster’s intervention, the purpose here called for a radically recoded version of the language, a totally different kind of English, an elementary coding system, stripped of grammatical and idiomatic complexity so as to make it readily adaptable to any demands that might be made upon it as an international means of communication. But apart from this practical advantage, and as a corollary to it, Basic also had a symbolic advantage: this version of English was thereby de-nationalized in that it removed features of the language that made it distinctive as the national language of its native speakers, and who, therefore, could no longer claim ownership of it.
Communal and communicative functions These attempts to refashion English so as to meet the needs of different domains of use are not only of passing historical interest. They raise controversial issues about the role and status of the language that are centrally relevant to an understanding of its international use and that remain unresolved to this day. One of these has to do with the relationship referred to earlier between the function of a language as an expression of communal identity, which is Webster’s concern, and its function as a means of wider communication, which is Ogden’s. How far are these functions compatible, how far in tension? In native speaker communities the two would seem to be naturally compatible, indeed symbiotically related in that effective communication is both cause and consequence of social cohesion. This is not usually the case with ELF, however, where the language is appropriated by other users and adapted expediently to meet their communicative needs, and where the
103
H.G. Widdowson
identifying function may have little if any relevance. In this respect, it might be said that with such adaptive uses of English there is some reduction in function, which is why they are often taken to be defective – expressions of incompetence. A second issue, which is made particularly prominent in Ogden’s proposal, is how far it is possible to identify what features of the standard language are actually essential for communication. Seen in this light, Ogden’s proposal is comparable to Jenkins’ Lingua Franca Core (LFC) (Jenkins 2000). One is concerned with lexico-grammatical and the other with phonological features of English, but both seek to separate out those linguistic features that have general communicative salience from those that only incidentally serve the dual communicative and identifying function of particular native speaking communities. In this respect, the design of Basic English can be seen as the specification of a lingua-franca core. Where the two specifications differ, of course, is that Jenkins’ LFC is based on empirical findings of how people make variable use of an existing linguistic code, which therefore, has vitality (Stewart 1968). Basic, on the other hand, is an artificially constructed code: nobody actually speaks it and it can only become vital if it is actually put to use. So the de-nationalizing of English has the effect of de-naturalizing it. The problem posed by Basic was how far artificially abstracted encoding specifications can be vitalized to become a natural means of communication.
English as an international language As it turned out, the problem disappeared as Ogden’s proposal was overtaken by events. Basic was designed to meet the needs of international communication, but as the century progressed, English was becoming increasingly established as an international language without the need for artificial intervention. The fledgling domain of scientific enquiry, for example, which Sprat believed needed to be linguistically nurtured, took flight and found its own global manner of discourse in English under its own impetus. Attention now was focused not on how the language might be refashioned for international use, but on how this use affected the status of the language – how ‘English’ was to be defined now that it had become what Larry Smith called an ‘International auxiliary language (EIAL)’ (Smith 1980). As Strevens puts it: In the case of the language called ‘English’ the sheer numbers of English users whose individual performances (and competences) are summated within the fiction of ‘English’, their worldwide geographical distribution, the great range of social needs and purposes they serve, and the resulting myriad of identifiably different versions of English – all these factors combine to produce a paradox: as English becomes ever more widely used, so it becomes ever more difficult to characterize in ways that support the fiction of a simple, single language. (Strevens 1980: 79) Over 30 years later Seidlhofer points out that this fiction that English is one language and ‘evermore shall be so’ still prevails and is a major obstacle in understanding the nature of ELF (Seidlhofer 2011). What then has happened over the intervening years? How far has the changed status of English been recognized and what characterization has been proposed as a factual alternative? Strevens seeks to resolve the paradox he refers to by making a distinction between intranational and international uses of the language. By the former term he means the English adopted as a community language in ex-colonial countries, those in what Kachru later called 104
Historical perspectives on ELF
the outer circle (Kachru 1985). Other countries, he says, need the language ‘for contact with the external world, for communication with other individuals and communities, for access to science, and other uses for which English is the vehicle’ (Strevens 1980: 81). The other countries that Strevens specifically mentions are Japan, Turkey and Brazil – countries located in Kachru’s expanding circle. Interestingly, however, Strevens makes the point that communities who use English intranationally also need to use the language for international purposes as well, so that his concept of international cuts across the Kachru distinctions and in effect refers to the use of English as a lingua franca. However, subsequent developments in the study of EIAL did not focus on international English in this sense but on the intranational English, that of outer-circle users. And the main concern was to describe the recurrent linguistic features that defined distinct so-called nativized varieties associated with particular communities of users. These were accordingly assigned independent status as World Englishes, thereby providing symbolic confirmation of the political independence of these ex-colonial countries. The English of the inner circle was thereby de-nationalized and then re-nationalized as the language of outer-circle communities. The primary focus was, then, on language as a means of expressing social identity, and in this respect the World Englishes movement (the WE paradigm as it is usually called) can be seen as the empirical analogue of Webster’s proposals for modifying English so as to make it a symbol of independence and separate national identity – proposals that, when taken up and vitalized in use, became established in the United States as, in effect, the first of the World Englishes.
World Englishes and English as a lingua franca The extensive work on World Englishes, initiated and inspired by Kachru and Smith, and published in the journal of that name, was, then, principally concerned with the description of varieties, linguistically distinct versions of intranational English that had their own communal identity and integrity. The variable manifestations of ELF, of international English as Strevens defines it, are not accounted for. Indeed, there is a tendency among WE proponents to dismiss such variation as unworthy of study precisely because it does not display the formal regularities that can be systematically identified as constituting a separate variety (for further discussion see Seidlhofer 2015). Interestingly, Strevens himself takes up a position that is in line with an ELF rather than a WE perspective on variation. Referring to Smith’s label EIAL (English as an international auxiliary language) he makes the following comment: [T]he locution ‘English as …’ presupposed the existence, to the minds of some people, of ‘an English’ i.e. of a degree of reification, of a more or less finite, describable entity different in some definable respects from other forms of English. (Strevens 1980: 94) But in the minds of WE people it is presupposed that there are indeed such describable entities, forms of English that are different from each other in some definable respects. This is precisely what is held to justify the plural form World Englishes. Strevens continues with a disclaimer: ‘This has not been the intention of “auxiliary” in EIAL. On the contrary, the original concept had been of differing purposes for using English rather than different versions of the language’ (Strevens 1980: 94; emphasis in the original). If this was indeed the original concept of EIAL, it would seem to correspond more closely to an ELF rather than a WE perspective, one that recognizes that there is English in the world 105
H.G. Widdowson
other than World Englishes, and one that looks at the process of variation itself, at how English takes various forms to satisfy differing communicative purposes rather than at different formal versions of the language (for further discussion see Widdowson 2015). Intentionally or not, these remarks by Strevens can be seen as indicating these two separate future developments in the study of international English. But these are perhaps more clearly signaled 10 years earlier in research that makes no reference to international English at all. I refer here to the work of William Labov. In a celebrated paper (Labov 1969a) he challenges the privileged status of Standard English and the idea prevalent at the time that failure to conform to it on the part of speakers of what was then called Black English vernacular (BEV) was evidence of diminished communicative and cognitive capabilities and that its speakers had a verbal deficiency that needed to be remedied by education. This idea that non-conformity to Standard English results in verbal deprivation and communicative impairment is one that ELF scholars are all too familiar with. They too have had to contend with the idea of the essential superiority of the standard language, an idea as institutionally entrenched as ever, and the assumption that users of the language who do not conform to it must necessarily be communicatively defective and in need of remedial treatment by educational intervention – witness the widespread view of ELF that it is really only another name for learner English. In this respect, Labov anticipates a basic tenet of ELF study that people are perfectly capable of communicating effectively without conforming to the norms of the standard language and that such conformity will even often be contextually inappropriate and may well result in ineffective communication. But we need to note that the people Labov is talking about in this paper are members of a particular community of speakers, and his aim is to demonstrate that the language they use is contextually appropropriate for their own intra-community purposes. In this case, therefore, the communicative and identifying functions of language use converge. Labov is concerned to show not only that the use of features of non-standard English can be pragmatically effective on particular contextual occasions, but that these features are consistent markers of social identity. Though non-conformist in relation to the norms of the standard language, they conform to other norms that define a different version of the language with its own system of rules and its own social conventions of appropriate use. As Labov puts it ,‘All linguists who work with non-standard Negro English recognize that it is a separate system, closely related to Standard English but separate from the surrounding white dialects by a number of persistent and systematic differences’ (Labov 1969a: 32). Labov’s demonstration of the logic of non-standard English is designed to present a case for the recognition of African American English as having its own independent status and integrity as a variety in its own right. There is a clear correspondence here with the work of WE scholars, similarly concerned with establishing versions of English that are dialectal in that they represent the means of communication and the expression of identity of separate speech communities, defined as groups of people who share the same primary socio-cultural space. They too focus attention on intra-community domains of use where the communicative and identifying functions naturally converge.
Language variety and variation But of course, what we have with ELF is the use of English between people who do not belong to the same speech communities, as these are traditionally defined, who therefore do not share the same primary socio-cultural or lingua-cultural space. The question arises as to what communicative demands are made on the language in ELF domains of use and 106
Historical perspectives on ELF
how these demands can be provided for. We can perhaps best approach this question by first considering domains of use where the demands are small and relatively easy to meet. I refer to the use of so called pidginized forms of English. These have been a subject of linguistic study for over 50 years, and again, raise issues that bear directly on current thinking about ELF. In reference to Smith’s EIAL, pidgin domains of use are local and not international but like EIAL the language can be described in the two different ways already discussed: in ELF terms as a variable process of pidginization or in WE terms as a pidgin, a language variety. This is a representative definition: The process of pidginization is usually assumed to begin when a language is used only for very limited communication between groups who speak different native languages. Sharply restricted in domains of use, it undergoes varying degrees of simplification and admixture. If a new stable variety of the language emerges from this process, it might be described as a pidgin. (Rickford 1977: 191–192) Since pidgin English is used for ‘communication between groups who speak different native languages’ it conforms to Seidlhofer’s definition of ELF as ‘any use of English among speakers of different first languages for whom English is the communicative medium of choice, and often the only option’ (Seidlhofer 2011: 7). And as with ELF what is emphasized in Rickford’s definition is use as a process. Just as a pidgin may emerge as a stable variety so it is conceivable that variation in ELF interaction in some contexts may over time also lead to relative stability, when, for example, regularities in ELF use emerge in what has been called a particular discourse community (Swales 1990) or community of practice (Wenger 1998). And of course if the language becomes communal in this way, so it acquires an identifying function accordingly. Variation, then, can be studied in two ways. One way is to relate language variation to language change, to trace its developmental trajectory by identifying interim stages of its emergent progress towards stabilization. So one might identify certain rudimentary forms of English as a basilect and then trace how through variable and extended use it develops into a mesolect and subsequently into an acrolect, an established variety (Bickerton 1975). Similarly, Schneider (2012) argues that in some of its manifestations at least, ELF variability can be taken as an interim stage of variety development. Such an approach focuses attention on the linguistic properties that are manifested in different ways of using English and so is essentially concerned with variation as an indication of language change. But a second way of studying variation is to consider the process itself and the communicative conditions that give rise to it. Here the focus of attention is not on linguistic forms as such but on their pragmatic function, that is to say, to quote Strevens again, on ‘differing purposes for using English rather than different versions of the language’ (1980: 94; emphasis in the original). To do this is to move from considering not the linguistic features of the texts that are manifested in language use but the discourse that they realize – what users mean by the linguistic forms they use. Some of these discoursal purposes are satisfied by a very rudimentary use of linguistic forms and here there are uses of ELF that can indeed be characterized as pidginized English. But the point is that such uses are appropriate to purpose and as and when purposes make greater communicative demands, so the language quite naturally complexifies to meet them for, as Halliday puts it: ‘The particular form taken by the grammatical systems of language is closely related to the social and personal needs that language is required to serve’ (1970: 142). 107
H.G. Widdowson
In the study of pidginization, this complexification is generally discussed as a feature of creolization, the process whereby the language extends into a wider range of domains of use and eventually gets stabilized as a creole: a variety, a version of the language associated with a particular community of speakers, in short, a World English. And as such, as mentioned earlier, the communicative and identifying function of the language converge. But the two functions do not have to converge. This process of complexification does not have to be uniquely associated with creolization. As the use of English extends into the domains of international communication, it will naturally complexify to meet a wide and heterogeneous range of contexts and purposes. The use will sometimes approximate to the linguistic norms that characterize native-speaking varieties. But this approximation is incidental, a function of communicative expediency, and carries no necessary identifying significance. What brings about complexity in ELF usage, and the extent to which it is or is not in conformity to established encoded forms of the language is the complexity of the contextual demands that it has to satisfy. These demands may be intra-community in a conventional sense, as is the case with creolization, and, as we have seen with BEV, but they can also be, and in ELF are, inter-community – international in the Strevens sense. With ELF we have the same motivation that furthers the development process of creolization – the increasing functional demands that lead to formal complexity – but these are associated not with intra- but with inter-communal contexts and purposes. With ELF we have variation that is not necessarily an interim stage on the way to a variety but a continually adaptive pragmatic use of linguistic resources (see Widdowson 2015). One can of course describe the actual linguistic forms that this variation can take without subscribing to the view that they are embryonic features of a variety. This involves focusing attention on the variants that are textually produced rather than on the pragmatic discoursal process that produced them. This is generally done by referring variant forms to the conventional norms of standard usage. Thus, with some ELF interactions, one can point to such textual features as the ‘absence’ of definite articles or the third person s, or the non-standard use of prepositions or the plural morpheme. To do this is to give privileged benchmark status to these conventional norms. Where variants are so regular as to constitute a variety, as in the case of World Englishes, they are then, of course no longer considered as errors but are legitimatized as sociolinguistic markers of identity and pragmatically appropriate to context in intra-community domains of use. But where these variants are used inter-communally, that is to say when people from different primary communities communicate, as is the case with ELF, the error stigma tends to remain, in spite of the evidence that they serve to textualize their users’ discourse intentions in pragmatically effective ways.
Text and discourse: analysis and interpretation There are then two approaches to the description of ELF variation, and they correspond to two historical traditions in linguistics. One treats instances of language use, what Saussure refers to as actes de parole, as text, the overt linguistic forms that language users produce. The second approach considers what users intend to mean by the texts they produce, and how their texts are variously interpreted, in other words what discourse a text is designed to realize, and what discourse is derived from it. To illustrate the distinction we can return again to Labov. When he is pointing out the distinctive linguistic features of a particular instance of BEV: for example, negative concord (as in ‘you aint goin’ to no heaven’) or invariant be (as in ‘when they be sayin’) he is talking about text. When he says that these features are used in a contextually appropriate way to express a complex argument, then he 108
Historical perspectives on ELF
is interpreting the text as discourse. When he demonstrates that BEV is systematic, he is treating it as text but when he argues it is logical, he is treating it as discourse. Over recent decades, with the development of corpus linguistics, textual description has become increasingly precise and detailed. This has revealed that there are recurring patterns of usage within texts, co-textual inter-dependencies that combine linguistic items into phraseological units in accordance with what Sinclair calls the ‘idiom principle’ (Sinclair 1991). Since text is obviously produced as a sequence of linear units, the recently proposed ‘linear unit grammar’ (Sinclair and Mauranen 2006) would therefore seem to be particularly well suited to its description. And it has indeed been applied to the description of ELF text by Mauranen and her colleagues (Mauranen 2012). Text description is a matter of tracing the occurrence of different linguistic forms, and, as indicated earlier, where they vary from conventional usage, these variants can be described by taking some established version of the language as a norm of reference. This is what Labov does when pointing out the distinctive features of BEV, and what Schneider does when he makes lists of how variants in ELF compare with those in WE varieties of English. In both of these cases the variants that are identified are isolated grammatical features. Where the linear unit approach to the description of ELF text differs, and breaks new ground, is that the variants identified are within phrasal sequences where linguistic elements are compounded into larger linear units. What is of particular interest here is not the occurrence of particular grammatical or lexical features in ELF text, but the extent to which their occurrence in these phrasal units differs from ‘normal’ usage. This is the approach that is applied to those data in the ELFA corpus of spoken English that are produced by non-native speakers in academic domains of use. The non-conformist variants that occur are described as approximations: phrasal units that resemble but do not fully replicate normal English. In producing such variants ELF users are said to approximate to normal English but do not quite get it right. In some cases, the approximations are said to be ‘formal’ in that it is the linguistic form that users do not get right, but in other cases the approximation is said to be ‘semantic’ in that the linguistic form is ‘correct’ but not used in accordance with the conventions of idiomatic usage. Approximations, then, are ‘expressions that are close to the target, but not entirely precise’ (Mauranen 2015: 40) The linear unit approach to text description, though innovative in many ways, is not entirely unprecedented. In the middle of the last century, Zellig Harris expressed the belief, very much in tune with current thinking, that ‘language does not occur in stray words or sentences but in connected discourse’ (Harris 1952: 3). Harris made no distinction between discourse and text and so he proceeded to consider the nature of this connection by proposing procedures for analyzing texts by identifying what he calls morphological combinations as sequential patterns of structural and semantic equivalences. At a time well before the advent of corpus linguistics, his approach to text analysis was of course necessarily somewhat rudimentary and very different from that based on linear unit grammar, but it raises a fundamental issue about the nature of such analysis – an issue that is directly relevant to the study of ELF. After demonstrating how his analysis works, Harris concedes its limitations: All this, however, is still distinct from an interpretation of the findings, which must take the meaning of morphemes into consideration and ask what the author was about when he produced the text. Such interpretation is obviously quite separate from the formal findings, although it may follow closely in the directions which the formal findings indicate. (Harris 1952: 29; emphasis in the original) 109
H.G. Widdowson
To ‘ask what the author was about when he produced the text’ is to raise the pragmatic questions of what discourse the author intended to textualize, and what discourse might be interpretatively derived from it. Although Harris recognizes that text analysis alone cannot deal with such questions, he suggests that discourse interpretation may follow closely from its findings. He does not explain, however, how it might follow, just how the formal features of texts are indicative of their pragmatic significance. The issue of the relationship between text analysis and discourse significance is left unresolved. And it is an issue that is raised in the linear unit analysis of ELF text. Here too the question arises as to how its formal findings are to be interpreted. When approximations are said to be ‘not entirely precise’ this refers to their linguistic form and not to their pragmatic function: obviously being pragmatically precise does not depend on how closely one gets to a target linguistic norm. So the question arises as to what motivates these approximations, what these ELF users ‘were about’ when they produced their texts? As with any pragmatic use of language, the linguistic forms that occur are those that users have reason to suppose are appropriate to context and purpose. In the domains of academic use that ELFA is concerned with, what these ELF users assume to be appropriate is presumably the English that is established as conventionally normal in academic discourse. Not surprisingly, then, it is these norms to which they seek to conform. Approximations are of their nature norm-referenced and if the norm is known, meanings can be inferred by reference to it: ‘Approximations that are close enough to their target may not pose too much difficulty for a hearer to construct the meaning from the elements that are there’ (Mauranen 2015: 42). The target referred to here is presumably the English that is conventionally used in academic texts, that is to say, the standard language, and if the hearers are familiar with this, then it is indeed likely that they would be able to normalize the approximation. This, of course, presupposes that meanings are inscribed in their particular textualized form and so are not directly recoverable from the non-conformist variant but only via reference to the standard norm. Effective communication, therefore, is assumed to depend on conformity. But of course these conditions that encourage deference to conventional norms do not by any means obtain in all domains of ELF use. As in any other use of language, linguistic variation in ELF is pragmatically determined as users draw expediently and adaptively on whatever formal resources they have at their disposal to get their meanings across, and these resources will, as has been pointed out in the ELF literature, be multilingual in that they will naturally include the users’ knowledge of their own first languages (Klimpfinger 2009; Hülmbauer and Seidlhofer 2013; Jenkins 2015; Hülmbauer 2016). So in many, perhaps most cases, ELF users cannot rely on a mutual knowledge of conventionalized norms. As, for example, research based on the VOICE corpus has shown (e.g. Pitzl forthcoming; Seidlhofer 2009), they have to negotiate conditions for understanding as they go along and what is meant by the variants they use, whatever their linguistic provenance, has to be inferred in the discourse process by reference to context and purpose. In these cases where there is no conventionalized norm to refer or defer to, the interpretation of what users are about does not, as Harris puts it ‘follow closely’ from the textual forms they produce. This, of course, underlines the importance of recognising that the linguistic features of ELF are pragmatically determined by local contextual factors and cannot be generalized. As Harris indicates, the relationship between the formal findings of text analysis and their interpretation as discourse remains problematic. And not only problematic for the study of ELF. As Labov points out, the understanding of all language use involves an enquiry into ‘how things are done with words and how one
110
Historical perspectives on ELF
interprets these utterances as actions: in other words, relating what is done to what is said and what is said to what is done’ (Labov 1969b: 54–55).
Conclusion And it is this that links ELF study with the past. For all the work that I have referred to, in one way or another, has been concerned with this relationship between what is said and what is done, with what forms of English are needed to appropriately textualize the discourses of different domains of use. For Sprat, the forms appropriate to the discourse of scientific enquiry had to be of the ‘mathematical plainness’ he supposed to be characteristic of the speech of artisans; for Webster and Ogden the language code itself had to be refashioned to suit changed national and international discourse needs respectively. Subsequent sociolinguistic study has shown how users fashion existing linguistic resources for themselves to suit their communicative needs. What informs all of these developments is the recognition that different discourses, whether these are transient or become stabilized as varieties, will make different textualizing demands on linguistic resources, and it is the same recognition that informs the study of ELF. With digital communication and the vastly extended networks of interaction, discourses increase in their diversity and so the forms of English that textualize them will quite naturally vary in accordingly diverse ways. The extent of this diversity is unprecedented, but not the adaptive process of variable discourse textualization that drives it. In this respect ELF as a phenomenon is not new. And, since, as we have seen, different approaches to dealing with this adaptive process have a long history, ELF study is not in its essentials new either. It too has its precedents, and tracing them can perhaps reveal more clearly just what these essentials are.
Further reading Labov, William. 1969. The logic of non-standard English. In Alatis, J. (ed.) Georgetown Monographs on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, vol. 22, pp. 1–44. Labov, William. 1969. The Study of Non-Standard English. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Widdowson, Henry. 2015. ELF and the pragmatics of language variation. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(2): 359–372.
References Bickerton, Derek. 1975. Dynamics of a Creole System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Halliday, M.A.K. 1970. Language structure and language function. In John Lyons (ed.) New Horizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 140–165. Harris, Zellig. 1952. Discourse analysis. Language 28, 1–30. Hülmbauer, Cornelia. 2016. Lingualisms, languaging and the current lingua franca concept. In Pitzl, Marie-Luise and Ruth Osimk-Teasdale (eds) English as a Lingua Franca: Perspectives and Prospects. Contributions in Honour of Barbara Seidlhofer. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp.193–203. Hülmbauer, Cornelia and Barbara Seidlhofer. 2013. English as a lingua franca in European multilingualism. In Berthoud, Anne-Claude, Francois Grin and Georges Lüdi (eds) Exploring the Dynamics of Multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 387–406. Jenkins, Jennifer. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
111
H.G. Widdowson
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2015. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice 2(3): 49–85. Kachru, Braj, B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle’ in R. Quirk and H.G. Widdowson (eds) English in the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–30. Klimpfinger, Theresa. 2009. ‘She’s mixing the two languages together’: forms and functions of code-switching in English as a lingua franca. In Mauranen, Anna and Elina Ranta (eds) English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 348–371. Labov, William. 1969a. The logic of non-standard English. In Alatis, J. (ed.) Georgetown Monographs on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, vol. 22. pp. 1–44. Labov, William. 1969b. The Study of Non-Standard English. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Mauranen, Anna. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mauranen, Anna. 2015.What is going on in Academic ELF? Findings and implications. In Paola Vettorel (ed.) New Frontiers in Teaching and Learning English. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 31–52. Ogden, C.K. 1930. Basic English: A General Introduction with Rules and Grammar. London: Paul Treber. Pitzl, Marie-Luise. Forthcoming. Creativity in English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Rickford, John. 1977. Pidginization and creolization: language acquisition and language universals. In Albert Valdman, ed., Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. Bloomington, IN:Indiana University Press, pp. 49–69. Schneider, Edgar. 2012. Exploring the interface between World Englishes and second language acquisition – and implications for English as a lingua franca. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(1): 57–91. Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2009. Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a lingua franca’. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(2): 195–215. Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2015. Response to Berns (2015) World Englishes 34(2): 303–306. Sinclair, John, 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sinclair, John and Anna Mauranen. 2006. Linear Unit Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Smith, Larry. 1980. English for Cross-Cultural Communication. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Sprat, Thomas. 1667. The History of the Royal Society. London: Martyn & Allestry. Stewart, William. 1968. A sociolinguistic typology for describing national multilingualism. In Fishman, J (ed.) Readings in the Sociology of Language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton pp. 531–545. Strevens, Peter, 1971. Alternatives to daffodils. In Perren, G.E. (ed.) Science and Technology in a Second Language. Oxford: Centre for Information on Language Teaching, pp. 6–10. Strevens, Peter, 1980. Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford: Pergamon. Swales, John. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swift, Jonathan. 1712. A Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Tongue. London: Benjamin Tooke. Webster, Noah.1789. Dissertations on the English Language. Boston, MA: Thomas & Company. Wenger, Etienne. 1998 Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Widdowson, Henry. 2015. ELF and the pragmatics of language variation. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(2): 359–372.
112
Part II
The regional spread of ELF
9 ELF and the EU/wider Europe Tamah Sherman
Introduction This chapter presents an overview of the present situation of English as a lingua franca (ELF) in the EU and the expanding European context. It views ELF as one of many strategies for solving communicative and sociocultural problems, both on the macro and micro level. This strategy is realized in: 1) situations in which ELF is an alternative to the use of other regionally and/or internationally important languages (French, German, Russian); 2) situations in which ELF is an alternative to receptive multilingualism between closely related languages; and 3) situations in which ELF is an alternative to translation/ interpretation. It also emphasizes differences between regions and individual national contexts in Europe, particularly in regard to local language constellations and ideologies, as well as the positions of languages/varieties on the labor market. I place particular focus upon Central and Eastern Europe (former Soviet Bloc countries) where English has replaced German and Russian as lingua francas in recent decades. The chapter will conclude with a brief consideration of the position and management of ELF in light of the increasing Asian presence throughout Europe in the business sphere, higher education and tourism.
The use of a lingua franca as a language management In this chapter, English is understood as one of many lingua francas that have always existed throughout history (see Ammon and Mattheier 2001 or Knapp and Meierkord 2002 for an overview of these) in the context of inherently multilingual situations (see Jenkins 2015 on the conceptualization ELF within paradigms of multilingualism). Varieties of language emerge as lingua francas for one generally presumed reason: that the speakers in the given situations and communities do not otherwise share a common language that is the first language of at least some of them. Therefore, the lingua franca is selected so that the given communication may take place at all. In other words, a variety is chosen as a strategy for solving a communication problem. But in some situations, participants may opt for a lingua franca for different reasons, the main one being that other candidate varieties are laden with
115
Tamah Sherman
historical and political connotations and may signal a power imbalance. In this case, the variety is selected as a lingua franca as a strategy for solving a sociocultural problem. In addition, the process of selecting the variety may vary greatly, ranging from a momentary decision in the context of an individual interaction to a carefully planned policy decision on the part of an international organization. This problem-based view of the selection of languages for the role of lingua francas is based on the language management approach (Jernudd and Neustupný 1987; Nekvapil 2006; Nekvapil and Sherman 2015), in which the range of strategies described above corresponds to the distinction between so-called simple and organized management. The language management approach enables us to integrate macro and micro perspectives on language use and metalinguistic behaviour and to demonstrate how sociocultural and socioeconomic issues can very strongly influence the choices that are made regarding the use of both entire varieties, e.g. opting for English instead of German for the purposes of a business meeting, and individual linguistic features, e.g. selecting the non-standard, yet intelligible construction “he know”, as opposed to “he knows”, in the context of such a meeting. According to this approach, people encounter problems or inadequacies in everyday communication, either because they cannot understand others or make themselves understood, or because they deem the linguistic or other semiotic means used to communicate to be either incorrect or otherwise inappropriate for the given situation. A typical example is a tourist situation, related to shopping, eating, finding accommodation or asking for directions. The tourist, if he or she is not a native or highly competent non-native speaker of a language of the area visited, i.e. cannot rely on the same norms for communication as at home, becomes aware of this fact, selects another way to communicate, and enacts it. In terms of the language management approach, this roughly corresponds to the phases of noting, evaluation, adjustment design and implementation (see Jernudd and Neustupný 1987). Like any other form of behaviour toward language, language management related to ELF is never a matter of language alone, but rather, is grounded in and primarily serves broader communicative and socio-cultural issues. This applies, we will see, to the overall selection of English as a lingua franca as the means to be used in a given communicative situation, either spontaneously or in the form of official policy.
ELF in the new and expanding EU Over the twentieth century, norms and expectations for the selection of lingua francas in communication in the European context have undergone specific development in line with a number of extra-linguistic factors, above all political and economic ones. Among the most recent and, for the purposes of this text, the most important points of transition are the end of the Cold War in 1989, the subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Bloc, and the gradual expansion of the European Union to include former Soviet Bloc countries and other countries in the Mediterranean region, with the greatest change occurring in 2004. For many of the countries of Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe that joined the EU in 2004 or after (with the exception of Poland), the local or state language constitutes a medium-sized language (Vila 2012), meaning that the pressure to speak foreign languages is significant, and for the youngest generation of job-seekers, often a basic assumption. Most of these states belong to the former Soviet Bloc, which, overall, means that they have experienced the following changes over the past quarter-century that are relevant to the use of lingua francas: 116
ELF and the EU/wider Europe
1 Foreign language knowledge as a symbol of prestige and resulting manifestations of standard language and/or native speaker ideology regarding those languages. 2 Russian as the most commonly taught foreign language prior to 1989 and as the lingua franca used in communication between people living in the region. 3 The gradual shift to English as the most commonly taught foreign language. 4 A generational difference in foreign language knowledge. 5 Specific constellations of ideologies relating to selected languages (see Nekvapil and Sherman 2013) and their varieties. English, then, is often viewed as many scholars (including Kachru 1986; Pennycook 1994; Nekvapil and Sherman 2009, 2013; Zabrodskaja and Ehala 2015) have observed in expanding-circle and even outer-circle countries, that is, as a language perceived by its speakers as neutral for all practical purposes in selected communication situations. This means that ideally, no particular group (e.g. Czechs vs. Germans, Estonians vs. Russians, etc.) has a linguistic or cultural advantage, although the inevitable impossibility of true neutrality has been exemplified by many authors, e.g. Pennycook 1994 or Nekvapil and Nekula 2006. English is also subject to the ideology of the absolute instrumentality of a language (Nekvapil and Sherman 2013), i.e. if one learns the given language, one can communicate with anyone else in the world. The teaching of Russian (in the Czech Republic in particular) has made a comeback, particularly due to the employment opportunities it affords, connected to business with Russian-speaking countries. Though both Russian and English are selected for their instrumental value, it still cannot be stated that Russian would be viewed as neutral in the same way that English is, but rather, as a language that brings certain economic benefits. Also, in European nation-states characterized by strong standard language ideology (see Seidlhofer, Chapter 7 this volume) relating to the national language, there is a long tradition of a strong orientation toward linguistic form and “correct language use”. This is attested to by the existence of state-funded language consulting services (see Beneš et al. in prep.), in which callers often demand that the linguists working there provide them with a single correct linguistic variant for use in a given situation. Furthermore, in the case of selected small- and medium-sized languages, speakers are also not accustomed to interacting with speakers of non-native varieties and have limited ability in foreigner talk as described by Ferguson (1971). This ideology can then easily extend to the teaching of foreign languages, with native varieties of the languages being preferred, which, in the age of the internet and the extensive exposure to English language popular culture, can lead to conflict between teachers and students regarding legitimate English knowledge. In this vein, the United Kingdom’s 2016 advisory referendum vote to leave the European Union, if carried out to completion, will most likely have implications for the further development of teaching resources and the orientation toward British varieties of English in EU institutions and policies. Given these present conditions, while the potential to manage communication and sociocultural problems through the selection of languages other than English as lingua francas has theoretically not lessened, it is continually subjected to the ideological and economically motivated preferences of individuals and institutions. These will be discussed in the next section.
ELF is an alternative to other regionally and/or internationally important languages If we are to imagine situations in which communicative management is done by selecting a lingua franca, ELF presents one of many options, above all in situations that are more 117
Tamah Sherman
regional in the European context. The potential for the selection of languages other than English in this role has been transformed both by the EU’s recent growth and by shifts in the teaching of foreign languages. Other languages that have functioned as lingua francas in recent history and continue to do so are German, French and Russian. At this point, it can be hypothesized that the potential for any of the above-named languages as lingua francas is very closely related to the cultural and economic power of the national states in which those languages are the first or second languages of the majority of the population. German is a strong case in point (see Darquennes and Nelde 2006; Ammon 2015; Dovalil 2015). German is the language with the greatest number of native speakers in the EU (TNS Opinion and Social 2012), as well as a second or foreign language by many Europeans. But though German served as a major lingua franca of science and scholarship for many years, in the last century, its position has declined. This is visible, for example, in its status as a working language of the European institutions. As Darquennes and Nelde (2006: 68) and most recently Ammon (2015: 752–780) describe, the United Kingdom’s joining of the European Community in 1973 led to a decrease in the use of the previously predominant working languages, French and German, effectively pushing German into “third place” and gradually out of de facto working language status. As a result, it is not uncommon to encounter situations in which English is chosen as a lingua franca, but in which German would have served this purpose. This is particularly the case in Central Europe, where, following the Second World War, German was associated with the Nazi regime and later with post-Cold War economic domination, thus English is often chosen with the claim that it is the “neutral” option. This has happened despite Germany’s strong position as a foreign language for many years, and the abundance of qualified teachers of German as opposed to qualified teachers of English (see Dovalil 2010). The main potential for German as a lingua franca (GLF) is shifting, from a lingua franca used internationally to one used extensively within the borders of German-speaking countries, which are often target countries for migration. For example, due to recent economic development in southern regions of Europe and despite the widespread markets for Spanish in the world, it is not uncommon to find Spanish speakers from Spain and other parts of the world working in Germany, in GLF. And with the strong economic position of Germany in the EU context and the rising costs of university study elsewhere, there is particularly increased potential for GLF in the German academic space as well as in the professional one. For example, in 2015, all of Germany’s public universities were tuition-free, upon the condition that the studies take place in German. German’s position as a language of business communication has also shifted, due for the most part to the internationalization of large companies that were originally German, such as automobile manufacturers. Previously, German may have been the lingua franca for people employed at company branches in Central Europe, whereas at present, this function is retained only regionally. In both academia and business, then, we can presume that GLF is used mostly in informal situations, such as when students and employees socialize in small groups. French, like German, is used as a lingua franca inside of the countries where it is an official language (France, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxemburg), including by numerous migrants. It supersedes German in that it is used more often in officially EU contexts. Wright (2006: 36–38) points to a number of reasons for the strong position of French as a lingua franca (FLF) prior to the twentieth century, including France’s earlier military and economic power, the colonial legacy of French, Paris as a cultural center, and French as an important scientific and scholarly language and the most important language of world diplomacy prior to the Second World War. The two World Wars gradually weakened this 118
ELF and the EU/wider Europe
long-established position, followed by the gradual shift from French to English in international organizations beginning in 1973, when the UK joined the European Community, and countries joining the EU later (particularly after 2004) were not those that spoke French as a predominant second or foreign language, being more likely to have German or Russian (Wright 2006: 39–40). However, French continues to act in the European context as a language that has speakers of considerable enough power to keep certain genres of institutional communication from becoming entirely monolingual. For example, an EC Sixth Framework Programme project focused on multilingualism, Language Dynamics and Management of Diversity (DYLAN project 2006–2011), established both French and German as working languages and also submitted reports to the commission in French (for some examples, see www.dylan-project.org/). In new EU-member states such as the Czech Republic, French is often selected as a foreign language instead of German based on ideologies of “beautiful” and “ugly” language (cf. Nekvapil and Sherman 2013). Even so, German remains more commonly taught than French, and with the expansion of the EU eastward, the position of FLF is challenged by that of Russian, even though countries with Russian as an official (non-minority) language are not members. Russian has traditionally served as a lingua franca following processes of russification in the Russian empire and the corresponding language policy in the nineteenth century (Pavlenko 2006), then having become a second language of citizens of the USSR, then the first foreign language learned by people living in the Soviet Bloc throughout the twentieth century. The potential for Russian as a lingua franca (RLF) thus still exists among a large number of speakers who were exposed to Russian as a foreign language in countries of the former Soviet Bloc. This is, very roughly speaking, anyone who was born prior to 1980. The use of RLF occurs in communities of migrants from the former USSR (e.g. Russian Federation, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, the Baltic states, Central Asia and the Caucasus region) living in other European countries, and it is not uncommon to observe locals in Central European countries “reviving” their school knowledge of Russian to communicate with these new migrants as well as with tourists (see Pavlenko 2012). Pavlenko (2006) poses the question of how long this potential will last. With Russian’s comeback as a foreign language, often motivated by the chance to do business in it, it can be predicted that RLF will live on, albeit with a shift in or reduction of domains for its use. For example, it is a question whether RLF will continue to function in the academic sphere outside of Russian-speaking countries and fields of study focusing on the region and its languages. For languages other than English, then, the potential of a language for use as a lingua franca often depends on the number of speakers who can easily learn it as a foreign language. It is not uncommon for speakers of Romance languages to pick up French quickly when studying or working in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg, or for speakers of one Slavic language to quickly acquire another, even as a “truncated repertoire” (Blommaert 2010), which is one step removed from practices of receptive multilingualism, which will be discussed below.
ELF as an alternative to receptive multilingualism with closely related languages Another proposed adjustment to the problem of communication within Europe is the concept of receptive multilingualism (ten Thije and Zeevaert 2007), in which two or more participants in communication can use different languages, but the minimal necessary degree of mutual understanding takes place (see Haugen 1966 and the concept of “semicommunication”). 119
Tamah Sherman
This is also known as lingua receptive or LaRa and it has been actively presented and promoted as an alternative strategy to ELF in certain contexts, see e.g. ten Thije et al. 2012; Kristinsson and Hilmarsson-Dunn 2012; Rehbein et al, 2012). This occurs most typically between speakers of languages differing from one another in correspondence with Heinz Kloss’s (1969) concept of Ausbau (varieties defined as separate languages due to elaboration) as opposed to Abstand (varieties defined as separate languages due to extensive structural differences). These models as a strategy, in contrast with ELF, are particularly applicable to Germanic languages, above all in Scandinavia, in which some countries may be moving from Kachru’s expanding circle to the outer circle, as there are some societal domains that have shifted nearly entirely to the use of English to the detriment of the national languages. The situation has reached such a state that it has become necessary to demonstrate and describe situations in which receptive multilingualism is preferred to English in situations where (at least, from the outside) English might be expected (see Barfod in prep.). And more recently, particularly following the separation of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia and the subsequent (re-)creation of national states with national languages that are the mother tongue of the majority of the population, these paradigms have received renewed attention in the Slavic world (see e.g. Sloboda and Brankačkec 2014). Among younger people, it is possible to observe the selection of English as a medium of communication between Czechs and Slovaks. For example, it even occurs occasionally, though still very rarely, that a Czech university student will prefer an English text to a Slovak one. One experimental exploration of the potential for ELF communication vs. receptive multilingual communication is Blees et al. (2014), who tested it on German and Dutch university students. Their participants found it easier to solve a puzzle task with the help of ELF than with the help of LaRa, even though they were using their L1 in the LaRa interactions. They were also more successful in communicating when they had a positive attitude toward the language they were using (either English or their L1), and when their passive proficiency in the language used by their interlocutor (either English or their interlocutor’s L1) was higher. The main explanation for these results, then, was that even though the participants’ native languages were closely related, they were all more proficient in English, which ultimately led to increased ability to speak to one another and handle the task. It is possible, then, to speculate that the ease and effectiveness of communication using ELF or LaRa, and thus their future potential, is largely dependent upon pre-existing contact between speakers of different languages, language ideologies, and above all, trends in language teaching in the individual countries in Europe.
ELF as an alternative to translation/interpretation Selected spheres of communication opt for the use of language professionals, i.e. translators and interpreters. Among the most prominent of these are the European institutions, which, on the whole, employ many such professionals. Part of this use of language professionals stems from the rights afforded to the de jure official languages of the European Union, of which there were 24 in 2016. These rights concern both communication within institutions and communication between individual citizens and those institutions. For example, EU citizens may communicate with institutions in any official EU language. The EU has three de facto working languages – English (used most often), French, German, but German is not typically used in this function. Theoretically, the extent of the interpretation and translation work that occurs in EU institutions means that it is often being done when the use of ELF would suffice. There are significant economic considerations in the discussion surrounding 120
ELF and the EU/wider Europe
policies here. For example, the costs of working in English alone vs. translating and interpreting have been compared, e.g. by Gazzola and Grin (2013), who conclude that the latter is more economically effective and evaluate it as fairer. Translation and interpretation have also become the subject of debate regarding the question of dubbing of audiovisual media. A loose connection is often postulated between access to media in the original language and foreign language (predominantly English) knowledge of the general population. This occurs particularly in “dubbing countries”, where movements such as a Czech Facebook group “Stop mandatory dubbing, let’s replace it with the original subtitled version”, presume that this change will lead, based on the Scandinavian model, to higher overall competence in English nationwide. In this connection, politicians such as German EU Commissioner Günther Oettinger and Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka have been colourfully mocked by internet users for their English skills, or lack of them, very often reflecting some of the local standard language ideologies discussed above. Translation studies emphasize the teaching of standard language varieties, as these provide them with an important source of cultural capital, and in fact, the building blocks upon which their profession is built (for more on this potential conflict, see e.g. Hewson 2009). There are, however, many contexts in which, despite the supply of trained translators and interpreters on the market, they are not used, often due to the lack of specialized competence. Instead, in-house employees are utilized, or participants simply to count on the fact that not everyone in a meeting will understand everything, then later summarizing for those who did not (cf. Angouri and Miglbauer 2014).
ELF and the increasing Asian presence in Europe Older constellations of languages in the role of lingua francas have not only been influenced by European unification and expansion, but also by the increased presence of individuals and institutions from other parts of the world, most predominantly Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Due to the focus of this volume as a whole, in this section I will consider the question of contacts between Europe and Asia, in particular what is known as “the Far East”, and countries within it that represent significant economic partners for Europe such as Japan, China and South Korea. In all three of these countries, there has been a recent push toward English, connected both to personal desire for lifestyle changes and to the market value attributed to the language (see Park 2009; Seargeant 2009; Park and Wee 2012). There are three main manifestations of these contacts between continents. The first consists of the presence of Asian businesses of various sizes, ranging from Thai massage parlors to Vietnamese restaurants to multinational companies producing automobiles and electronics. This is, in part, complemented by the presence of European companies in Asia (see Fairbrother 2015). The second is connected to the increasing Asian student presence in Europe. Many universities have joined the wave of internationalization and used it as a selling point. With decreases in state funding for universities, this internationalization often consists of the increased recruitment of students from outside the European Union, among others as a way to gain additional tuition fees. The third is the ever-growing Asian tourist population in Europe (see e.g. Sloboda 2016 on the resulting increased linguistic repertoire of service personnel in the center of Prague to include Chinese). This final reality faced by Europe is a good way to analyse the possibilities for the three language management strategies discussed in the sections above. I will use a newly emerging example: contact between speakers of Czech and speakers of Japanese, Korean or Chinese. First and foremost, contact between speakers of these languages is occurring for the first time 121
Tamah Sherman
in recent history. Other than language specialists, there is not an extensive history of one group speaking the other’s language. There is also no history of the extensive and predominant use of a lingua franca other than English between these groups. There are no “natural” opportunities for receptive multilingualism and speakers often have strong beliefs about the languages being “completely different” (see Nekvapil and Sherman 2013). Previous contacts were defined by the use of translators and interpreters. And indeed, translating and interpreting are used in two of the spheres of communication discussed above – in business as well as in tourism, via which Asian languages can be increasingly observed in the linguistic landscape of European cities – on signs for businesses and attractions (one notable example is the “Romantic Road” in Germany, the official signs for which are in German and Japanese), in train transportation announcements, on menus, and the like. In manufacturing companies, translators and interpreters may be employed in production, where employees hired from abroad by agencies may not speak any other language. The differing nature of ELF communication in these contexts reminds us of an important consideration for the analysis of ELF communication overall, that is, the role of context. In tourist interactions, the communication is predominantly of a transactional character, with mutual intelligibility being of primary importance. Language is managed in these transactions above all in situations in which this mutual intelligibility is disrupted, for example, when idiomatically named food items on a menu are translated word-for-word into English, and thus cannot be understood by customers. Language is also managed merely on the level of noting and evaluation, when translations or other expressions are noted as funny or evaluated, based on local ideological assumptions, as “bad English”. In the business interactions, linguistic form ranges in importance, but overall, is of less significance than in the higher education interactions, where students from Asia are typically expected to conform to European linguistic and genre norms. Rather, the business context is characterized by the management of socio-cultural issues. Problems arise in connection to differing cultural styles of communication, for instance, in the perception of hierarchical relations in a company unit or in the question of how much time employees should spend at work vs. with their families. The management of communication in one such case is as follows (see Nekvapil and Sherman in prep.). Extensive ELF communication occurs because Korean company managers are constantly coming in and out of a large manufacturing plant, local employees get used to the way they speak (referring to it as “Kor-English”, a local variant of what may be referred to elsewhere as “Konglish”), eventually learning to understand it. Communication is also enabled by the use of technology – mobile translation applications are often employed in cases of unknown vocabulary. On the shop floor, individual levels of English knowledge are typically not evaluated negatively, while in white-collar positions, the Koreans’ English is evaluated as problematic by Czech employees, who themselves, have spent extensive time and energy on their English skills. However, it may not be possible to design and implement adjustments to the Korean employees’ language due to their ownership of the company. All the while, there is a push at the headquarters to standardize the international employees’ English, in line with the overall push toward English in some Asian countries mentioned above.
Concluding remarks Very frequently, the strategies of choosing ELF, other languages in the role of lingua francas, practices oriented toward receptive multilingualism, or translation and interpretation are implemented in the same context, complementing one another (cf. Hülmbauer 2014, who 122
ELF and the EU/wider Europe
echoes the European Commission in stating that this is desirable). At the same time, it cannot be denied that there are cases in which the selection of one strategy can lead to a decrease in awareness that others are possible. The most apparent manifestation of this phenomenon can be found in the changes in speakers’ understanding of the potential for receptive multilingualism, particularly in regard to closely related languages, in communication. In addition, it is apparent that individual strategies have certain advantages, particularly economic ones, for the actors involved at selected moments, and it is thus necessary to understand the conflict between them as a structural characteristic of human society as a whole. This is most apparent in the question of language-related professions, in which certain varieties are commodified (cf. Heller 2010). In countries of Kachru’s expanding circle which joined the EU in 2004 or after, this is very much the case, as can be observed in contexts such as advertising for translation agencies and language schools, and the structure and content of university language majors. At this point, it is important to distinguish between acting as sociolinguists and acting as (language) teachers, policymakers or other types of language managers. As sociolinguists, we consider the fundamental fact that people will always 1) find multiple ways to communicate using whatever means possible and available; and 2) behave toward language in a way that corresponds to its multiple functions, even beyond basic communication. This means that all interests must be included in our interpretations (cf. Haberland 2011). Institutionally based language managers, then, need to be informed by sociolinguistic research, to the degree that it is possible to create compromises in light of multiple, often conflicting interests.
Related chapters in this handbook 2 Baker, ELF and intercultural communication 3 Ehrenreich, Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca 29 Cogo, ELF and multilingualism 44 Morán Panero, Global languages and lingua franca communication
Further reading Linn, A., Bermel, N. and Ferguson, G. (eds) (2015) Attitudes towards English in Europe: English in Europe, Volume 1. Berlin, Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter. Prendergast, C. (2008) Buying into English: Language and investment in the new capitalist world. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Przygoński, K. (2012) Sociolinguistic aspects of the functioning of English in post-1989 Poland. Oxford: Peter Lang. Sloboda, M., Laihonen, P. and Zabrodskaja, A. (eds) (2016) Sociolinguistic transition in former Eastern Bloc countries: Two decades after the regime change. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
References Ammon, U. (2015) Die Stellung der deutschen Sprache in der Welt. Berlin and Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter. Ammon, U. and Mattheier, K.J. (eds) (2001) Verkehrssprachen in Europa – außer Englisch/ Lingua francas in Europe – except English/ Langues véhiculaires en Europe – sansl’anglais (Sociolinguistica 15). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 123
Tamah Sherman
Angouri, J. and Miglbauer, M. (2014) ‘And then we summarise in English for the others’: The lived experience of the multilingual workplace. Multilingua, 33, 147–172. Barfod, S. (in prep.) On the non-use of English in a multinational company. In Sherman, T. and Nekvapil, J. (eds) English in business and commerce: Interactions and policies. Berlin and Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter. Beneš, M., Prošek, M., Smejkalová, K. and Štěpánová, V. (in prep.) Interaction between language users and a language-consulting centre: challenges for the language management theory research. In Fairbrother, L., Nekvapil, J. and, Sloboda, M. (eds) The language management approach: Focus on methodology. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Blees, G.J., Mak, W.M. and ten Thije, J. (2014) English as a lingua franca versus lingua receptiva in problem-solving conversations between Dutch and German students. Applied Linguistics Review, 5 (1), 173–193. Blommaert, J. (2010) The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Darquennes, J. and Nelde, P. (2006) German as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 61–77. Dovalil, V. (2010) Sind zwei Fremdsprachen in der Tschechischen Republik realistisch? Zu den aktuellen Problemen der tschechischen Spracherwerbsplanung. In Ammon, U., Darquennes, J. and Wright, S. (eds) Fremdsprachen an den Schulen der Europäischen Union (Sociolinguistica 24). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 43–60. Dovalil, V. (2015) The German standard variety at Czech universities in the light of decision- making processes of language management. In Davies, W.V. and Ziegler, E. (eds) Language planning and microlinguistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 83– 102. DYLAN project. Language dynamics and management of diversity. EC Sixth Framework Programme project focused on multilingualism. Available at: www.dylan-project.org/. Accessed 1 November 2016. Fairbrother, L. (2015) Language management in the Japanese workplace. In Davies, W.V. and Ziegler, E. (eds) Language planning and microlinguistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 186–203. Ferguson, C.A. (1971) Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity: a study of normal speech, baby talk, foreigner talk and pidgins. In Hymes, D. (ed.) Pidginization and creolization of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 141–150. Gazzola, M. and Grin, F. (2013) Is ELF more effective and fair than translation? An valuation of the EU’s multilingual regime. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23, 93–107. doi: 10.1111/ ijal.12014 Haberland, H. (2011) Ownership and maintenance of a language in transnational use: should we leave our lingua franca alone? Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (4), 937–949. Haugen, E. (1966) Semicommunication: the language gap in Scandinavia. Sociological Inquiry, 36 (2), 280–297. Heller, M. (2010) The commodification of language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39, 101–114. Hewson, L. (2009) Brave new globalized world? Translation studies and English as a lingua franca. Revue française de linguistique appliquée, 14 (1), 109–120. Hülmbauer, C. (2014) A matter of reception: ELF and Lara compared. Applied Linguistics Review, 5 (1), 273–295. Jenkins, J. (2015) Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice, 2 (3), 49–85. Jernudd, B.H. and Neustupný, J.V. (1987) Language planning: for whom? In Laforge, L. (ed.) Proceedings of the international colloquium on language planning. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, pp. 69–84. Kachru, B. (1986) The alchemy of English. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kloss, H. (1969) Research possibilities on group bilingualism: a report. Quebec: International Center for Research on Bilingualism. Knapp, K. and Meierkord, C. (eds) (2002) Lingua franca communication. Oxford: Peter Lang. Kristinsson, A.P. and Hilmarsson-Dunn, A. (2012) Unequal language rights in the Nordic language community. Language Problems and Language Planning, 36 (3), 222–236. Nekvapil, J. (2006) From language planning to language management. Sociolinguistica, 20, 92–104. Nekvapil, J. and Nekula, M. (2006) On language management in multinational companies in the Czech Republic. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7 (2/3), 307–327. 124
ELF and the EU/wider Europe
Nekvapil, J. and Sherman, T. (2009) Czech, German and English: finding their place in multinational companies in the Czech Republic. In Stevenson, P. and Carl, J. (eds), Language, discourse and identity in Central Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 122–146. Nekvapil, J. and Sherman, T. (2013) Language ideologies and linguistic practices: the case of multinational companies in Central Europe. In Barát, E., Studer, P. and Nekvapil, J. (eds), Ideological conceptualizations of language: discourses of linguistic diversity. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 85–117. Nekvapil, J. and Sherman, T. (2015) An introduction: language management theory in language policy and planning. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 232, 1–12. Nekvapil, J. and Sherman, T. (in prep.) Managing superdiversity: linguistic, communicative and sociocultural management in multinational companies. In Creese, A. and Blackledge A., Handbook of language and superdiversity. London: Routledge. Park, J. (2009) The local construction of a global language: ideologies of English in South Korea. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Park, J. and Wee, L. (2012) Markets of English: linguistic capital and language policy in a globalizing world. New York: Routledge. Pavlenko, A. (2006) Russian as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26, 78–99. Pavlenko, A. (2012) Commodification of Russian in post-1991 Europe. In Bär, M., Bonnet, A., DeckeCornill, H., Grünewald, A. and Hu. A. (eds) Globalisierung, Migration, Fremdsprachenunterricht. Dokumentation zum 24. Kongress für Fremdsprachendidaktik der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Fremdsprachenforschung (DGFF). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Hohengehren, pp. 27–43. Pennycook, A. (1994) The cultural politics of English as an international language. London and New York: Routledge. Rehbein, J., ten Thije, J. D. and Verschik, A. (2012) Lingua receptiva (LaRa): remarks on the quintessence of receptive multilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16 (3), 248–264. Seargeant, P. (2009) The idea of English in Japan: ideology and the evolution of a global language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Sloboda, M. (2016) Transition to super-diversity in the Czech Republic. In Sloboda, M., Laihonen, P. and Zabrodskaja, A. (eds) Sociolinguistic transition in former Eastern Bloc countries. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 141–183. Sloboda M. and Brankačkec K. (2014) The mutual intelligibility of Slavic languages as a source of support for the revival of the Sorbian language. In Fesenmeier L., Heinemann S. and Vicario F.: Sprachminderheiten: gestern, heute, morgen/Minoranze linguistiche: ieri, oggi, domani. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 25–44. ten Thije, J.D. and Zeevaert, L. (eds) (2007) Receptive multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ten Thije, J.D., Gorter, D., Jansen, W., Mamadouh, V., Marácz, L. and Swanenberg, J. (2012) Toolkit for transnational communication in academia in Europe. In de Jong, N., Juffermans, K., Keijzer, M. and Rasier, L. (eds), Papers of the Anéla 2012 applied linguistics conference. Delft: Eburon, pp. 367–389. TNS Opinion and Social (2012) Special Eurobarometer 386: Europeans and their languages. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_ en.pdf. Accessed 6 November 2016. Vila, F.X. (ed.) (2012) Survival and development of language communities: prospects and challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Wright, S. (2006) French as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 35– 60. Zabrodskaja, A. and Ehala, M. (2015) Language and identity in the late Soviet Union and thereafter. Sociolinguistic Studies, 9 (2–3), 159–171.
125
10 English as a lingua franca in the Gulf Cooperation Council states Nuha Alharbi
Introduction The phenomenon of English as a lingua franca (ELF) has become a subject of considerable research during the past decade, and findings from different parts of the world continue to enrich our understanding of this phenomenon. Research into ELF, however, has been carried out extensively in a relatively limited number of geographical locations: predominantly in Europe and East Asia. Therefore, investigating ELF in other parts of the world is essential if we want a better understanding of how it operates. My principal research objective is to help fill this empirical gap by providing an in-depth investigation of ELF in the context of the Middle East, an area that has not yet been investigated (the only notable exception is Zoghbor’s (2009) research on teaching Lingua Franca Core (LFC) to Arab learners). In this chapter, I attempt to present a brief account of the use of English as a de facto lingua franca in the Gulf Cooperation Council (henceforth GCC) states. I start this account by presenting a historical account of English in the GCC area. I then look at the current uses of English in the GCC area and attitudes toward its widening use. In the last section of this chapter, I present findings from my own research on business English as a lingua franca (BELF) in Saudi multinational corporations (MNCs) in which I adopted an ethnographic perspective to study intercultural communication through BELF (Alharbi, 2016). Through discursive analysis of business meetings, participant observation and ethnographic interviews, my research findings reveal the most important communicative strategies employed in BELF communication and shed some light on BELF users’ attitudes toward its use in their workplace. These findings are discussed throughout this chapter, but in greater detail in the section on GCC English.
English in the GCC: a historical account The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was established on 25 May 1981. It comprises six states: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain (see Figure 10.1). English spread throughout the GCC countries as it spread across the rest of the world. Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, Britain expanded its colonial power 126
ELF in the Gulf Cooperation Council states
throughout many regions in the East, including Arabic-speaking countries such as Egypt, Jordan and Palestine. (This expansion was in addition to Britain’s colonial existence in the Indian subcontinent in Southeast Asia.) Although Britain had little colonial interest in the Gulf area per se, Britain was interested in the Gulf’s strategic location along trade routes to India (Charise, 2007; Onley, 2007). The Gulf states were not occupied properly as colonies; however, between 1820 and 1915, Britain had signed agreements with all Gulf states to protect the waterways taken by British traders in India. In 1932, Saudi Arabia became the first country to declare its independence from the British protectorship (Charise, 2007). Since the seventh century, Islam and Arabic (itself an important lingua franca) historically have been strong unifiers in the Gulf region. Nevertheless, the region’s geographic position – a crossway between West and North Africa, Europe, India and Asia – has guaranteed that the region is in constant contact with diverse languages and cultures. Additionally, millions of Muslims pilgrimage to the holy sites of Saudi Arabia, Makka and Madina each year. The diverse linguistic backgrounds of the Muslim pilgrims and travelling traders in the area, as well as the region’s strategic location, imply that multiple languages were used for trade purposes. Before the middle of the nineteenth century, different local varieties of Arabic constituted the basic languages of communication (Charise, 2007). With the British presence in the second half of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth centuries, English gradually became a lingua franca as well (Fussell, 2011). After the termination of British protectorships, the use of the English language was maintained through its addition into the Gulf states’ public schools as a subject (Fussell, 2011).
CYPRUS
Erbil
Mosul
Aleppo Latakia
Nicosia
SYRIA
Beirut
Gaza Strip
Isfahan
I RA Q
West Bank Amman
Kerman
Abadan
Kuwait KUWAIT Hafar al Persian Batin Al Jubail Gulf Buraydah Ad Dammam Manama Dhahran QATAR BAHRAIN Doha Riyadh
Tabuk Hail Luxor Medina
Aswan Yanbu al Bahr Halayeb Jeddah
SAUDI ARABIA
Bandar Abbas
Abu Dhabi
OMAN Dubai Gulf of Oman Muscat
OMAN
Mecca
Red Sea
Salalah
Jazan ERITREA Asmara
Zahedan
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Abha
Wad Madani
IRAN
Shiraz Bushehr
Asyut
Khartoum
Herat
Ahvaz An Nasiriyah Al Basrah
JORDAN Al Aqabah
Port Sudan
Tehran Qom Arak
Baghdad
Haifa
ISRAEL Port Jerusalem Said
Qazvin Kermanshah
Damascus
LEBANON
Zanjan
Kirkuk
Massawa
Al Ghaydah Sanaa
Al Hudaydah
YEMEN
Arabian Sea Al Mukalla
Aden DJIBOUTI Djibouti
Gulf of Aden
Socotra (YEMEN)
Figure 10.1 Map of the Gulf Cooperation Council states 127
Nuha Alharbi
Because of the Gulf states’ somewhat large political independence during the time of the British presence, English was perceived as a facilitator of the process of nation building, rather than as an impediment to it (Charise, 2007). This perception bears some resemblance to the sociolinguistic reality of many other countries that were former British colonies and that belong to the so-called expanding circle in Kachru’s (1985) model, e.g., Hong Kong and Singapore, and in which English now has a widespread official status. From the discovery of oil in 1938 to the early 1990s, a constant wave of American and British companies arrived in Saudi Arabia with long-term projects and contracts. Their existence intensified the use of English in the area, albeit within a limited sector, i.e. the petroleum and minerals sector (Habbash and Troudi, 2015). Historically, the multilingualism in the GCC area did not threaten or affect the status of Arabic, which has played a major role in the politics and education of this area throughout history. Education, prior to the British colonial presence, was the responsibility of the religious institutions, which emphasized the value of Arabic as a language with a near-sacred status (Hitti, 2002). Therefore, it can be argued that the robust historical, cultural and religious connections of Arabic guarantee its pre-eminence as a unifying language in this area. Nonetheless, English serves numerous functions in the Gulf area, and its use continues to expand, as will be seen in the next section.
English(es) and other languages in the GCC Arabic is the only official language of the GCC states. Nevertheless, a number of different languages are also widely spoken, including Urdu, Hindi, Farsi, Tagalog and Pashto (Syed, 2003), and in Saudi Arabia specifically, Indonesian languages are also spoken. As Randall and Samimi (2010) state, official estimates are not available, but approximately 100 languages are spoken in the region by 200 nationalities and 150 ethnic groups. In addition to the region’s geographical location along a main trade route, some economic factors have greatly impacted the existing ethnic and linguistic profile of the GCC. Enormous income from oil exports has spurred an unparalleled growth of construction and infrastructure projects. This boom has necessitated recruiting labourers from surrounding countries. Nowadays, in most parts of the GCC, expatriates outnumber locals (Ali, 2009). Among the best examples of this expatriate influx is the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which Graddol (1997) believes falls into the grey area of Kachru’s (1985) model, as English has become a ‘second’ instead of a ‘foreign’ language. In the UAE, expatriates from South and Southeast Asia constitute nearly 80 per cent of the total population (Charise, 2007). Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman and Kuwait also have a substantial number of expatriates. Although there are currently somewhat fewer foreign workers in Saudi Arabia, recent research shows that expatriates are more likely to secure a new job in Saudi Arabia than in any other country in the GCC (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2009). Syed (2003) asserts that nearly 70 per cent of the labour force in the GCC area is comprised of expatriates. The GCC region is clearly multicultural and multilingual. The abovementioned multicultural demographic composition in the GCC area has had a significant impact on the use of languages in general and on the use of English and Arabic in particular (cf. Al-Haq and Smadi, 1996). In this context, a lingua franca is essential to organize the massive number of multinational expatriates in development projects. English is obviously the most readily available lingua franca for people from diverse linguacultural backgrounds residing in the GCC. Therefore, the UAE’s Ministry of Labour declared plans to devise a policy that would make basic knowledge of the English language a prerequisite 128
ELF in the Gulf Cooperation Council states
for anyone applying for a working visa in the country (Al-Issa, 2006). Applying this policy indicates that English is vital as a lingua franca among 80 per cent of the population. Such a prerequisite is not officially implemented in Saudi Arabia, but most institutions, especially in the private sector, require certain levels of English competence. English is also extensively used by the vast number of Southeast Asian domestic labourers in the GCC area, who usually originate from countries with established English varieties (Charise, 2007). A report presented by GulfTalent (2010) asserts that India will continue to serve as a source for skilled labour, or any work that requires English language skills. Historical connections between the Gulf and South Asia were established during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by Britain, which facilitated commonalities between the two parts of the world such as currency, political officers and other forms of lexical exchange between Urdu and Arabic (Charise, 2007; Poole, 2006). Most families in the Gulf rely on imported domestic labour from India, the Philippines and Indonesia (Charise, 2007), all of which are countries that fall into Kachru’s (1985) outer circle, where English has become nativized because it is spoken as an official second language. This importation of labour presents more chances for English to be used alongside Arabic within the household. Poole (2006) presents a detailed account of English in Oman, which is largely influenced by Indian English, while adopting a normative view on both Omani and Indian Englishes by describing them with reference to ENL. The above description implies that English is widely recognized as a lingua franca, a fact that creates significant opportunities for linguistic research in the GCC context. The current use of English in the GCC states cannot be confined to a certain number of contexts. However, English is most widely and evidently employed in two important aspects of life in the GCC states, i.e. higher education and international business. These two fields are internationally recognized as fields where the use of English as a lingua franca prevails, and they are, to date, the most researched domains of ELF use (Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey, 2011). Speaking about Europe but with applicability to the rest of the world, Graddol (2006: 20) argues that ‘an English factor is found in virtually every key macro trend’ taking place, including calls for ‘the reform of education in universities and schools’. This could not be clearer than in the case of Saudi Arabia. Calls for educational reforms post the 9/11 attacks, in which 15 out of the 19 attackers were Saudi citizens, included calls to intensify teaching of English as a way of promoting tolerance and acceptance of other cultures and faiths (Weber, 2011). In the late 1990s, Saudization was introduced, i.e. the implementation of government policies that encourage hiring Saudi nationals in private sector organizations to counter unemployment amongst Saudi nationals. At that time, it became very important for Saudi nationals to learn English so that they could take over service industry positions as well as positions within the core industries (Mahboob and Elyas, 2014). These cultural and economic needs increased the demand for improved English language teaching (ELT), which was considered the first step toward educational reform. The Saudi ministries of Education and Higher Education (two ministries before February 2015, one ministry now) invested in ELT. English is taught as a subject in public schools starting in Grade 4 in Saudi Arabia, and it is taught in all grades and levels in private schools. The Ministry of Education aims to develop students’ ‘awareness of the importance of English as a means of international communication’ and to enable students ‘linguistically to benefit from English speaking nations, [as] that would enhance the concepts of international co-operation that would develop understanding and respect of cultural differences between nations’ (Rahman and Alhaisoni, 2013: 114). This aim suggests that the Ministry of Education is teaching English to promote the language as a lingua franca. 129
Nuha Alharbi
The GCC states’ heavy investment in ELT has resulted in importing curricula from the inner-circle contexts, and with those curricula come NS faculty and staff to run these new institutions. Today, every university in Saudi Arabia has an English language institute/centre that teaches intensive English courses to students in their foundation (first) year. English and higher education in the GCC has been a controversial issue in the past two decades (cf. Findlow, 2006). Findlow (2006) explains how the GCC states, in particular the UAE, have accommodated globalization of education by embracing English within a policy of linguistic dualism whereby English is associated with business, modernity, internationalism, material status and secularism, and Arabic is associated with religion, tradition, emotions and localism (Findlow, 2006). This dualistic approach is not explicitly stated in language policy documents but has obviously evolved through practice. This same practice is also starting to emerge in the Saudi Higher Education sector, where English is currently employed as a medium of instruction in the departments of medicine, engineering and pure sciences while Arabic serves as a language of instruction in departments of social sciences and Islamic studies. The GCC educationalists thus seem to acknowledge the important role English plays in the region and that its significance will probably grow in the next years. However, a challenge for the GCC states is how to reconcile the demands for local, national and religious identities with the homogenizing implications of globalization and the widening use of English in education (Canagarajah, 1999). This linguistic dualism in higher education has stirred debate and attracted criticism, as will be seen in the next section on ELF attitudes in the GCC states. English is, without a doubt, also the language of business in the GCC. This is seen through multinational corporations (MNCs) adopting English as an official or a de facto language of communication. As expatriates in the GCC MNCs outnumber locals, business English as a lingua franca (BELF) appears to be the only viable means of intercultural communication in the GCC business contexts (Alharbi, 2016). The use of English in business, however, has not stirred the same controversy as it did, and still does, in the education sector. The findings of my research will be further discussed in the next two sections. In addition to education and business, English is also widely used in the media, including newspapers, television, radio and the internet. In Saudi Arabia, there are at least seven English-speaking TV channels that broadcast shows produced in the West with Arabic subtitles most of the time. There are also two major English newspapers, Saudi Gazette and Arab News, published by the two largest Saudi publication houses. Most internet websites (including the government websites) have both Arabic and English versions. Generally, there is wide diffusion of English at different professional and societal levels in Saudi Arabia and the other GCC states. It is problematic to describe the linguistic landscape in the GCC as if it were a hegemonic entity with identical ethno-linguistic composition. Dubai (UAE), Doha (Qatar) and Dhahran (Saudi Arabia), for example, all have greater levels of internationalism than others. In Dubai, the situation currently is that English is required for a much greater range of social interactions, from shopping to receiving medical attention (Randall and Samimi, 2010). As Randall and Samimi (2010) point out, there are few places in the world where a second language is necessary to perform basic shopping tasks, from grocery stores to shopping malls; while Arabic is the rightful official language, the authors argue that English has a de facto status in Dubai. Although Graddol (2006) argues that Arabic is the fastest growing of the world languages, at least demographically, expatriates in the GCC area do not take the time and effort to learn it. Randall and Samimi (2010: 45) cite McLaughlin (2008) to explain the lack of interest in 130
ELF in the Gulf Cooperation Council states
learning Arabic in the UAE, but with applicability to the rest of the GCC states. McLaughlin points to ‘apprehension about the language’ and a ‘limited number of institutes that teach Arabic properly’; moreover, ‘as the Arab population is small there is no opportunity to speak Arabic with UAE nationals’. Some of my BELF research participants also asserted that they did not feel the urge to learn Arabic simply because English was sufficient to communicate with their Arabic colleagues (Alharbi, 2016). One of my non-Arabic speaking participants explains how English in his workplace simultaneously facilitates communication and demotivates him to learn Arabic: ‘It [English] is a facilitator indeed. But ideal? No. Like in my case it kind of somehow deprived me from learning Arabic which would not be possible in this very westernized work environment’. In the next section, I briefly discuss the most prevalent attitudes toward the widening use of English as a lingua franca in the GCC states.
ELF attitudes in the GCC states The widening use of English in the GCC states came with socio-political baggage. Concern over the widening use of English is often expressed in the region, especially in regards to the preservation of local cultures and identities. There are many within the GCC states who claim that the widening use of English is threatening the quality of the Arabic language used in the GCC in general and in Saudi Arabia in particular. There is a continuous debate in the national press about the necessity of preserving Arabic as a cultural asset and improving the Arabic language teaching to counter the rapid spread of English. The GCC governments, as members of the Arab League, are committed to the promotion of the cause of ‘Arabization’ and to preserving the ‘intellectual and artistic legacy of the Arabs’ by emphasizing Arabic history and literature in their curricula, with Arabic being ‘the language of instruction in all subjects and in all educational stages in the Arab countries’ (Findlow, 2008: 347). However, this commitment cannot be fully realized in the GCC states because of ‘prioritization of international communication and competition’ (Findlow, 2008: 347). Some research findings show that the increasing reliance on English can lead to a dilemma in which English is considered a symbol of technology, modernity, travel and employment, ‘while Arabic is educationally marginalized and is seen to represent tradition, religion and, even worse, backwardness’ (Habbash and Troudi, 2015: 62). The commonly held view is that, due to its centrality to Islam, Arabic is indisputably a valuable asset as the language of the GCC states and of all other Arabic countries. Arabic speakers often feel that ‘their classical language is the most beautiful and logical, with an incomparable grammatical symmetry and lexical richness’ (Findlow, 2006: 45). This sentiment toward Arabic is seen in the findings of most research done on Arabic language attitudes. These findings suggest that the high value attached to Arabic by its speakers stems from its religious and cultural status in the GCC context. Therefore, the opponents of widening the use of English in the GCC area believe that the dominance of English is an imperialistic tool aiming at diminishing or at least weakening the value of Arabic and Islam (cf. Karmani, 2005). This belief was very common in the second half of the twentieth century, but it still stands today, even if to a lesser extent – and even despite evidence that the use of English does not necessarily threaten Arabic or GCC identities. For example, Al-Haq and Samadi (1996: 315–316) presented evidence that ‘Saudis’ attachment to their identity, religion and culture should not be affected negatively [by the widespread of English]. Therefore, there is no fear that English will weaken the position of Arabic and Islam’. Their findings also showed that 131
Nuha Alharbi
Saudi students are neither Americanized nor Anglicized nor Westernized due to the use of English; their national identity and Arab unity are not affected by the virtue of English; and their piety does not become corrupted by the impact of English. (Al-Haq and Samadi, 1996: 315–316) In a more recent study, Elyas (2008: 45) also asserted that for his university student interviewees, ‘English does not appear to be an indication of an imperialistic purpose of Westernization of their Arabic identity’. The reported Arabic speakers’ high esteem of their language seems to be limited to certain contexts where Arabic serves as an identity marker. For example, Habbash and Troudi (2015) argue that their Arabic-speaking participants’ esteem of their Arabic language does not extend to their views of Arabic as a language of education, modernity and scientific and technological advancements. Therefore, Habbash and Troudi (2015: 71) conclude that the increasing reliance on English in the Saudi context, especially as a medium of education, is downgrading Arabic to ‘a second-class status’. Findlow’s (2006) findings are in parallel with those of Habbash and Troudi (2015), but she adds that ‘changed political or socioeconomic circumstances could at any time threaten this balance and bring about a rather different set of feelings about the prevalence of English’ (p. 34). Any discussion of attitudes toward English in the GCC has to consider the attitudes toward different varieties of World Englishes as well. Al-Asmari and Khan (2014), for example, argue that the academic environment in Saudi Arabia is not welcoming of outercircle Englishes, such as the Indian Englishes spoken by a significant number of workers in the Saudi labour market. This attitude does not usually affect speakers of World Englishes in the business sector, but it has a significant impact on the processes of recruiting and selecting potential English language teachers in the GCC states (cf. Al-Asmari and Khan, 2014; Ali, 2009). This can be frustrating to competent ELT practitioners from the outer circle who, even when recruited, suffer from discrimination in comparison to their equally or even lessqualified teachers from Kachru’s (1985) inner circle (see Ali, 2009 for a detailed discussion of the ‘brown man’s’ burden of teaching English in the GCC). GCC state educationalists place great emphasis on inner-circle Englishes. Compared with their NNES colleagues, NESs are more ambitiously recruited to teach in the GCC and are offered more competitive packages. The common belief is that NESs are automatically more competent at teaching their mother tongue (Ali, 2009). Based on my own experience as a language teacher in a Saudi University, this belief is also common amongst university students, who usually try to sign up for the English classes given by NESs. Elyas’ (2014) study looks at EFL student identities in Saudi Arabia. Some of his participants explained that one of the reasons for the lack of success in learning English is their failure to speak ‘correctly’ and their feelings of inadequacy compared to the ‘perfect’ native speaker (p. 34). The attitudes toward English in the GCC business domain seem to be more positive in general. Based on the findings of my research on BELF in Saudi multinational corporations (Alharbi, 2016), BELF users seem to have an overall positive and pragmatic attitude toward the adoption of English as a medium of communication in their workplace. This positive attitude is manifested either as acceptance or, in some cases, as enthusiasm. The participants also seemed to agree on the level of proficiency required for business communication to succeed. Their views concurred with findings in previous ELF/BELF research that linguistic ‘correctness’ according to ENL norms is not necessary (cf. Ehrenreich 2009). What matters in BELF communication is effectiveness and achieving the goals of communicative events, even if this happens at the expense of linguistic form. While discussing the attitudes toward 132
ELF in the Gulf Cooperation Council states
the use of BELF in their workplace, some of my participants showed some concerns of an ideological nature, similar to the attitudes discussed above in relation to education. That is, they expressed that communication through English somewhat threatens their linguacultural identities, which they felt are better expressed through Arabic. This concern, however, is not prevalent among the other interviewees, who generally believe that the adoption of English is only natural in today’s globalized economies.
GCC English? Findings from BELF research in Saudi Arabia Previous attempts to describe GCC Arabic speakers’ use of English generally adopt a deficiency perspective on non-ENL speech. They tend to report potential ‘problems’ that are likely to occur when Arabs use English (cf. Davies and Bentahila, 2012). As this paper adopts an ELF perspective, I will not discuss findings from this research here (see Alharbi, 2016 for a detailed discussion of intercultural communication in Saudi Arabia). The only attempt to describe Saudi use of English in a positive light is seen in Mahboob and Elyas (2014). Mahboob and Elyas analysed one of the English textbooks developed by the Saudi Ministry of Education for use at the school level in order to outline some of the features that are observed in published texts in Saudi Arabia. Their textbook analysis ‘shows that there are a number of grammatical features used in the book that are different from “standard” Englishes’ (Mahboob and Elyas, 2014: 135). These features include ‘variation in use of tense markers; variation in the use of articles; variation in marking subject-verb agreement; and number (singular/plural “–s”)’ (Mahboob and Elyas, 2014: 135). Mahboob and Elyas’s analysis, however, cannot be taken at face value as it covers only one textbook, and it also looks like an attempt to describe Saudi English from a World Englishes perspective, which can be problematic considering that the sociolinguistic reality in Saudi Arabia is clearly not similar to that of the outer-circle contexts. English use in Saudi Arabia and in the GCC states in general is better described in light of the Global Englishes paradigm, and namely ELF. The ethno-linguistic composition of the GCC states indicates that ELF speech in the GCC states has developed its own character distinct from that of ELF speech in other settings. In my own BELF research (Alharbi, 2016), Arabic, the language of ‘the habitat’ (Pölzl and Seidlhofer, 2006) of the majority of the participants; English, the perceived corporate language; and the different L1s of the company’s staff members are all at play. This multilingual/multicultural makeup shapes patterns of BELF interactions. In such linguistic environments, variability, one of ELF’s principal characteristics, is heightened, and cultural hybridity is even more expected. With this in mind, I echo Klimpfinger’s (2009: 348) concern that so far ‘little has been said about the use and role of other languages in ELF’. Although Jenkins (2015) presents a theoretical reconsideration of ELF from a more multilingual perspective, I find it especially surprising that, with the exception of Pölzl and Seidlhofer (2006) and Mauranen (2012), the role of the language of the habitat is often ignored in ELF research. Considering the claimed influence of Arabic on its speakers, the habitat factor is important. Taking Hitti’s (2002: 90) often cited suggestion that ‘hardly any language seems capable of exercising over the minds of its users such irresistible influence as Arabic’, the role of Arabic in ELF/BELF use needs to be discussed further to grasp ELF/BELF’s cultural hybridity in regions such as the GCC states where Arabic is the predominant language. To account for the role of L1 in ELF communication, Mauranen (2012) proposed the term similect to describe the features of the ‘similar lects’ that emerge through shared linguistic histories as in the case of the BELF data in my research. In my BELF research, the shared 133
Nuha Alharbi
features resulting from ‘many speakers having the same language combination in their repertoire, and thereby similar transfer from their first language’ (Mauranen, 2012: 29) are prevalent in BELF communication. The effect of Arabic on BELF use is reflected in some of the discourse practices originating from Arabic. This effect is seen in the adoption of Saudi norms in relational talk, politeness strategies, turn-taking and other face-related issues. This adoption is revealed in the discursive analysis of the recorded meeting language in the form of greetings and turn-taking management. This finding also emerged in my interview data, as most of my non-Saudi participants assert that they happily adopt the local small talk norms. The effect of Saudi Arabia’s known religiocentrism (cf. Davies and Bentahila, 2012) is also evident in my BELF data. This religiocentrism can take the form of religion-related words and phrases (see also Mahboob and Elyas, 2014). My participants, mostly Muslims, and to some extent non-Muslims too, switched to Arabic quite often to express their faith by using Arabic religious phrases. One of my non-Muslim, non-Arabic speaking participants explained his use of the Islamic religious phrase in sha Allah (if God wills): I say in sha Allah yeah at the beginning I was thinking it is not for not for me because I am not Muslim of course but it kinda grows on you. You start saying it with time you get used to it in sha Allah in sha Allah, but it is not only me now even my wife say it ALL the time she she picked it up from work too. Another feature related to the habitat culture and adopted by some of my participants is using swear words and taboo words, which are sometimes translated into English or used in their original Arabic forms. In fact, translation of culture-specific elements from Arabic, and sometimes from other mother tongues, to English is a common practice in my research field. Some of my participants asserted that they translate proverbs, poetry and idioms from their L1s. One of my non-Arabic speaking participants says that a proverb he once shared with his Saudi manager is now known to all of his department members because his manager found it useful and started using it often. Thus, it can be said that BELF users in this business context make use of idiomatic expressions by presenting and sharing idiomatic phrases from their L1s for their own locally emerging needs and purposes. BELF in this case serves as a shared communicative resource used to accommodate one another’s needs and to mark shared territory in emerging communities of practice. My research findings are in line with those of Meierkord (2002) and Firth (2009). Firth (2009) asserts that ELF is inherently hybrid in nature. For example, participants may borrow, use and reuse each other’s language forms, create nuanced words, and switch and mix languages. In my BELF research, one clear reflection of this fact is my participants’ extensive, undisruptive use of code-switching, which is used to serve different communicative functions such as accommodation, inclusion/exclusion, emphasis and signalling of cultural identities. One of my research objectives is to determine how, in spite of the linguacultural diversity typifying communication in MNCs in general, intercultural communication through BELF is possible and even successful. It seems that negotiation of meaning through different communicative strategies is a common micro-level mechanism. It appears to be a necessity and a top priority for participants in BELF communication in Saudi MNCs. It is motivated by a range of goals, including maintaining the interactional flow, achieving communicative effectiveness, seeking approval, reaching agreements, building rapport and solidarity, and developing identities (Alharbi, 2016). My analysis of recorded business meetings revealed that BELF users in Saudi MNCs employ communicative strategies to enhance mutual understanding. Paraphrase 134
ELF in the Gulf Cooperation Council states
of problematic elements in an utterance is used both as a pre-emptive strategy and as a repair strategy. Hedging is also employed to avoid face-threatening acts and to smooth interactions, especially the ones that involve interlocutors from top-level management. Some interlocutors employ utterance completions and backchannels as a means to make an implicit or explicit appeal for assistance or to show understanding and signal listenership. The need for these communicative strategies in BELF intercultural communication is great, considering the variability in linguistic and cultural backgrounds and the emphasis on communication effectiveness to get the job done (Alharbi, 2016).
Conclusion The discussion of ELF status in the GCC has to be coupled with a discussion of the wider ideological and cultural contexts in which it is used, and this is what I attempted to do in this chapter. This chapter is meant to present a comprehensive, albeit brief, account of ELF/BELF use and attitudes in the GCC states and also to serve as a starting point for future research on ELF in this multicultural/multicultural context. This paper started by presenting a historical account of English in the GCC area. It then moved to look at the current uses of English in the GCC area and at the attitudes toward the widening use of English, especially in higher education and in business. In the last section of this paper, findings from my own research on BELF in Saudi MNCs are briefly discussed on the basis of the different ethnographic data sets.
Related chapters in this handbook 1 Mauranen, Conceptualising ELF 8 Widdowson, Historical perspectives on ELF 17 Cogo and House, The pragmatics of ELF 25 Kankaanranta and Louhiala-Salminen, ELF in the domain of business – BELF: what does the B stand for?
Further reading Alharbi, N. (2016). Business English as a lingua franca in Saudi multinational corporations: Qualitative investigation of communicative strategies and orientations to use in international workplaces. Unpublished PhD thesis, King’s College London. Findlow, S. (2006). Higher education and linguistic dualism in the Arab Gulf. British Journal of Sociology of Education 27 (1): 19–36. Mahboob, A. and Elyas, T. (2014). English in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. World Englishes 33 (1): 128–142.
References Al-Asmari, M. and Khan, M.S. (2014). World Englishes in the EFL teaching in Saudi Arabia. Arab World English Journal 5 (1): 316–325. Al-Haq, F.A. and Samadi, O. (1996). Spread of English and westernization in Saudi Arabia. World Englishes 15 (3): 307–17. Al-Issa, A. (2006). The Cultural and economic politics of English language teaching in Sultanate of Oman. Asian EFL Journal 8 (1): 194–218. 135
Nuha Alharbi
Alharbi, N. (2016). Business English as a lingua franca in Saudi multinational corporations: Qualitative investigation of communicative strategies and orientations to use in international workplaces. Unpublished PhD thesis, King’s College London. Ali, S. (2009). Teaching English as an international language (EIL) in the Gulf Corporation Council (GCC) countries: The brown man’s burden. In F. Sharifian (ed.), English as an international language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 34–56. Canagarajah, S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Charise, A. (2007). More English, less Islam? An overview of English language functions in the Arabian/Persian Gulf. Accessed November 2012 at http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/ courses/eng6365-charise.htm Davies, E. and Bentahila, A. (2012). Anglo–Arab intercultural communication. In C. Paulston, S. Kiesling, and E. Rangel (eds), The handbook of intercultural communication. Chichester: Blackwell, pp. 231–250. Ehrenreich, S. (2009). English as a lingua franca in multinational corporations. Exploring business communities of practice. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 126–151. Elyas, T. (2008). The attitudes and the impact of the American English as a global language within the Saudi education system. Novitas-ROYAL 2(1): 28–48. Elyas, T. (2014). Exploring Saudi Arabia’s EFL student identity: A narrative critical approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature 3(5): 28–38. Findlow, S. (2006). Higher education and linguistic dualism in the Arab Gulf. British Journal of Sociology of Education 27 (1): 19–36. Findlow, S. (2008). Islam, modernity and education in the Arab states. Intercultural Education 19 (4): 337–352. Firth, A. (2009). The lingua franca factor. Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (2): 147–170. Fussell, B. (2011). The local flavour of English in the Gulf. English Today 27 (4): 26–32. Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? London: British Council. Graddol, D. (2006). English next: Why global English may mean the end of ‘English as a foreign language’. London: British Council. GulfTalent, (2010). Saudi Arabia and Qatar lead job creation in the Gulf. Accessed June 2012 at www.gulftalent.com/resources/employment-news/Saudi-Arabia-and-Qatar- lead-job-creation-inthe-Gulf-43 Habbash, M. and Troudi, S. (2015). The discourse of global English and its representation in the Saudi context: A postmodernist critical perspective. In R. Raddawi (ed.), Intercultural communication with Arabs. Springer: Singapore, pp. 57–75. Hitti, P (2002). History of the Arabs (10th edn). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice 2 (3): 49–85. Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching 44 (3): 281–315. Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguist realism: The English language in the outer circle. In Quirk, R. and Widdowson, H. (eds), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–30. Karmani, S. (2005). English, ‘terror’ and Islam. Applied Linguistics 26 (2): 262–267. Klimpfinger, T. (2009). ‘She’s mixing the two languages together’: Forms and functions of codeswitching in English as a lingua franca. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 348–371. McLaughlin, L. (2008). British professor rubbishes false fears on learning Arabic. Gulf News, 22 January. Accessed 18 May 2009 at http://archive.gulfnews.com/ articles/08/01/22/10183870.html. Mahboob, A. and Elyas, T. (2014). English in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. World Englishes 33 (1): 128–142. Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meierkord, C. (2002). ‘Language stripped bare’ or ‘linguistic masala’? Culture in lingua franca communication. In K. Knapp and C. Meierkord (eds) Lingua franca communication. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 109–133. 136
ELF in the Gulf Cooperation Council states
Onley, J. (2007). The Arabian frontier of the British Raj: Merchants, rulers, and the British in the nineteenth-century Gulf. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pölzl, U. and Seidlhofer, B. (2006). In and on their own terms: The ‘habitat factor’ in English as a lingua franca interactions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177, 151–176. Poole, B. (2006). Some effects of Indian English on the language as it is used in Oman. English Today 88, 21–33. Rahman, M. and Alhaisoni, E. (2013). Teaching English in Saudi Arabia: Prospects and challenges. Academic Research International Journal 4 (1): 112–118. Randall, M. and Samimi, M. (2010). The status of English in Dubai. English Today 26 (1): 43–50. Syed, Z. (2003). The sociocultural context of English language teaching in the Gulf. TESOL Quarterly 37 (2): 337–341. The Economist Intelligence Unit (2009). The GCC in 2020: Outlook for the Gulf and the global economy. Chicago, IL: Economist Intelligence Unit. Weber, A. (2011). Politics of English in the Arabian Gulf. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Accessed February 2016 at http://eprints.ibu.edu.ba/13/ Zoghbor, W. (2009). The implications of the LFC for the Arab context. IATEFL Pronunciation Special Interest Group Newsletter 41, 25–29.
137
11 The development of English as a lingua franca in ASEAN Andy Kirkpatrick
Introduction: the development of the role of English in ASEAN In this chapter, drawing on data from the Asian Corpus of English (ACE), a corpus of English as a lingua franca use among Asian multilinguals, the majority of whom are from ASEAN countries, I shall illustrate how English is being shaped and adapted by Asian multilinguals, both linguistically and culturally. The linguistic focus will be on the use or non-use of a selection of non-standard morpho-syntactic forms and whether or not their use gives rise to problems in communication. The role of the speaker’s first language – in terms of both codemixing and linguistic transfer – will also be discussed. The cultural focus will be on how speakers represent their own culture(s) and the cultures of the region in their use of English. The chapter will conclude with suggestions for ELT pedagogy and policy. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) comprises 10 nations. The countries in alphabetical order and with the dates of joining ASEAN in brackets are as follows: Brunei (1985), Cambodia (1999), Indonesia (1967), Laos (1997), Malaysia (1967), Myanmar (1997), the Philippines (1967), Singapore (1967), Thailand (1967) and Vietnam (1995). Of these 10 countries, only 5, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand were the founding members at the initial ratification of ASEAN with the Bangkok Declaration of 1967. Interestingly and, perhaps surprisingly to those who follow the language policies of the European Union where each member country’s language is an official language, the Bangkok Declaration makes no mention of an official language or languages that might be adopted by ASEAN. According to delegates at the Bangkok meeting on 1967, it was simply assumed that English would be the de facto official language of the group (Okudaira 1999). This may have been because four of the original founding members of ASEAN had been colonies of either Britain (Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore) or America (the Philippines) and because English had continued to play an institutional role in each of these postcolonial settings. At the same time, however, Malay might have been a strong candidate as an official language as Malay is the national or official language of Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore and is spoken in parts of both the Philippines and Thailand. Here, I give a brief account of how English has developed across ASEAN. For a full account see Kirkpatrick (2010). 138
The development of ELF in ASEAN
ASEAN represents one of the most linguistically and culturally diverse areas of the world, with over 1,000 languages. All the world’s great religions are also represented, with for example, Buddhism being the major religion of Thailand, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam, and Islam of Indonesia, Brunei and Malaysia. Christianity and Hinduism are found throughout the region, with the Philippines being a strongly Catholic nation. The de facto status of English as the official language was given de jure status with the signing of the ASEAN Charter in 2009. Article 34 of the Charter states that ‘the working language of ASEAN shall be English’ (www.asean.org/storage/images/ASEAN_RTK_2014/ ASEAN_Charter.pdf). The Charter also lists, however, as one of the 14 principles listed under Article 2, the need to have respect for the different cultures, languages and religions of the peoples of ASEAN. The question then arises of how respect for this linguistic, cultural and linguistic diversity can be developed if English is the sole working language of the group. How can English play a role in encouraging linguistic, cultural and religious diversity? That English is expected to play this role has been made clear by the ASEAN Secretary General, Le Luong Minh, who announced in 2013 ‘with the diversity of ASEAN reflected in our diverse races, histories, cultures and belief systems, English is an important and indispensable tool to bring our community closer together’ (ASEAN 2013). In this chapter I shall therefore consider how English might play this apparently contradictory role of uniting ASEAN while at the same time respecting its diversity. First I shall briefly discuss how the use of English as a lingua franca across ASEAN is shaping English itself linguistically and culturally. I shall also consider the communicative strategies being adopted by ASEAN ELF speakers. I shall then consider the pedagogical implications of these linguistic and cultural developments and suggest ways in which English can be taught as a lingua franca that might encourage respect for the linguistic and cultural diversity of ASEAN. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of issues and challenges that the adoption of English as the sole working language has for other languages, in particular as languages of education.
The nature of ASEAN ELF The official promotion of English as the sole working language of ASEAN has provided great impetus to its rapid development as a regional lingua franca. In addition, therefore, to the usual motivations to use English, namely to be able to participate in and benefit from modernisation and globalisation, its official status in ASEAN provides an extra motivation for the teaching and learning of English. The role of English as a lingua franca across ASEAN is not, of course, unique. The major role of English in today’s world is as a lingua franca. That is to say English is most commonly used as a lingua franca by people who are multilinguals and for whom English is a shared language. In ASEAN, English is typically used as a lingua franca by ASEAN multilinguals for whom English is an additional language. Thus, for example, Thais, Indonesians, Filipinos and Vietnamese will typically use English as a lingua franca with each other. This has implications for the development of English. As Mauranen (2006) has pointed out, with English as a lingua franca becoming the most common role of English in today’s world, we need to know something about it; how it is developing and how it is being shaped and used by speakers of ELF. To understand how ELF is developing and being used has been the motivation behind the creation of a number of corpora of the use of English as a lingua franca. Two particularly 139
Andy Kirkpatrick
well-known corpora of ELF are the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE) established by Barbara Seidlhofer and colleagues at the University of Vienna (www.univie. ac.at/voice/) and the ELF corpus of academic English (ELFA) collected by Anna Mauranen and colleagues at the University of Helsinki (www.helsinki.fi/englanti/elfa/). A third corpus, the Asian Corpus of English (ACE) (http://corpus.ied.edu.hk/ace/), is a corpus of naturally occurring English used by, primarily, ASEAN multilinguals. This corpus was collected by the author of this chapter working with data collection teams across East and Southeast Asia. ACE uses the same transcription conventions as VOICE to enable researchers to compare data from VOICE, which is primarily European-based, with the primarily Asian-based ACE. The discussion and examples below of how English is being used and shaped by multilingual Asian users of ELF are taken from ACE. Linguistic features Non-standard forms are common in the speech of ELF users (Breiteneder 2009; Kirkpatrick 2010; Seidlhofer 2011); but non-standard forms are also common in vernacular varieties of so called native-speaker varieties of English, such as American English (e.g. Lippi-Green 1997; Green 2002), British English (Crystal 2004; Britain 2007) and Australian English (Ransom 1987; Deldridge 1999), including Australian Aboriginal English (Harkins 2000). Given the pervasive nature of these non-standard forms, there is a debate over the extent to which the first language of the speakers influences their English (e.g. Mufwene 2008) or whether there are set of vernacular universals, in other words, a set of non-standard forms that occur in all vernacular varieties of English, regardless of the speakers’ first language, as proposed by Chambers (2004). Kortmann and Szmrecsanyi (2004) have identified candidates for linguistic/morphosyntactic ‘angloversals’, non-standard forms that occur in certain varieties of English. It is evident that certain non-standard forms occur across several varieties (Deterding and Kirkpatrick 2006), which does call into question the role of the first language. In arguing for the influence of the substrate or first language, Lim and Gisbourne (2009: 124) point out that the occurrences of similar non-standard forms across different varieties of English does not necessarily provide evidence for the existence of universals. Rather they argue that, in the context of Asian varieties of English, ‘these Asian varieties have a particular feature because one or some of their substrates do, not simply because the feature is typical of the region’. They wisely go on to point out, however, that the influence of the first language is not the only cause for language change, a caution against assigning a single cause to language change also noted by Thomason (2010: 31) who points out that, in most cases, no cause can be firmly established ‘because of the real possibility that multiple causes are responsible for a particular change’. Mauranen (2012: 29) makes an interesting distinction between a similect and a dialect, with similects sharing linguistics features due to substrate transfer from a shared L1 and dialects developing linguistic features from using analogy from the L2 to give, for example, ‘discuss about’ from ‘talk about’. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to attempt to answer the substrate vs universals question here. Language contact, however, appears to play a major role in language change. As Hickey (2010: 5) has observed ‘it would seem that language contact always induces change’. Nevertheless, a number of scholars have recently questioned the role of the substrate (e.g. Gut 2009; Hundt, Hoffman and Mukherjee 2012; Seoane and Suarez-Gomez 2013; Hall, Schmidtke and Vickers 2013). For example, the research conducted by Hall and his colleagues (2013) concluded that the countable use of mass nouns was widespread across a range of different varieties of English. They also noted, however, that, although 140
The development of ELF in ASEAN
the countable use of mass nouns was widespread, it was rare, with an occurrence rate of only 3.5 percent. This then raises the related question of whether the mere occurrence of a non-standard form in a specific variety can be classified as being a typical characteristic linguistic feature of that variety. Hall would argue that the fact that a non-standard feature occurs does not mean it is thus a characteristic feature of that variety, a view echoed by van Rooy (2013). It is in cases such as these that a corpus is so useful, as the actual frequency of occurrence of a specific non-standard form can be counted and the relative percentage of its occurrence vis-à-vis the standard form can be measured. It was in order to test the influence or otherwise of the substrate on the use of nonstandard morpho-syntactic forms that a colleague and I investigated, using a subset of ACE, the marking or non-marking of present simple and past simple tenses in the speech of first language speakers of Malay (Kirkpatrick and Subhan 2014). We chose first-language speakers of Malay, as Malay is a language that does not mark for tense. We thus wanted to test the hypothesis that, as Malay does not mark for tense, the English of these speakers would be characterised by the non-marking of these tense forms. Many scholars, including the author of this chapter, have long noted that the non-marking of tense forms is a feature of Malaysian and Singaporean English (e.g. Platt 1991; Kirkpatrick 2007). To briefly summarise our findings, we noted that, contrary to our expectations, the nonmarking of these tense forms was comparatively rare. With a total possible 413 tokens of tense marking, the speakers used the standard marking on 306 occasions and only did not mark for tense on 107 occasions. What was even more noteworthy, however, was how the level of formality and the context influenced tense marking. In informal contexts, the speakers did not mark for tense on 100 occasions. Even in these informal contexts, however, the non-marking was less frequent than marking, as they did mark for tense in 153 instances, giving a marked to non-marked ration of about 1.5 to 1. In formal contexts, the use of nonmarking was rare. Out of a total possible 159 instances of marking, the speakers marked the tenses correctly on 152 occasions and did not mark for tense on only 7 occasions. This illustrates that, while the non-marking of tenses occurred in the speech of these L1 speakers of Malay, it cannot be said to be a characteristic feature of their English. On the contrary, in formal contexts, non-marking, while attested, was extremely rare. Even in informal contexts, the correct marking of tenses was more common than non-marking by the ratio of 1.5 to 1. This study also showed the importance of identifying and specifying the context and level of formality of any interaction in describing the use of non-standard forms, as these appear more frequent in informal and in formal contexts. It would thus appear, therefore, that, while the first language had some influence on the marking or non-marking of the simple present and simple past tenses of these speakers, it was by no means the major one. Care must be taken before classifying a non-standard feature as a characteristic feature of either a variety or of ELF simply on the basis of its occurrence. As Lim and Gisbourne stress (2009), it is the frequency and consistency of use that is important. Only if a non-standard feature is used frequently and consistently – and, this means for at least 50 per cent of the time – can that feature be classified as a characteristic. The study of ELF corpora such as VOICE and ACE allow researchers the opportunity to investigate, not only the occurrence of a specific non-standard form, but also its frequency and consistency of use. Discourse and cultural features The substrate or first language of an ELF user may not only influence the user’s English at a morpho-syntactic and phonological level, but also at the level of discourse. It is also possible 141
Andy Kirkpatrick
that the user’s cultural values will find expression in the English. As an example of substrate influence at the level of discourse, the excerpt below is from the same data subset of ACE comprising the first-language speakers of Malay. The speaker is a Malay-speaking Malaysian Chinese female. (For a fuller account see Kirkpatrick and Subhan 2014: 396) then he said erm if the if I was younger lah and then I would think about leaving school lah I say why give it to your mother or father to take care lah I might have done that lah cos my parents then he said then he said no lah the most important time for a child is four years mah and I want to bond with my child. The tense markings (in bold) show no non-standard forms or influence from Malay. The excerpt also contains a number of discourse markers (underlined), including five instances of lah and one of mah. While there is some doubt whether these discourse markers originate in Malay or Chinese (Matthews 2010), it is clear that they represent substrate influence and this speaker is using discourse markers from the substrate in her use of English. This is a form of code-mixing, which is common in varieties of world Englishes as speakers of a specific variety of a world English share, by definition, the same linguistic and cultural backgrounds and thus code-mix freely (McLellan 2010). This use of code-mixing often acts as a marker of identity and here we see these markers of identity occurring in English being used as a lingua franca. One explanation of this might be that the participants in this interaction are all speakers of Malay; but then we might also expect the use of code-mixed Malay vocabulary, but there is none in this conversation between these speakers of Malay. This is interesting because a possible difference between the use of English as a lingua franca and a variety of English is that the latter will contain code-mixing, including the use of shared vocabulary items and local idioms, while ELF will not see so much of these features because the primary function of ELF is for communication, while a major function of a variety of English is the expression of a shared identity. This is not to say, of course, that ELF speakers cannot or do not express identity (Baker 2011) or that speakers of a variety of English do not communicate, only that on a continuum between identity and communication, ELF speakers are placed closer to the communication end, while speakers of varieties are placed closer to the identity end (Kirkpatrick 2007). In a recent study comparing a corpus of Brunei English with a subset of ACE it was found that code-mixing was frequently and consistently used in Brunei English but far less so in the ACE ELF data (Kirkpatrick and McLellan 2012). Studies using VOICE data, however, have shown the use of code-mixing, including the use of idioms (e.g. Pitzl 2009). One explanation for the difference between VOICE and ACE data may be that Europeans share many cultural values, and because many of the languages of Europe are members of the same language family. East and Southeast Asia are more culturally and linguistically diverse and are home to several distinct language families. This is a question that needs further investigation. The topics people discuss in ACE tend to be, not surprisingly, Asia-centric (Kirkpatrick, Patkin and Wu 2013). They include discussions about the qualities of different varieties of rice, the poor treatment of ethnic minorities in Hong Kong, issues connected with taking out loans from Islamic banks, Thai-Myanmar border issues, problems associated with communicating with people from Middle Eastern cultures, the use of languages and the place of language and identity. In these discussions, a feature of ELF communication that becomes apparent is the importance of adopting communicative strategies that will aid communication between people of different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, which are the topic of the next section. 142
The development of ELF in ASEAN
Communicative strategies Research into the communicative strategies of ELF speakers illustrates their function in assuring cooperative and collaborative communication. In an early study, Firth (1996) noted that what he called ‘the let it pass’ principle appeared to operate when a participant in a conversation did not understand what was being said, but made no comment, hoping it would become clear later. This ‘let it pass’ strategy has subsequently been empirically confirmed by Deterding (2013) as he interviewed participants who had provided data and they confirmed that they had adopted a strategy of letting something they had not understood pass in the hope all would become clear later. Meierkord’s research into ELF communication concluded that the conversations are characterised by their participants’ desire to render the interactions normal and to achieve communicative success’ (2012: 15). House (2006: 94) refers to the ‘solidarity of non-native ELF speakers’. In an early study using ACE data, Kirkpatrick (2010: 141) identified 15 communicative strategies of ELF speakers. These distinguished between listener strategies and speaker strategies and are listed below. Strategy type (listener): lexical anticipation, lexical suggestion, lexical correction, don’t give up, request repetition, request clarification, let it pass, listen to the message, participant paraphrase, participant prompt. Strategy type (speaker): spell out the word, repeat the phrase, be explicit, paraphrase, avoid local/idiomatic referents. In a review of recent research into ELF, Archibald, Cogo and Jenkins (2011: 3) concluded that the findings ‘evidence the supportive and cooperative nature of interactions in ELF where meaning negotiation takes place at different levels’. The research therefore confirms that ELF interactions tend to be supportive and collaborative. However, as stressed earlier in the discussion of the use of non-standard morpho-syntactic forms, context is all important. When the stakes are high, the preservation of the speaker’s face may not be seen as important (Jenks 2012). Such is the case in high-level ASEAN meetings, for example, as noted by one Cambodian government minister when stressing the importance of English: If we don’t know English, how can we participate? We need to know English so that we can defend our interests. You know, ASEAN is not some kissy-kissy brotherhood. The countries are fiercely competitive, and a strong knowledge of English will help us protect our interests. (Clayton 2006: 230–231) Another context where the competitive nature of the interactions will overcome the need to be polite is the courtroom. In their study of courtroom data taken from ACE the authors show that ‘direct, confrontational questioning and bald-on-record disagreement are common currency in these exchanges, where winning the argument supersedes the desire for interactional comity’ (Kirkpatrick, Walkinshaw and Subhan 2016). In this section I have provided a brief review of the nature of ELF, illustrating this with examples from morpho-syntax, discourse, local cultural referents and topics and communicative strategies. In the next section of the chapter I shall propose a number of pedagogical principles for the ELF approach to English language teaching (see also Kirkpatrick 2015). 143
Andy Kirkpatrick
Pedagogical implications When teaching languages, teachers like to have a model or standard upon which to base their curriculum. This presents a problem for the ELF approach, as ELF does not constitute a stable single variety of English (Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey 2011; Seidlhofer 2011). On the contrary, given the diverse multilingual and multicultural backgrounds of its speakers, ELF represents multilingual diversity and its speakers, as we have seen with the type of communicative strategies they adopt, are constantly negotiating meaning and accommodating to each other’s way of using English. The natural diversity of ELF is why I have been careful to call the proposed method for teaching ELF as a lingua franca approach. The models or standards of English to be taught under this approach are dependent on the context. Generally speaking within the ASEAN context, multilingual English teachers who have learned English as an additional language and who share similar linguistic backgrounds with their students represents the best classroom model for their students, as long as their own proficiency levels are high. It is with this ASEAN context in mind that the following principles of the lingua franca approach are proposed (see also Kirkpatrick 2012). The principles of the lingua franca approach1 Principle 1: The native speaker is not the linguistic target. The goal is mutual intelligibility As the main role of English in ASEAN (if not elsewhere) is as a lingua franca, it follows that the people with whom ASEAN speakers of English are primarily communicating are fellow Asian multilinguals. The native speaker therefore provides a exonormative, if not irrelevant, model. An appropriate linguistic model for a multilingual user of English in these contexts is a fellow multilingual who shares similar linguistic backgrounds. As McKay (2009: 238) has argued ‘Reliance on a native-speaker model as the pedagogical target must be set aside’. Monolingual benchmarks should not be used to measure multilinguals (Garcia 2009: 386). Thus, for example, an appropriate linguistic model for an Indonesian learner of English is a fellow Indonesian who has high proficiency in English (and who, of course, is suitably trained as a language teacher). An appropriate linguistic model for the Filipino learner of English becomes a well-trained Filipino teacher with high proficiency in English. In short, multilingual models need to be set by fellow multilinguals. Some decades ago, Tommy Koh, then Singapore’s Ambassador to the United Nations said, ‘When I speak English I want the world to know that I’m Singaporean’. By making the local multilingual model the classroom goal, users of English throughout the region will be able to echo Tommy Koh’s wish, inserting their own nationality as relevant. Principle 2: The native-speaker’s culture is not the target culture. The goal is (ASEAN-centred) intercultural competence Given that the Secretary general of ASEAN has, as noted above, stated that English is an ‘indispensable tool’ for bringing the diverse communities of ASEAN together and for forging an ASEAN identity, the English language curriculum can play a role in fulfilling this goal. A major focus of the ELT curriculum could be to inform the students about the linguistic, cultural and religious diversity of ASEAN. For example, the ELT curriculum can inform students about the importance of different religions to different people in the region. 144
The development of ELF in ASEAN
Indonesian children can learn about the role of Buddhism in Thailand and Catholicism in the Philippines. Filipino children can learn about the role of Islam in Indonesia and Malaysia. The ELT curriculum can introduce children to local literatures in English (of which there is a great deal) so that they are able to identify with the characters portrayed (Thomson 2003) and develop a sense of identity. Principle 3: Well-trained local multilinguals provide the most appropriate English language teachers Given the first two principles proposed above, it naturally follows that it is local well-trained multilinguals who have high proficiency in English who become the most appropriate teachers for their students. Not only do they provide an excellent role model – the usual advantage typically ascribed to so-called non-native teachers, they also provide an excellent linguistic model. In addition, given that they share their students’ linguistic backgrounds, they can exploit a bilingual pedagogy in the classroom and use their students’ L1 in systematic ways to help them learn the L2 (Littlewood and Yu 2009; Swain, Kirkpatrick and Cummins 2011). In so doing, they can also promote a multilingual ethos among the class or schools. Instead of students feeling they are striving to become native speakers of English – and thus being corrected every time their accent or grammar betrays their multilingual background, students need to be told they are developing multilinguals who are adding English to their linguistic repertoire. They are not deficient native speakers. They are developing multilinguals. Principle 4: Lingua franca environments provide excellent learning environments for lingua franca speakers Many language teaching institutions, including regional universities, send their English majors to native-speaking environments to help them improve their proficiency in English. Thus, classes of students are sent to countries such as Australia, Britain or the United States, usually at great expense. These students are also often sent to parts of these native-speaking countries where vernacular varieties of English are spoken. Lancaster and Durham, both in the north of England and home to local dialects of English are examples. Instead, however, of sending students to places where they either may not understand the regional dialect or feel embarrassed and inferior about speaking in front of ‘expert’ native speakers, sending these students to regional lingua franca environments such as the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei places them in contexts where English is used naturally as a lingua franca by fellow multilinguals. In such environments, the students may feel more at ease – there is an absence of expert native speakers – and find their English proficiency developing more swiftly than if they were in a native-speaking environment. It is also, of course, a much cheaper option. A lingua franca environment may thus provide a more effective and cheaper alternative to a native-speaking one for these students. Principle 5: Spoken English is not the same as written English A major difference between spoken and written English is that there are no L1 writers of English in the sense that everyone has to learn, consciously, how to write. The rules of writing are varied and can be determined by such things as genre, culture, levels of formality, and the medium. Even so, recent research into English as a written lingua franca (Mauranen 2012; Jenkins 2014) is calling for universities to recognise the existence of English as a 145
Andy Kirkpatrick
lingua franca, both spoken and written. I return to this in the next section, but stress that the principles being proposed here are primarily concerned with spoken English. Principle 6: Assessment must be tailored to the lingua franca/ASEAN context It is essential that new assessment schemes are developed that are relevant to the lingua franca approach. It is well known how the assessment tail wags the curriculum dog. Teachers will, naturally enough, teach to the test. Without changing the assessment regime, therefore, there is little chance of changing the curriculum or approach. For example, Hong Kong’s Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers of English (LPATE) used to measure whether English teachers would gain the top score for their pronunciation of English against the following benchmark: ‘the candidate’s accent bears no trace of his or her first language’. Fortunately, this has since been discarded as a benchmark, but represents an example of the type of benchmark that needs to be discarded from all assessment criteria, as it measures multilinguals against monolingual benchmarks. Apart from being unfair, such benchmarks are also inappropriate in the ASEAN context. ASEAN, in consultation with the South East Asian Ministers of Education organisation (SEAMEO), could consider establishing a regional team to look into the establishment of assessment benchmarks for both teachers and students. The publication of an ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook (www.asean. org/storage/images/2012/publications/ASEAN%20Curriculum%20Sourcebook_FINAL. pdf ) is a good start, but the materials and ideas within the Sourcebook will only be adopted once relevant and appropriate assessment criteria are developed. In the concluding section, I turn to issues and challenges facing the growth of the role of English as a lingua franca in ASEAN.
Issues and challenges The fact that English has been made the sole working language of ASEAN has led, not unnaturally, to an increased pressure to learn English in government schools throughout ASEAN. Indeed, Indonesia is the only nation that has not made English a compulsory subject in primary school, but even there, English is the main foreign language learned and taught. In all the other nine nations, English is introduced in primary school and the trend is for it to be introduced earlier and earlier. In many counties (Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Myanmar) it is introduced from Grade 1. In Singapore, it is the medium of instruction for all subjects from Grade 1. Generally speaking, the trend is for the nations of ASEAN to promote only two languages in education, namely their respective national language and English. A notable exception to this is the Philippines, which has recently adopted a system of mother tongue-based multilingual education (MTB MLE) whereby 19 of the Philippines’ 180 or so languages are now to be taught as media of instruction for the first three years of primary school. This represents a significant turn-around from the earlier Bilingual Education Policy (BEP), which saw Filipino and English as the two languages of education, with English being used to teach maths and science from Grade 1 and Filipino for the other subjects. Malaysia has also recently reversed its policy of teaching maths and science through English from Grade 1 and has re-introduced Malay as the medium of instruction for these subjects (Gill 2012). Generally speaking, the trend is clear, however. English is being introduced earlier and earlier into the primary curriculum, usually at the expense of local languages. As an Indonesian scholar lamented: 146
The development of ELF in ASEAN
with (the) emerging and mushrooming demand for English, schools then drop the local language in order to give more time to the English teaching. As a result, in the long run, children and the younger generation can no longer speak the local language. This is culturally and linguistically pitiful. (Hadisantosa 2010: 31) A great advantage of the lingua franca approach to the teaching of English in ASEAN is that English can be delayed until at least the later years of primary school, if not early secondary. The usual advantage of starting to learn a second language before puberty is that it allows the learner to develop a more native-like accent. But this advantage no longer has any relevance, as learners will be acquiring a multilingual model, dependent upon their multilingual backgrounds. At the same time, the idea that the earlier the better applies to language learning has regularly been challenged by scholars (e.g. Benson 2008). The earlier the better may well be true for natural language learning environments, but classrooms are not natural language learning environments (Cenoz 2009). The linguistic diversity of ASEAN could be maintained, at least to some extent, if primary schools were to focus on local languages (preferably, where practical, the learner’s mother tongue and the respective national language). The model of allowing the primary curriculum to focus on local languages and only introducing English at secondary would result in a win-win situation with learners developing a multilingual repertoire that included a local language, the respective national language and English. At present, as evidenced by the constant ‘discourse of despair’ emanating from Ministries of Education throughout the region, children are not learning English to any functional level. More importantly, many are dropping out of school, often around Grade 5, and a major reason for this is that they are being taught in languages they do not understand (UNESCO 2007). The dominance of English as a language of education can also be seen at tertiary level. An increasing number of universities through the region (and in this, these universities are following a world-wide trend (Dearden 2014)) are offering programmes and courses taught through English. In many cases, this adoption of EMI is causing serious problems for both staff and students. To take one example, in Myanmar the current language policy prescribes English as the medium of instruction within all institutes of higher education. This is despite a severe shortage of teachers who have adequate proficiency to teach English, let alone content subjects in English. As a recent report showed, the English language (EL) proficiency levels among EL teachers indicated that many were at AO on the CEFR scales (which is to say they spoke no English at all), with the majority at A1/A2 (Khaing 2016). A third study, which spanned several universities in Myanmar, investigated staff and student attitudes over the use of EMI. The findings showed an overwhelming response (more than 90 per cent) in favour of the use of Burmese alongside English as a language of instruction (Thant 2016), as neither staff nor students were able to teach or learn if English was the only language used, as their proficiency levels were not adequate. A potential solution to this challenge is to view English as a lingua franca and see it within a framework of multilingualism. It should be taught as a lingua franca, following the principles outlined above. In the context of higher education, this would mean that the ‘E’ of EMI would be classified as English as a lingua franca, not as a native-speaker variety. It would also mean that English does not mean English alone. The use of the local language as a language of scholarship and education needs to be encouraged. Students and staff should be encouraged to use languages other than English. This would be particularly beneficial for students who could use their first languages in preparing a task or assignment, although the final product would need to be in English. The ability to use the first language in preparing 147
Andy Kirkpatrick
an assignment in a second language has been found to increase the level of complexity and sophistication of the final product (Behan, Turnbull and Spek 1997). Setting English within a multilingual frame would also mean that students should be encouraged to consult readings and sources in languages that they know, not just those written in English. In short, EMI should be framed in such a way that encourages staff and students to use their own linguistic resources so they do not come to overlook or look down on their own languages as languages of education and scholarship.
Conclusion In this chapter I have briefly traced the development of English as a lingua franca in ASEAN and illustrated how multilingual ASEAN users of English are shaping English in a number of ways. I have also proposed a set of principles for adopting a lingua franca approach to the teaching of English, which take into account this new role of English as a lingua franca across ASEAN, especially given its status as the sole working language of the group. I have then warned how the increasing role of English is threatening local languages in a number of domains and have thus suggested that (1) English can be delayed until secondary school to allow primary schools to focus on local languages, including the respective national language; and (2) the adoption of EMI in higher education should be done within a multilingual framework. In this way, English may indeed help to draw the diverse communities of ASEAN closer together and help forge an ASEAN identity, as hoped by the current Secretary General.
Note 1 Originally published in Kirkpatrick (2012).
Further reading Deterding, D. (2013). Misunderstandings in English as a lingua franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: a multilingual model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kirkpatrick, A. and Sussex, R. (eds) (2012). English as an international language in Asia. Dordrecht: Springer.
References ASEAN. (2013). Keynote address by H.E. Le Luong Minh, Secretary-General of ASEAN at the British Council Conference on ‘Educating the next generation of workforce: ASEAN perspectives on innovation, integration and English’. Bangkok, June 24, 2013. Archibald, A., Cogo, A. and Jenkins, J. (2011). (eds) Latest trends in ELF research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Baker, W. (2011) Culture and identity through ELF in Asia: fact or fiction? In A. Archibald, A. Cogo and J. Jenkins, eds, Latest trends in ELF research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp 35–51. Behan, L., Turnbull, M. and Spek, J. (1997). The proficiency gap in late French immersion: Language use in collaborative tasks. Le Journal de l’Immersion 20, pp. 41–44. Benson, C. (2008). Summary overview: Mother tongue-based education in multilingual contexts. In C. Haddad, ed., Improving the quality of mother tongue-based literacy and learning: case studies from Asia, Africa and South America. Bangkok: UNESCO, pp. 2–11. Breiteneder, A. (2009) English as a lingua franca in Europe: an empirical perspective. World Englishes 28 (2), pp. 256–269. 148
The development of ELF in ASEAN
Britain, D. (2007) Grammatical variation in England. In D. Britain, ed., Language in the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 75–104. Chambers, J.K. (2004) Dynamic typology and vernacular universals. In B. Kortmann, ed., Dialectology meets typology: dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 124–45. Cenoz, J. (2009). Towards multilingual education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Clayton, T. (2006). Language choice in a nation under transition: English language spread in Cambodia. Boston, MA: Springer. Crystal, D. (2004) The stories of English. London: Allen Lane. Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction: a growing phenomenon. London: British Council. Deldridge, A. (1999) Standard Australian English. World Englishes 18 (2), pp. 259–70. Deterding, D. (2013). Misunderstandings in English as a lingua franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Deterding, D. and Kirkpatrick, A. (2006) Emerging Asian Englishes and intelligibility. World Englishes 25 (3/4), pp. 391–410. Firth, A, (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 26, pp. 237–259. Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: a global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Gill, S. (2012). The complexities of re-reversal of language-in-education policy in Malaysia. In A. Kirkpatrick and R. Sussex, eds, English as an international language in Asia. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 45–62. Green, L.J. (2002) African American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gut, U. (2009). Past tense marking in Singapore English. English World-Wide 30 (2), pp. 262–277 Hadisantosa, N. (2010). Insights from Indonesia. In R. Johnstone, ed., Learning through English: policies, challenges and prospects, London: British Council, pp. 24–46. Hall, C.J., Schmidtke, D. and Vickers, J. (2013). Countability in World Englishes. World Englishes 32 (1), pp. 1–22. Harkins, J. (2000). Structure and meaning in Australian Aboriginal discourse. Asian Englishes 3 (2), pp. 60–81. Hickey, R. (2010). The handbook of language contact. London: Routledge. House, J. (2006). Unity in diversity: English as a lingua franca in Europe. In C. Leung and J. Jenkins, eds, Reconfiguring Europe. London: Equinox, pp. 87–104. Hundt, M., Hoffmann, S. and Mukherjee, J. (2012). The hypothetical subjunctive in South Asian Englishes: Local developments in the use of a global construction. English World-Wide 33 (2), pp. 147–164. Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a lingua franca in the international university. London: Routledge. Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments into research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching 44 (3), pp. 281–315. Jenks, C. (2012). Doing being reprehensive: some interactional features of English as a lingua franca in a chat room. Applied Linguistics 33 (4), pp. 386–405. Khaing P.H. (2016). EMI in Myanmar. Paper given at the Conference on Language Policy in Multicultural and Multilingual Settings, Mandalay, 8–11 Feb Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World englishes: implications for international understanding and ELT. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: a multilingual model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kirkpatrick, A. (2012) English as an Asian lingua franca: the lingua franca approach and implications for language education policy. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1 (1), pp. 121–140. Kirkpatrick, A. (2015). Teaching English in non-Anglo cultural contexts: principles of the lingua franca approach. In R. Marlina and R. Giri, eds, The pedagogy of English as an international language, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 23–34. Kirkpatrick, A. and McLellan, J. (2012). World Englishes, English as a lingua franca and discourse analysis. In M. Handford and J.P. Gee, eds, The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 654–669. Kirkpatrick, A., Patkin, J. and Wu, J. (2013). The multilingual teacher and the multilingual curriculum: An Asian example of intercultural communication in the new era. In F. Sharifian and M. Jamarami, eds, Intercultural communication in the new era. London: Routledge, pp. 263–285. 149
Andy Kirkpatrick
Kirkpatrick, A. and Subhan, S. (2014). Non-standard or new standards or errors? The use of inflectional marking for present and past tenses in English as an Asian lingua franca. In S. Buschfeld, T. Hoffman, M. Huber and A. Kautsch, eds, The evolution of Englishes, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 386–400. Kirkpatrick, A., Walkinshaw, W. and Subhan, S. (2016). English as a lingua franca in East and Southeast Asia: implications for diplomatic and intercultural communication. In P. Friedrich, ed., English for diplomatic purposes, Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 137–166. Kortmann, B. and Szmrecsanyi, B. (2004). Global synopsis: morphological and syntactic variation in English. In B. Kortmann, K. Burridge, R. Meshtrie, E. Schneider and C. Upton, eds, A handbook of varieties of English, vol. 2, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp 1122–1182. Lim, L. and Gisbourne, N. (2009). The typology of Asian English. English World-Wide 30 (2), pp. 123–132. Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: language, ideology and discrimination in the United States. London: Routledge. Littlewood, W. and Yu, B. (2009). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teacher 42, pp. 1–14. McKay, S.L. (2009) Pragmatics and EIL pedagogy. In F. Sharifian, ed., English as an international language. Bristol: Multilingual matters, pp. 227–253. McLellan, J. (2010) Mixed codes or varieties of English? In A. Kirkpatrick, ed., The Routledge handbook of World Englishes. London: Routledge, pp. 425–441. Matthews, S. (2010). Language contact and Chinese. In R. Hickey, ed., The Routledge handbook of language contact. London: Routledge, pp. 757–769. Mauranen, A. (2006). A rich domain of ELF: the ELFA corpus of academic discourse. Nordic Journal of English Studies 5 (2), pp. 145–159. Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meierkord, C. (2012). Interactions across Englishes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mufwene, S. (2008). Language evolution: contact, competition and change. New York: Continuum. Platt, J. (1991). Social and linguistic constraints on variation in the use of two grammatical variables in Singapore English, in J. Cheshire, ed., English around the world: sociolinguistic perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 376–387. Pitzl, M.-L. (2009). ‘We should not wake up any dogs’: idiom and metaphor in ELF. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta, eds, English as a lingua franca: studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 298–322. Okudaira, A. (1999) A study on international communication in regional organizations: the use of English as the ‘official’ language of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). Asian Englishes 2 (1) pp. 91–107. Ransom, W. (1987). The historical study of Australian English. In The Macquarie Dictionary, 2nd edn. Sydney: The Macquarie Library, pp. 37–42. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seoane, E. and Suarez-Gomez, C. (2013). The expression of the perfect in East and Southeast Asian Englishes. English World-wide 34 (1), pp. 1–25. Swain, M., Kirkpatrick, A. and Cummins, J. (2011). How to have a guilt-free life using Cantonese in the English class: a handbook for the English language teacher in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Research Centre into Language Acquisition and Education in Multilingual Societies, Hong Kong Institute of Education. Thant S.A, (2016) The role of Myanmar language and English as MoI to teach academic disciplines in higher education. Paper given at the Conference on Language Policy in Multicultural and Multilingual Settings, Mandalay, 8–11 Feb. Thomason, S. (2010). Contact explanations in linguistics, In R. Hickey, ed., The Routledge handbook of language contact, London: Routledge, pp. 31–47. Thompson, R.T. (2003) Filipino English and Taglish: language switching from multiple perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. UNESCO (2007) Education for all by 2015. Will we make it? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at http://unescdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001547/15473e.pdf (accessed 19 February 2016). Van Rooy, B. (2013). Corpus linguistic work on Black South African English. English Today, 29, pp. 10–15. 150
12 Chinese English as a lingua franca An ideological inquiry Ying Wang
Introduction The momentum of the spread of English has brought to the fore the role of English as a global lingua franca used by and between speakers of different first languages (L1s), who are increasingly exposed to intercultural encounters due to the on-going globalisation. While globalisation ‘forces sociolinguistics to unthink’ languages on the basis of boundaries (Blommaert 2010: 1), the research into English as a lingua franca (ELF) goes beyond territoriality and looks into multilingual and multicultural practices where English plays a crucial role in interaction (e.g. Jenkins 2015a; Mauranen 2012; Seidlhofer 2011). Geographical boundaries that were the cornerstone of sociolinguistic inquiry become irrelevant in the analysis of ELF data, which focuses on how ELF users exploit various resources available to them in order to cope with the international communication contexts in which they participate (e.g. Baker 2015; Cogo and Dewey 2012; Jenkins 2015a, 2015b; Seidlhofer 2011). This is in line with the scholarly interest in trans-lingual and trans-cultural turn in a wider sociolinguistic discipline. As Blommaert (2010) points out, globalisation has impacts on sociolinguistic issues and requires a perspective shift from language-in-place to language-in-motion. His view of language as a mobile resource resonates with the concept of ELF, which acknowledges the dynamics and adaptability of English in often transient multicultural encounters. The conception of ELF challenges the traditional link between language and geographical boundaries and draws scholarly attention to the practice of ELF in what Pennycook (2007) describes as ‘locality’. Correspondingly, the research into ELF supports the legitimacy of Englishes in intercultural practices, for example, business ELF and academic ELF. The shift to focus on ‘language as local practice’ (Pennycook 2007) thus offers ground for the understanding of the connection through ELF practice between speakers of different L1s, and points to the deterritorialisation of ELF (Seidlhofer 2011). The conceptual shift leaves us with an open question as to how to understand the connection between non-native English speakers who have shared L1 backgrounds and participate in respective intercultural communication where ELF is relevant for them. The lack of focus
151
Ying Wang
on this kind of connection can be ascribed to the assumptions that L1s are often tied to nation-states and that ELF is a contact language between speakers who do not share L1s. However, I argue that ELF as opposed to English as a foreign language (EFL) or a native language is relevant for non-native English speakers who need international communication, no matter whether they are grouped in terms of their L1s or not. Presumably, the connection between ELF speakers who have shared L1s – for instance, Chinese speakers of ELF – should not become invalid when they stop mutual communication between themselves and turn to use English as a contact language to engage in their respective encounters of speakers who do not share their L1s. In addition, the link between speakers of shared L1 backgrounds who engage in respective encounters through ELF with those who do not share their L1s needs to be investigated rather than simply rebutted. My interest in the link between ELF users who have shared L1s find its support in Mauranen’s (2012) differentiation between mutual and parallel interactions when she discusses the impacts of L1s on ELF users’ Englishes. She takes ‘Finglish’, for example, and points out that Finnish speakers are distributed among parallel ELF encounters and engage with speakers of other L1s by drawing on Finnish speakers’ shared repertoire. As she notes, while ‘speakers of Finnish . . . have no reason to talk to each other in English’, ‘the shared features of “Finglish” result from many speakers having the same language combination in their repertoire, and thereby similar transfer from their first language’ (Mauranen 2012: 29). The notion of parallel interaction implies the connection among ELF users who have shared L1s. While there has been fruitful research on how ELF users who do not share L1s engage with each other, not much has been explored as to whether ELF speakers who share L1s engage with the connection among them, and if yes, how. These questions have been occupying my mind for a long time, given my concern for the link between English and Chinese speakers who are from China. English has a long history – according to Bolton (2003), Chinese contact with English started in 1637 along with the arrival of British mercantile ships in Canton – and phenomenal existence in China with a large population involved in the use and learning of English – as Jenkins (2015b) notes, the English-speaking population is around 430 million in China. Thus, the inquiry into the legitimacy of Chinese speakers’ English in an updated context not only has implications for English education in China but also shed lights on the understanding of the global communicative order. The debates on the influence of L1s on ELF use seem to suggest that the notion of nation associated with L1 cannot be simply ignored. The deterritorialisation of ELF, however, breaks the link between language and nation. There is thus a conceptual paradox in considering Chinese speakers’ ELF in association with China. This chapter looks into this conceptual paradox by addressing the questions about the connection between ELF speakers in parallel engagements as opposed to mutual engagements, with a focus on Chinese users of ELF from China. It proceeds from the discussion of different approaches to English in relation to China so as to contextualise the grouping of Chinese speakers on the basis of their contact with English. Then it considers the grouping of Chinese ELF users by comparing different concepts of communities and presents empirical data as to how Chinese ELF users engage with the connection among themselves. The chapter concludes with the argument that Chinese speakers’ own English as a lingua franca is not defined in linguistic terms but in ideological terms, with the notion of China having implications for an imagined community of Chinese ELF speakers. This chapter thus sheds lights on the grouping of ELF users in terms of their L1s.
152
Chinese English as a lingua franca
English and China Since its emergence in the Chinese scene, English has served as a language that enables Chinese speakers’ communication with foreigners. The development of English in China has led to four main research strands. The first strand is associated with Chinese pidgin English. In their early contact with English dating back to 1637, Chinese speakers learned English for the purpose of communicating with those who came to China for business, missionary service and colony rule (Bolton 2003; Eames 1974). As William (1836: 429) observes, everywhere else it is expected that time will be devoted to the acquisition of the language of the country by strangers ... But here, the case is exactly the reverse. Foreigners have for ages come to China from different lands for trade, and still all communication is carried on in a foreign tongue. Given that pidgin English was easy to learn, there was an expansion of its use across social classes to enable language contact between Chinese and foreigners (Hall 1944). The rise of formal English education went along with the decline of Chinese pidgin English, leaving the use of pidgin English with Chinese speakers at the lower end of the social hierarchy. Thus, there developed a contempt for Chinese pidgin English (Bolton 2003; Reinecke 1938). As Reinecke (1938: 112) points out, since the diffusion of true English among all classes of the Chinese ports, the Pidgin is clung to only by some die-hard foreigners accustomed to use it talking down to their servants, and its use is resented even by houseboys. The second strand echoes a predominant pursuit of ‘correct’ English in China. The development of English education in China have been geared towards the approximation of native English speaker competence, despite various reforms on English education. With the reference to native English, Chinese speakers’ English is often stigmatised as learner English, which is labelled with Chinglish and Chinese English (Hu 2004; Jiang 1995). As Henry (2010) points out, this view finds its support in the theory of interlanguage (Selinker 1972), a cornerstone of traditional second language acquisition (SLA) research, which emphasises the notions of authenticity and correctness of English, as well as the ownership of English by native English speakers exclusively. In this line, an initiative is to identify Chinese speakers’ gaps in learning and using native speakers’ English so as to help to narrow the gaps or to avoid the so-called errors (e.g. Jiang 1995; Yip 1995). The third strand features heated debates on Chinese variety of English (e.g. Hu 2004; Kirpatrick and Xu 2002). There emerged the need for expressions of unique Chinese cultural ideas, which cannot be fulfilled with ‘authentic’ English. At the same time, the influence of the World Englishes (WE) paradigm expanded to China when scholars started to consider Chinese speakers’ own English by drawing upon WE theories (Bolton 2003; Han 2007; He and Li 2009; Kirkpatrick and Xu 2002). Initiated from translation studies, the term of ‘China English’ was proposed to call for the usage of English that reflects the uniqueness of Chinese cultural ideas, so as to differentiate from Chinese English, a term that is often associated with Chinese learner English (Hu 2004). However, the World Englishes paradigm has its focuses on English varieties used by speakers who share their first languages for the purpose of
153
Ying Wang
intranational communication. In this sense, the relevance of Chinese variety of English and the suitability of using the term ‘China English’ for the understanding of English used by Chinese speakers for the purpose of intercultural communication today are to be questioned. In the fourth strand, researchers consider the legitimacy of Chinese speakers’ own English in intercultural communication. The strand takes shape in the twenty-first century, which contextualises the growing involvement of Chinese speakers in intercultural communication and the widening engagement of Chinese speakers with other speakers from various L1 backgrounds. That is, the role of ELF is becoming increasingly prominent for Chinese speakers and for China. Li Wei (2016) argues that Chinglish should be reconsidered in the new context where Chinese speakers are situated today. He uses examples of ‘new Chinglish’ to illustrate how Chinese speakers engage in translanguaging skills, that is, they draw on their entire multilingual repertoire in order to communicate successfully in intercultural interactions. Correspondingly, researchers have started to consider Chinese speakers’ own English within the framework of ELF (e.g. Fang 2015; Wang 2012, 2013, 2016). In Wang’s (2012) work, Chinese speakers’ English used for intercultural communication is considered as Chinese ELF (ChELF). She argues that ChELF is developing its legitimacy in Chinese speakers’ perceptual space and that this contributes to the diversity of English in intercultural discourse. In short, the long history of English in China and the widespread relevance of English for Chinese speakers have motivated unremitting efforts in exploring the link between Chinese speakers and English. The four strands surface different perspectives on Chinese speakers’ ownership of English and point to the inquiry into what English means for Chinese speakers in collective terms. Nonetheless, while ELF research lends support to the grouping of ELF users in terms of their mutual engagement, how Chinese speakers of ELF can be grouped together to support the legitimacy of Chinese speakers’ own ELF needs to be considered. This leads to the discussion of community, which is a key element in considering language legitimacy (e.g. Wang 2012).
Community and ELF The notion of community is central to the understanding of how language works, develops and changes in real-life situations and how language interacts with various factors in social contexts (Wardhaugh and Fuller 2015). It is thus a key conceptual issue in ELF research (Ehrenreich 2009; Mauranen 2012; Seidlhofer 2011), which looks at the unprecedented sociolinguistic phenomenon that English is used as a global lingua franca by people who are from different first-language backgrounds. The notion of community basically concerns the grouping of people and demarcates members from non-members. A conventional way of grouping language speakers for the purpose of investigating language issues points to the concept of speech community, adopting geographical and/or social boundaries to study idealised homogeneous language groups (e.g. Labov 2006). The investigation of Englishes in NES countries and WE contexts follows this line and reveals how English is locally developed to suit the needs and wants in various speech communities and evolves into localised varieties closely tied to locally defined boundaries. However, speech communities are irrelevant for the research into ELF and unable to capture ELF as a phenomenon in intercultural settings that go beyond locally or physically defined boundaries. Given this, House (2003) proposes to adopt the concept of communities of practice (CoP), which is centered on ‘practice’ and detached from geographical boundaries. The proposed conception of community is now well received 154
Chinese English as a lingua franca
as the mainstay of ELF research (e.g. Ehrenreich 2009; Jenkins 2007; Seidlhofer 2011). With membership emerging in joint engagement, communities take into shape because of what people do rather than where people are (from). This concept provides theoretical support for ELF in its own right. ELF speakers are acknowledged as active co-constructors of CoPs, where ELF speakers negotiate to achieve common ground showing their patterns of language use and project their identities through ELF as the medium of communication. Nonetheless, CoPs are not without limitations, as criticised in Ehrenreich (2009, Chapter 3 this volume). This paper argues that the focus on mutual engagement in the concept of CoPs does not leave the space for the understanding of ELF speakers who are from the same L1 backgrounds and is thus not appropriate for the investigation into Chinese ELF speakers. Some scholars consider the concept of ‘imagined communities’ as also relevant to ELF users (e.g. Jenkins 2011, 2014; Mauranen 2012; Wang 2015). This concept comes from Anderson’s (2006) work on nationalism. He argues that a nation is ‘an imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign’, while community members do not necessarily meet each other or even know each other (Anderson 2006: 6). For him, ‘communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined’ (Anderson 2006: 6). To put it differently, membership emerges in imagination and communities take shape in imagination. This concept emphasises ‘imaginedness’ and highlights the ideological dimension of community and membership. What follows discusses the concept of imagined community in detail in order to identify its relevance to the grouping of Chinese ELF speakers, which leads to the conception of an imagined community of Chinese ELF. First, it is not oriented towards ‘physical’ but ‘psychological’ spaces (Jenkins 2011, 2014: 37; Mauranen 2012: 18). This differentiates itself from both speech communities and CoPs. In terms of both speech communities and CoPs, scholars define what makes a community with the focus on what community members speak and do. As for imagined communities, what community members think makes a community makes a community. The concept of imagined communities sets no limitation on space in physical terms, with its analogy to the irrelevance of physical locations for ELF speakers’ intercultural encounters. Clearly, the focus on psychological spaces also opens up the possibility of going beyond time frames and drawing links between the past, the present and the future. While not much discussion has been conducted in the research into ELF, a few studies on language learner identity (e.g. Kanno and Norton 2003; Norton 2000; Norton and Kamal 2003) have provided references in this respect. For example, in Norton and Kamal’s (2003) study, an imagined community has a ‘future’ dimension, which captures the future relations among community members and relates to the present thinking about the future. Thus imagined communities ‘extend both spatially and temporally’ (Kanno and Norton 2003) and overcome the constraints that physically defined communities have. Second, the notion of imagined community is not based on communication but communion. In the traditional sense, a community is ‘a local unit, characterised for its members by common locality and primary interaction’ (Hymes 1962: 30). By contrast, in ‘imagined communities’, community members do not necessarily meet each other or even know each other but they conceive ‘a deep, horizontal comradeship’ (Anderson 2006: 7). The decentering of ‘primary interaction’ in the conceptualisation of community is relevant to ELF speakers who do not necessarily communicate with each other (Mauranen 2012). This creates the space for what Mauranen (2012) defines as ‘similects’, that is, L1-influenced L2 lects that L1 speakers use in paralleling engagement with speakers of different L1s. In addition, the focus on communion draws attention to the study of what draws members together. 155
Ying Wang
In Anderson’s (2006) discussion of nation as an imagined community, comradeship is core to community, with an emphasis on emotional attachment to the imagined affinity and ‘cultural roots’ as fundamental adhesives. This differentiates imagined communities from speech communities, which are defined with the focus on language use, and CoPs, which are defined with the focus on practice. With ‘comradeship’ at the core of ‘imagined communities’, how community members draw boundaries concerns who they believe are in comradeship with them and who they do not. That is to say, drawing boundaries is not a top-down process related to political decisions or foreign policies. This aligns with the case of ELF where ‘the choice of language has developed through a kind of evolutionary process’ (Mauranen 2012: 23), that is, ELF is a natural choice of medium for international communication due to the needs and wants of speakers from different first-language backgrounds. Considering the applicability of imagined communities for ELF, Jenkins (2014: 37) makes a point that virtual affinity can be found in shared non-nativeness among ELF speakers and she further hypothesises that ‘there may be a feeling of virtual bonds among ELF speakers around the world, or among a particular sub-section of them, for example fellow East Asian ELF speakers’. While the hypothesis is yet to be verified in empirical data, research shows that ELF speakers from the same cultural backgrounds have attachment to their cultural roots in their use of English. For example, Chinese ELF users are willing to express ‘Chinese-ness’ in their use of ELF (Wang 2012). This resembles to some extent Anderson’s argument that cultural roots are adhesives that draw members together in their mental spaces. Third, members of imagined communities draw ‘limited’ or ‘finite’ boundaries in their imagination rather than regard the entire human race as belonging to the same nation (Anderson 2006). While physical localities are often irrelevant to ELF research (see Seidlhofer 2011), it is impossible to assume ELF speakers constitute a single and homogeneous global community (Ehrenreich 2009; Mauranen 2012). Mauranen (2012: 23) sees academia as an important domain for ELF research and argues that ‘academia as a whole is an imagined community’. The boundary is drawn between academic and nonacademic ELF users. Ehrenreich (2009) draws a line between language-focused and content-focused CoPs. While communities of ELF-speaking business professionals are often found to be content-focused and be relaxed with linguistic accuracy (e.g. Ehrenreich 2009, 2011; Kankaanranta and Planken 2010), language accuracy and the conformity to native English speakers’ English continue to be the focus of English language teaching industry (Jenkins 2012). In Wang’s (2012) study, a line is drawn between Chinese ELF users and non-Chinese ELF users who are considered as co-players in global communities of practice. She sees Chinese ELF users as a Chinese ELF community whose members are engaging in paralleling global communities of practice. For her, what makes a Chinese ELF community lies in Chinese ELF users’ identification with what she hypothesised as a Chinese ELF community. To put differently, the issue is whether Chinese ELF users conceive of themselves as members of a community co-constructed by them (Wang 2012). In short, boundaries beyond a geographical basis are necessary to suit different research interests in relation to ELF. Fourth, the concept of ‘imagined communities’ accepts independence and autonomy as an integral feature of communities. The political agendas surrounding a nation’s sovereignty have some resemblances to the agendas of ELF research, which is centered on ELF users’ legitimacy of using Englishes that do not conform to native English speakers’ English. The notion of sovereignty, as originated in the time of Enlightenment and Revolution shattering hierarchical structure of religions, implies an independent status, the call for pluralism as well as the dream for freedom (Anderson 2006). As for the case of ELF, ELF speakers adapt 156
Chinese English as a lingua franca
English to suit their purposes and accommodate to the situations where they use English, which results in the difference between ELF and English as a native language. Given the global spread of English, the ownership of English has expanded beyond native English speakers, who are traditionally conceived as custody of English (Widdowson 1994). While native English speakers’ authority in English is challenged and to be challenged (Wang 2016), ELF speakers’ acceptance of their own way of using ELF is key to the construction of their communities. In short, a nation’s pursuit for independent status in the world system has resemblance to the call for the global ownership of English, which concerns ELF speakers’ legitimacy in their autonomous use of English. In short, the concept of ‘imagined communities’ allows for an extended research scope of ELF with the focus on ELF users’ decision on who they would like to align with. In this imagined affinity, ELF users have legitimacy of using English in the way that they consider as appropriate for their purpose of communicating with each other. Importantly, understanding the imagined affinity requires perspectives from ELF users. This leads to my investigation into Chinese ELF users’ perspective as to whether they see connection with each other and, if yes, how. The data as presented below shows that an imagined Chinese ELF community is emerging in Chinese ELF users’ mental space and offers space for the development of legitimacy of Chinese speakers’ own way of using ELF.
An imagined Chinese ELF community The data comes from a three-year research project on Chinese speakers’ perceptions of their English in intercultural communication (Wang 2012). This includes questionnaire responses made by 502 university students and 267 professionals whose work involved frequent contact with non-Chinese professionals, as well as interviews with 24 university students and 11 professionals among those questionnaire respondents. Questionnaire responses present us with rich information regarding imagined affinity, imagined boundary, emotional attachment to Chinese cultural roots, and endonormativity. Interviews not only confirm these aspects but also allow for the understanding of how the participants perceive the future of Chinese speakers in international community. Necessarily, all these features are imagined with the role of English as a lingua franca that enables Chinese speakers to communicate with non-Chinese speakers. Affinity to an imagined global community An imagined affinity with a global community across different cultural backgrounds is evident in a few words that frequently occurred in the written responses to the five open questions in the questionnaire. A few buzz phrases are big global family (国际大家庭), global village (地球村), and world citizen (世界公民). Interestingly, many respondents conceive of the affinity as if it is in the process of developing. They use phrases such as globalisation (全球化), internationalisation (国际化) and going global (走向世界) in their comments on the status and the role of English in the contexts that are relevant to them. For example, If hoping to become a world citizen, you should master this lingua franca. [English is] a tool for information exchange in globalisation and for integration [into the global community]. (Questionnaire response) 157
Ying Wang
The responses present an aspiration for global community membership and emphasise the role of English in the affiliation with an imagined global community that goes beyond the boundary of China. An imagined boundary within an imagined global community Questionnaire responses reveal a perceived multiplicity of identities constructed in Chinese ELF use. Chinese speakers are perceived as a collective whole and the ‘us–them’ relation exists between Chinese speakers and non-Chinese speakers within the imagined global community. There is a hierarchy of ELF speaking groups, with individual Chinese speakers of English at the lower end, overall Chinese speakers of English in the middle and the global community at the higher end. The role of English in establishing the relations is made explicit. That is, English is necessary for the integration (融入) into, merging (融合) with, and connection (接轨) to a global community. For example, As a member of the international family, [we] need the competence to get integrated with the most part of the globe. Popularising communicative competence in English will greatly promote the mutual understanding between us and the outside world. (Questionnaire response) This written response constructs multiple identities of Chinese ELF speakers, with Chinese speakers’ collective identity perceived in the reference to ‘a member of the international family’. The respondent talks about the benefit of ‘popularising communicative competence’ and implies that he has the benefit of Chinese speakers as a whole in mind. A boundary is drawn between ‘us’ as insiders and others as outsiders. The boundary arises in questionnaire respondents’ imagination and converges with the geopolitical boundary of China. Ideas about Chinese speakers’ use of English are often related to China’s engagement in the global community. For example, Chinese economy will be integrated into the world economy. It won’t close itself off. To some extent, the ability of speaking English will show that you are an international person, well educated, etc. (Questionnaire response) In this written response, a link is established among individual Chinese speakers, China and the global community in the respondent’s perceptual space. While English is regarded as a key to the crystallisation of this link, the affinity with China links Chinese speakers together who have a joint enterprise, that is, China’s economic development. A boundary is drawn between Chinese ELF speakers and other speakers of ELF in the global community. Emotional attachment to Chinese cultural roots According to questionnaire analysis, Chinese speakers are to some extent proud of Chinese culture and expect some cultural continuity in their use of English. The cultural continuity is not only meaningful for Chinese speakers’ own sake but also valuable for the development of English in the wider international community. Thus there reveals a sense of resistance to be assimilated with the ‘pure’ English. 158
Chinese English as a lingua franca
Chinese language has its history for over two thousand years. What is associated with this language is its culture. For English to be developed into a real ‘world language’, I find it helpful to incorporate [a] sort of Chinese way of using language. (Questionnaire response) Apart from positivity for Chinese cultural continuity in the usage of English, it is common to find responses that restrict Chinese speakers’ own way of using English to the purpose of entertaining themselves. For example, Chinglish represents Chinese speakers’ sense of humour. For this reason, I often collect such use of English for the purpose of fun. However, I will avoid such use of English in the encounter with foreigners. (Questionnaire response) It is well accepted that humour is a matter of culture. For example, Jenkins (2014: 176) reports a comment by one of her research participants that ‘the laughing point is different’ in the jokes of British and non-British speakers of English. The questionnaire response illustrated above recognises a positive side of Chinglish, which is presumably bad English or awkward English produced by Chinese speakers (Hu 2004; cf. Li 2016). It highlights the value of Chinese speakers’ English in generating humour by bringing in personal experience. It sets a boundary as to who can appreciate the humour generated through Chinglish by indicating that Chinese speakers’ own way of generating humour is not suitable for intercultural communication. This response shows a paradox between Chinese speakers’ collective identity and their engagement with international community. Endonormativity Endonormativity in terms of English might be considered as equivalent to ‘sovereignty’ in terms of politics. The questionnaire data shows a divided view of endonormativity. In positive terms, some respondents claim the linguistic rights of Chinese speakers as an entire group and argue for Chinese speakers’ endonormative use of English. For example, I think Chinese people should have our own English and our own norms. (Questionnaire response) Some respondents draw attention to the pragmatic value of Chinese speakers’ English and makes a point to Chinese speakers’ own English as purpose-driven, as seen in the following written comments: [Chinese speakers] have their purpose of communicating ideas and [their English] is very practical. [Chinese speakers] use simplest words to express different ideas. Their English can be considered as practical. (Questionnaire response) An endonormative orientation to Chinese speakers’ English is also seen in some respondents’ speculation of language development. Those responses include comments on the influence of first languages on second-language acquisition. Interestingly, the speculation challenges 159
Ying Wang
a traditional pursuit for authentic English and converges with some scholars’ (e.g. Jenkins 2006; Mauranen 2012; Ranta 2009) proposal to reconsider first-language transfer in English as a second language. For example, People from any nations would have some difficulties in learning an additional language and inevitably be influenced by their first language. I think language involves development. As long as the language is intelligible, the language is acceptable. It is unnecessary to emphasise the authenticity and the standardisation. (Questionnaire response) The terms describe a kind of English with Chinese characteristics, which I think can be developed. Language itself involves integration and flexibility. Communication comes first. (Questionnaire response) To be fair, some written responses point to an exonormative orientation by associating L1 Chinese transfer with negative description. For instance, Sinocised English, [which is] disqualified English. [They are] a kind of English representing Chinese way of thinking and featuring Chinese accent, [that is,] unintelligible English. (Questionnaire response) The diverging orientations suggest a great controversy among questionnaire respondents on the legitimacy of Chinese speakers’ English. The data reiterates Wang’s (2012, 2013) discussion that endonormativity is a thorny issue for Chinese speakers in conceptualising their own English, conflicting with exonormativity in Chinese speakers’ mental space. An imagined future In Norton and Kamal’s (2003) work, what community members hope for and foresee for the future makes an important dimension of language learners’ imagined identity. In the same vein, the data retrieved in this study presents a picture of an imagined future for Chinese ELF speakers. First, the data reveal a hope that endonormativity of Chinese speakers of English will be accepted by an imagined international community. Chinese speakers are perceived as an entire group and simultaneously an imagined member community contributing to an imagined international community. Interview participants talk about these two types of communities spontaneously in making comments on the role and status of English. Liting, for example, makes comments on the legitimation of Chinese speakers’ own English, when she was invited to make comments on the questionnaire at the beginning of the interview. Interviewer: Do you have any ideas about or comments on the questionnaire? Liting: You see, now there is American English, British English, hmm, I mean there are many kinds of English. Our Chinese speakers’ English should also be acknowledged. Its status should be raised. Hmm, I feel proud. I mean, if it is accepted by international society, as a Chinese speaker, I will have a sense of national pride. (Interview with a university student) 160
Chinese English as a lingua franca
Liting overtly expresses her thoughts about the link among Chinese speakers’ English, international community and nationalism. In her view, Chinese speakers’ English is related to ‘national pride’. The possessive pronoun our implies a sense of ownership of English. Simultaneously, she regards ‘international society’ as superordinate to the group of Chinese speakers. While she believes that the international community decides the legitimacy of Chinese speakers’ English, she vigorously speaks for the group of Chinese speakers that ‘our’ English ‘should’ be acknowledged. Second, a perceived value is given to Chinese speakers’ own English, with an emphasis on its contribution to the future making of English in an international community. Hewei, for instance, takes pride in Chinese culture, and considers the benefits of Chinese culture being embedded in Chinese speakers’ use of English and argues for Chinese speakers’ ownership in a subtle manner. By talking about the difference in ‘ideologies and cultures’ between Westerners and Easterners, he suggests that diversity would benefit the development of English. Hewei: Our Chinese culture actually, definitely it is profound and comprehensive. There’re a lot of things that foreigners don’t have in their cultures. If we involve it in our use of English, it helps to some extent the development of English. It will become more comprehensive, compatible with more ways of thinking. If so, I think, English will develop better into a language that integrates diversified ideas and contents. [English would] not only represent Westerners’ ideas, but also integrate with the Easterners’ ideologies and cultures. This will help English to develop into a more comprehensive internationalised language. (Interview with a university student) Third, the future of Chinese speakers’ own English in international communication is perceived as closely associated with the future of China in the world system. For example: Jun: […] in the future, if China’s influence increases, it [i.e. Chinese speakers’ English] would be welcome […] Because English, English involves a kind of standard [...] set by its providers. If the providers are powerful, definitely their standards will be promoted quickly; if the providers are not powerful enough, or we can say, if they have little discursive power, the standard will not be acknowledged by other countries, or others. It really depends on the discursive power, whether the country is powerful or not. (Interview with a businessman) Jun does not evaluate Chinese speakers’ English in itself but sees language as an issue of discursive power. When he talks about the future of Chinese speakers’ English, he relates it to the sociolinguistics of English in the global community. His view is made explicit that the legitimacy of Chinese speakers’ English depends on the position of China in the world system. That is, the future of Chinese speakers’ English is tied to the future of China. In turn, the endonormativity of Chinese speakers’ English is tied to the development of China. In a nutshell, the data presents how English, China and an imagined global community are mapped in the participants’ ideological space. Chinese speakers are seen as a member community contributing to an imagined global community. Where English is the link between an imagined Chinese community of ELF speakers and an imagined 161
Ying Wang
global community, there is a belief, among some participants, that Chinese speakers’ own English serves its function and a hope, among other participants, for the endonormativity of Chinese speakers’ own English to be developed and to be accepted by the imagined global community in the future.
Conclusion Previous research on ELF has challenged the tradition of evaluating ELF users’ Englishes with reference to established norms of English as provided by NESs, leading to the reconsideration of ELF users’ Englishes in their own right. The endeavour features a focus on deterritorialisation, with community being detached from national boundaries (Seidlhofer 2011). This chapter adds to the discussion on the issue of territoriality and the conceptualisation of community in the ELF research. The data suggests that an imagined ELF community is taking shape among Chinese ELF users with its endonormativity in developing. Their imagined Chinese ELF community seems to be a glocal space that serves as an interface between an imagined global community and an imagined Chinese community where Chinese culture and the national boundary are the glue that holds people together. The participants’ discussion of Chinese speakers’ own English is focused on the function of their English in intercultural communication, the link of their English with Chinese culture and national identity, as well as the aspiration for the acceptance of an imagined global community. In this sense, Chinese speakers’ own English is not defined in linguistic terms but in ideological terms, with the notion of China having implications for an imagined community of Chinese ELF speakers. The space for the myth of the NES ownership of English is shrinking to give way to a claim and an aspiration for an ownership of their own English by Chinese ELF speakers, which they negotiate with a respect for an imagined global community.
Related chapters in this handbook 1 Mauranen, Conceptualising ELF 3 Ehrenreich, Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca 11 Kirkpatrick, The development of English as a lingua franca in ASEAN
Further reading Lo Bianco, J., Orton, J. and Gao, Y. 2009. China and English: globalisation and the dilemmas of identity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Norton, B. 2013. Identity and language learning: extending the conversation. 2nd edn. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Pan, L. 2014. English as a global language in China: deconstructing the ideological discourses of English in English education. London: Springer.
References Anderson, B. 2006. Imagined communities. London and New York: Verso. Baker, W. 2015. Culture and identity through English as a lingua franca: rethinking concepts and goals in intercultural communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Blommaert, J. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 162
Chinese English as a lingua franca
Bolton, K. 2003. Chinese Englishes: a sociolinguistic history, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. 2012. Analyzing English as a lingua franca: a corpus-driven investigation. London and New York: Continuum. Eames, J.B. 1974. The English in China. London and New York: Curzon Press, Barnes & Nobel. Ehrenreich, S. 2009. English as a lingua franca in multinational corporations: exploring business communities of practice. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds) English as a lingua franca: studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 126–151. Ehrenreich, S. 2011. English as a business lingua franca in a German multinational corporation. Journal of Business Communication, 47, 408–431. Fang, F. 2015. An investigation of attitudes towards English accents at a Chinese university. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Southampton. Hall, R.A. 1944. Chinese pidgin English grammar and texts. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 64, 95–113. Han, L. 2007. ‘中国英语’研究现状分析 [Analyzing the current situation of ‘China English’ research]. 外语与外语教学 [Foreign languages and Their Teaching], 10, 28–32. He, D. and Li, D.C.S. 2009. Language attitudes and linguistic features in the ‘China English’ debate. World Engilshes, 28, 70–89. Henry, E.S. 2010. Interpretations of ‘Chinglish’: native speakers, language learners and the enregisterment of a stigmatised code. Language in Society, 39, 669–688. House, J. 2003. English as a lingua franca: a threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7, 556–578. Hu, X. 2004. Why China English should stand alongside British, American, and the other ‘World Englishes’. English Today, 20, 26–33. Hymes, D. 1962. The ethnography of speaking. In Gladwin, T. and Sturtevant, W.C. (eds) Anthropology and human behavior. Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington. Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. 2011. Accommodating (to) ELF in the international university. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 926–936. Jenkins, J. 2012. English as a lingua franca from the classroom to the classroom. ELT Journal, 66, 486–494. Jenkins, J. 2014. English as a lingua franca in the international university: the politics of academic English language policy. London and New York: Routledge. Jenkins, J. 2015a. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice, 2, 49–85. Jenkins, J. 2015b. Global Englishes. London and New York: Routledge. Jiang, Y. 1995. Chinglish and China English. English Today, 11, 51–53. Kanno, Y. and Norton, B. 2003. Imagined communities and education possibilities: Instruction. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 2, 241–249. Kankaanranta, A. and Planken, A. 2010. BELF competence as business knowledge of international operating business professionals. Journal of Business Communication, 47, 380–407. Kirkpatrick, A. and Xu, Z. 2002. Chinese pragmatic and ‘China English’. World Engilshes, 21, 269–279. Labov, W. 2006. The social stratification of English in New York city. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Li, W. 2016. New Chinglish and the post-multilingualism challenge: translanguaging ELF in China. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 5, 1–25. Mauranen, A. 2012. Exploring ELF: academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Norton, B. 2000. Identity and language learning: gender, ethnicity, and educational change, Harlow: Longman. Norton, B. and Kamal, F. 2003. The imagined communities of English language learners in a Pakistani school. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2, 301–317. Pennycook, A. 2007. Language as a local practice. London and New York: Routledge. Ranta, E. 2009. Syntactic features in spoken ELF: learner language or spoken grammar? In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds) English as a lingua franca: studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 84–106. Reinecke, J.E. 1938. Trade jargons and Creole dialects as marginal languages. Social Forces, 17, 107–118. 163
Ying Wang
Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Selinker, L. 1972, Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–231. Wang, Y. 2012. Chinese speakers’ perceptions of their English in intercultural communication. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Southampton. Wang, Y. 2013. Non-conformity to ENL norms: a perspective from Chinese English users. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2, 255–282. Wang, Y. 2015. Chinese university students’ ELF awareness: impacts of language education in China. Englishes in Practice, 2, 86–106. Wang, Y. 2016. Native English speakers’ authority in English. English Today, 32, 35–40. Wardhaugh, R. and Fuller, J.M. 2015. An introduction to sociolinguistics. 7th edn. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. Widdowson, H.G. 1994. The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 377–389. William, S.W. 1836. Jargon spoken at Canton. Chinese Repository, 4, 428–435. Yip, V. 1995. Interlanguage and learnability: from Chinese to English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
164
13 The status of ELF in Japan James F. D’Angelo
Introduction The chapter begins with background information on English language attitudes and education in the Japanese context, from a historical and present-day perspective. The second part of the chapter outlines the potential value of ELF-informed views to this context, in contrast to a more traditional native speakerist-informed paradigm—primarily in societal domains. The chapter then goes on to investigate actual efforts to document and describe ELF in Japan. It looks at several research-related initiatives, including work on the Japan component of the Asia Corpus of English (ACE) project led by D’Angelo, and work underway at Waseda University under the direction of K. Murata, and touches briefly on several ELT-related efforts, both at the institutional level, and by individual professors and practitioners. The chapter considers challenges that lie ahead regarding ELF in Japan, in an attempt to evaluate the long-term impact that ELF may have on the Japanese context, especially in light of likely demographic changes in Japan’s population composition and increasing need for English in various domains. The chapter closes with a conclusion, and suggestions for further reading.
Background on English In Japan This section provides a short introduction to historical and present-day attitudes towards English and English language education (henceforth ELT) in the Japanese context, especially with regard to how these attitudes may lend perspective to the relevance of English as a lingua franca (henceforth ELF) for Japan. English came to Japan sporadically during the era of exploration, but the major influence of English on the archipelago came with the opening of the country by Commodore Perry and his black ships at the beginning of the Meiji Era, in 1868. At this time Dutch was already influential, and German was widely studied for the purposes of medicine and science. Mori Arinori, the first Japanese ambassador to the United States (1871–1873) and later Minister of Education, proposed abandoning the Japanese language in favor of English, and was an
165
James F. D’Angelo
advocate of Westernization (Hall, 1973). In general, the Japanese are known for valuing authenticity and perfectionism—that there is a certain “correct” way of doing all things1— and this has extended to their privileging of native, “inner-circle” English varieties and a concomitant prescriptivist view of English: an entrenched influence that continues to this day (Reischauer 1995; Honna and Takeshita 1998; D’Angelo 2011). Since English education has been compulsory in Japan from seventh through twelfth grades since the early postwar era, and has been extended progressively into lower levels of elementary school since 2007 (first as an “activity”—not to be evaluated on the student’s report card), with it becoming a compulsory subject from fifth grade in 2011 (Guardian 2011), there has also long been an active ELT research community in Japan. For example, the bimonthly Japanese magazine Eigo Kyoiku (English Education), is in 2016 in its 65th volume, dating back to 1951! As a result, in spite of the mainly native orientation towards English, due to the widespread activities of the large research community one can find Japanese scholars working in every area of linguistics, applied linguistics, and English pedagogy. Japan was thus one of the first expanding-circle countries to be open to world Englishes (hereafter WE) and other pluralistic views of the English language which are precursors to the ELF paradigm. While the majority of Japanese scholars were influenced by mainstream cognitivist Second Language Acquisition Theory, those with an outward-looking attitude who attended international conferences and interacted with international scholars, inevitably became interested in variationist approaches to ELT. One of the first of these was Suzuki Takao (Suzuki 1973) who rejected placing America on a pedestal, and he was soon followed by Yasukata Yano, Sanzo Sakai, Nobuyuki Honna, Hiroshi Yoshikawa, Nobuyuki Hino, Aya Matsuda, Paul Matsuda, and others. Several of these scholars studied in the 1970s with English as an international language (henceforth EIL) founder Larry Smith at the East/West Center at the University of Hawaii/Manoa, and after his alignment with Braj Kachru in the mid-1980s, began to spread interest in WE in Japan.2 This chapter argues that having this key nucleus of WE/EIL/ELF-informed3 domestic scholars provides the support mechanism for further growth in ELF research and its application in the Japan context. Indeed, the majority of scholars who attended the World Englishes conference over the years are now regular attendees and presenters at the ELF conference.
Potential value of ELF-informed views for Japan Many of the central tenets of ELF are well-suited to the Japan context. As Japan is in the Kachruvian “expanding circle,” which includes countries that were never colonized by America or Britain, and where English has no official status and is used in comparatively few internal domains (i.e. media, government, judicial, education, commerce), there is less reason for claims of an indigenized variety of Japanese English (D’Angelo 2013), as there might be in Singapore, India or Nigeria. Since English is used to a very limited extent among Japanese when no non-Japanese are present, it is mainly used in situations in Japan that are multinational in nature, or in a wide range of overseas encounters. Thus rather than focus on documenting the features of Japanese English (or looking at outdated WE-informed concepts such as “international intelligibility,” which tends to look only at recorded one-way interaction, and mainly phonological aspects of communication), pluricentric-leaning scholars in Japan—those already having interest in WE—have for the past 10 years begun to show more interest in ELF as the most useful paradigm.
166
The status of ELF in Japan
ELF is centrally concerned with how users of English from different international backgrounds, each using their own idiolect of English, come together to negotiate meaning and accommodate to one another to reach mutual understanding. As Widdowson has said (2014), when ELF users interact, there is no common idiom, or no Gricean maxims that apply. As a result, the interlocutors are “languaging” or “idiomatizing” in a real-time fashion, developing a common idiom to reach common ground. Research findings have shown that ELF users are eager to meet their interlocutors halfway (even perhaps more than halfway!) and have a strong ability to comprehend and interpret the intentions of other ELF users—mainly nonnative speakers (NNS). Considering this reality, it doesn’t make sense to teach an American English model and an American idiom in Japan, since it is well documented that NNS outnumber NS today (Graddol, 2006; Crystal, 2007), and Japanese are more likely to come into contact with Chinese, Indians, Vietnamese and Germans than with Americans or Canadians. For Japanese, the key to proficiency in English is not having a high TOEFL or TOEIC score, but in developing a new kind of proficiency that draws on ELF and EIL as well. It is important to note, that whereas at one point EIL scholars drew a clear distinction between EIL and ELF, there is today less claim of fundamental differences between the concepts of EIL and ELF (Jenkins 2007, 2011). Matsuda, doing work primarily on Japan, was initially somewhat skeptical of ELF—as were other WE scholars who tended to place too much emphasis on ELF claims of the future development of LFE (Lingua Franca English) as a variety, rather than a function of language (Seidlhofer 2009). Yet more recently, Matsuda attended the ELF7 Conference in Athens, and was part of a panel devoted to ELF at the twenty-first IAWE Conference in Istanbul, organized by Turkish scholar Y. Bayyurt. This further strengthens the evidence that for expanding-circle scholars, ELF is the most relevant paradigm. While EIL may be considered to largely overlap with ELF, the EIL scholarly community currently has no conference or journal, so the acronym may be of decreasing currency in coming years. While in its early years ELF was mainly focused on syntactic usages of ELF-speakers (for example Breiteneder’s 2005 work on the “dropping” of the third-person singular “s”), it increasingly looks at cultural factors—which has been a more prominent focus in EIL work—as well. EIL scholar Sharifian (2009: 249) stresses that we each have our own “cultural conceptualizations,” and that “Intercultural, or meta-cultural, competence needs to be viewed as a core element of proficiency in English used for intercultural communication.” To over-rely on grammatical accuracy (based on NS norms), and to teach American or British pronunciation and culture, are to do a disservice to the real needs of Japanese ELF users. As Widdowson (2011, 2012) again points out, the speech and writing of most users of English around the world today will be filled with what he terms “non-conformities.”4 These are not errors per se, but forms of English that are influenced by a different reality from that of NS users. They have a different L1 and come from multilingual backgrounds. Their L1, their culture, their experiences will all contribute to a new idiom. The author’s own doctoral thesis supports the complexity of this reality (D’Angelo 2016). Forty-four graduates of the Chukyo University College of World Englishes (CWE), who graduated between 2006 and 2014, responded to a 27-item open-ended questionnaire, and confirmed that in their business and personal “transnational” interactions in English, they regularly come into contact with Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Singaporeans, Koreans, Chinese, Sri Lankans, Zambians, Germans, Brazilians, Italians, Australians, and Indonesians. They stress that grammatical accuracy is not vital, exposure to many varieties is essential, and that learning how to negotiate with people from other cultures in English is a crucial skill.
167
James F. D’Angelo
One student mentioned how hard it is, in her job with a major Japanese spark-plug manufacturer, to deal effectively with German and French customers. They are forceful, and she has needed to learn how to stand her ground with them. We live in an ELF-world today, and the sooner Japan recognizes this, the better.
Efforts to document, describe, and promote ELF in Japan ELF was originally developed as a paradigm by various scholars in Europe. While we are all familiar with the work of Jenkins, Seidlhofer, Mauranen, Cogo, Ehrenreich, Dewey, Pitzl, and others, as early as the mid-1990s scholars such as A. Firth (1996), Jenkins (1996) and Meierkord (1998) were beginning to use the term. At a panel that looked at ELF at the 2009 IAWE Conference in Cebu (the Philippines) the moderator, Kingsley Bolton (2010), suggested why this may have been so. He indicated that there was an attempt to “import” the WE paradigm to Europe in the 1990s and it didn’t fit the sociolinguistic context, where there was not significant need for intra-national use of English. At the same time, he pointed out that after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, it became much more difficult to get student visas in the US, and there was a shift in international students from the US, to the UK and across Europe. Other factors, including the increase in cross-border students brought about by establishment of the EU, and the increase in Chinese students around the world thanks to their government’s easing of travel restrictions in the early 2000s, may have further drawn attention to the need for research into ELF interaction. A similar phenomenon (on a smaller scale) occurred decades earlier for Larry Smith—first noticing Asians from 20 different countries interacting in English in Hawaii at the East/West Center—when first-hand exposure provided the impetus for his pioneering work on EIL. As the use of English spread further and further into various domains around the world, scholars in Asia also began to show interest in ELF. Kirkpatrick is perhaps the key player in this effort. Through his work in Australia and at the Hong Kong Institute of Education, he came into contact with Japanese scholar N. Honna, one of the leading proponents of a pluralistic/multicultural approach to English in Asia. Honna developed a wide range of contacts in the region among scholars in India, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Russia. He was also connected with important ELT-related organizations within Asia, such as RELC—the Regional Language Centre—set up by ASEAN’s Ministers of Education Group (known as SEAMEO) in Singapore, with the blessing of Lee Kuan Yew. RELC was, and remains, an important icon for a non-native-centric view of English for Asia—a confidence that an NNS context could provide expertise in English. Many early WE scholars such as Edwin Thumboo, M.L. Tickoo, Ho Wah Kim, and Anne Pakir provided a valuable forum with their contributions to the RELC Journal. Honna was prescient in many ways, in that while a proponent of World Englishes, his main focus has been on “English as a multicultural language” and he has served as past president of the IAICS—The International Association of Intercultural Communication Studies. Like Hino, who has always portrayed himself as an EIL scholar more than a WE scholar, Honna also foresaw that for Japan, a paradigm such as ELF is a model that more closely portrays the international/intercultural uses of English that are important to the Japan context. Kirkpatrick had majored in Chinese as an undergraduate, and his familiarity with Asia made him a logical choice to compile a corpus of English in Asia. The usefulness and prominence of the EU-focused VOICE project headed up by Seidlhofer at the University of
168
The status of ELF in Japan
Vienna led to a similar project for Asia (Kirkpatrick 2010). Originally entitled ELFiA (ELF in Asia), it was later renamed to “ACE”: the Asian Corpus of English. As is documented in other chapters in this volume, ACE is composed of groups who gathered data in 10 different Asian contexts, with 10 hours or recorded interaction from each context. Kirkpatrick asked the author of this chapter to head up the Japan component of the ACE corpus. The 10 hours of recording has been completed as of this writing, but ACE Japan lags behind the other contexts in that only roughly two hours of the recording have been transcribed. The ACE corpus itself came online in 2014, and is a valuable resource for scholars looking to research ELF across Asia. While the Japan component still needs much work to be brought online, there are fortunately Japanese participants in the recordings from other contexts, such as Brunei and the Philippines. Yet ultimately, to get a deeper understanding of Japanese participants’ behavior and handling of ELF interactions, it is necessary to bring online the entire 10 hours of Japan-based recordings, which is a priority of the author. From its inception, ELF has been corpus-driven, and having a corpus of actual ELF usage is a great advantage that ELF holds over EIL research, and one of the reasons for ELF’s growth and interest: ELF usage is well-documented and its data can be studied from syntactic, phonetic, lexical, pragmatic, discourse, and intercultural perspectives to truly demonstrate linguistic practices across boundaries. A more recent important development is the formation by Kumiko Murata of Waseda University in Tokyo, of an ELF Special Interest Group (SIG) within JACET: The Japan Association of College English Teachers. (JACET 2016) JACET currently boasts over 2,700 members and has a huge reach and influence within Japan. Whereas it is commendable that the above-mentioned JAFAE is completely dedicated to a pluralistic view of English, its reach is limited, with only 100–125 active members, and average attendance of only 35 participants at its two annual conferences. JACET by contrast, is a more mainstream organization, and its impact is high. Essentially every university in Japan has several members who belong to JACET. JACET has 60 different special interest groups,5 which makes for much competition for members’ attention. Still, every SIG meeting (SIGS are required to have one meeting every two months) is advertised by e-mail to all JACET members, so the awareness-raising ability of a SIG is high. To demonstrate this, as host of the July 2016 ELF SIG meeting, the author received inquiries from dozens of colleagues who are not normally in touch. The ELF SIG already has 30 members, and shows the potential to have an important impact on increasing ELF efforts in Japan. Prior to this development, Murata has been the recipient of several ongoing major ELFfocused research grants by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Grants in Aid for Scientific Research, Foundation B. She has hosted an annual “ELF International Workshop” for the past five years, which had been attended by the major founding figures of ELF including Jenkins, Seidlhofer, Widdowson, Pitzl, and others. These workshops are well-attended and further help to develop local scholars in Japan who are interested in conducting research into ELF topics. In addition, in Murata’s own PhD program, she has helped to develop an increasing number of PhD recipients whose main focus is ELF (Murata 2016). It should be noted as well that Hino at Osaka University is co-founder of the ELF SIG, and has also developed a growing cadres of EFL/EIL-focused scholars. The CWE at Chukyo University currently only offers a masters’ program but has also developed several young scholars who wrote their theses on ELF, and who are how teaching in local area high schools and universities. The ELF SIG, formed at the beginning of 2016, has not yet outlined its full research agenda, but promises to be the best vehicle to increase understanding of, appreciation for, and
169
James F. D’Angelo
implementation of ELF-informed ideas across Japan in coming years. One of the research foci mentioned in the original proposal to create the SIG was the importance of the “Global 30” project—an effort to create a network of world-class universities in Japan that also offer certain majors of study in English. English as a medium of instruction (heretofore EMI) is a challenge in Japan higher education since it is difficult to have enough Japanese students of a sufficiently high English proficiency level to interact in the classroom toe-to-toe with international students from various backgrounds (Murata and Iino 2014; D’Angelo 2015). EMI goes hand in hand with ELF in today’s global education sector (Jenkins 2014), and ELF research can provide important insights into how Japanese university students can better cope with the reality of sharing an interactive, discussion-based classroom with an internationally diverse student population. Japanese students are extremely reticent to speak out in front of others, and this is intensified when the others may have better English skills. Another possible research initiative for the SIG may be to develop a new corpus of ELF in Japan. The author has attempted to communicate to the founding members that having the SIG contribute to completing transcription of the Japan component of the ACE corpus would be an important effort, but the prevailing mood seems to prefer assembling new/independent data. Still, if such a new effort was undertaken, if VOICE/ACE conventions were followed, the possibility of future sharing with ACE could be an option. A final note on the importance of the SIG is that JACET also has several recent SIGs whose interests may dovetail with ELF. SIG #26 is on World Englishes and cross-cultural understanding (founded by former CWE Dean Hiroshi Yoshikawa), SIG #41 is on English education in East Asia, and SIG #54 is devoted to English for academic purposes (EAP). Collaborative efforts among these SIGs could further strengthen the impact of ELF in Japan. While JACET membership is predominantly Japanese nationals, another large organization, The Japan Association of Language Teachers (JALT), has a mainly native-speaker membership and also boasts nearly 3,000 members (JALT 2016). With its heavy NS orientation, JALT does not currently have SIGs on World Englishes, EIL, or ELF, but has in the recent years hosted ELF-aware scholars such as A. Matsuda, N. Hino, and S. Canagarajah as plenary speakers, so there is a trend towards openness to pluralism in JALT, and the timing is right for an ELF scholar to step in to fill this role.
ELT-related ELF initiatives and reality in Japan ELF in education Regarding ELT efforts that would be informed by ELF research and insights, there are several programs in place. In 2002 Chukyo University established the CWE as referenced above, with a goal of making students more aware of varieties of English around the world, and having less of a native-speaker orientation. The CWE hosted a weekend workshop in cooperation with JAFAE in 2003 with talks by L. Smith, Hino and Honna, Sakai, Takao Suzuki, Y. Takeshita, P. Nihalani, and Braj and Yamuna Kachru. The CWE also hosted the 2006 IAWE Conference, part of which was a special panel dedicated to the work on EIL of Larry Smith. Over the years since then, the CWE has also hosted a series of lectures for students by leading WEs/EIL/ELF researchers including Dita, Pefianco Martin, Llurda, Dayag, and Mahboob. While the concept of EIL or ELF is not integral to the entire curriculum, all students take an Introduction to World Englishes class (the last three weeks of which covers ELF and EIL) as freshmen, and are required to visit Singapore for a three-week study tour. These undergraduate students do not acquire a deep understanding of ELF, but their raised 170
The status of ELF in Japan
awareness makes the reality of ELF sink in later, either when they do a year abroad in Italy, Finland or Korea, or when they get out into the working world (D’Angelo 2016). It is interesting to note that even when bound for the US, CWE year-abroad students find most of their friends are from Korea, Turkey, and Brazil. Many CWE students expressed that they now see the reality of “World Englishes.” Hino also has made significant efforts at Osaka University to introduce ELF/EIL to his undergraduate and graduate students. With his graduate students especially, they are mixed with a significant percentage of international students thanks to Osaka U. being one of the highly competitive imperial universities. Thanks to the Global 30 project, Keio University, Waseda University, Hiroshima University, Nagoya University, and others are wrestling with introducing EMI programs to their curriculum, where ELF issues are an everyday reality. One of the concerns for expanding ELF in such settings is the reluctance of many Japanese faculty members, in spite of their ability to write and deliver academic papers in English, to actually use English in the classroom. A foreign professor at Hiroshima University has administered an extensive questionnaire on attitudes of Japanese faculty towards teaching in English, and found considerable resistance to lecturing in English (Sponseller 2015). In one effort specifically given the ELF moniker, Oda at Tamagawa University has created a Center for English as a Lingua Franca (Tamagawa University 2016). The Center has an office area and open space for teachers and students to use. While Tamagawa does not have an actual English major or EMI program, Oda has made an effort to bring in teachers with an ELF research background or from non-native contexts such as the Philippines. The Center is a resource for mainly part-time teachers who teach required English skills classes for other departments, but does not have a mandate to conduct teacher training in ELFinformed methods, so its impact may still be limited at this point. Oda currently serves on the Board of Asia TEFL, a very large ELT organization in this region, and his influence among Japanese academics could help to spread ELF efforts to other universities around Japan. One final area in education to address is secondary education. While Japan is still very grammar-translation and test oriented in junior and senior high schools, change is beginning to occur there as well. Textbooks are showing an increase in the number of characters who come from, and topics that relate to, non-native backgrounds (Kawashima 2009). There is also increased interest in “Active Learning” as teachers attempt to introduce more communicative methods into their classrooms. For over 25 years the JET program (Japanese English Teachers) has existed, which has imported mainly NS recent college graduates to Japan to serve as “assistant language teachers” at Japanese secondary schools, to give the students a feel for “living English.” While this program has often been criticized as reinforcing an NS-bias, the number of NNS JETs has increased over the decades (Kawashima 2009), including those from South Africa, the Bahamas, Singapore, The Philippines, and India/Pakistan. In one recent example of the kind of grass roots change that is possible, an American former international student at CWE, now working as a JET, invited the author to give a keynote at the annual JET workshop held in Shizuoka, Japan in November 2016—an event to be attended by over 1,000 JETs and local teachers. This is the type of rare opportunity to reach a broader audience that can only occur once a critical mass of smaller efforts by individual ELF-aware scholars is made. I hope to see more such opportunities in the future. ELF in business ELF is the reality for Japanese business people around the world today. While at one time much of Japanese trade was conducted with America and the West, Y. Kachru pointed out 171
James F. D’Angelo
as early as 2003 that data from the Japanese Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Communications indicated that Japan’s trade with non-inner circle countries “far exceeded that with native English speaking areas of the world” (Kachru 2003: 40). This trend has only increased, and Japanese business people have to be prepared to interact in English with ELF users from all over the world on a regular basis (D’Angelo 2016). Educational programs at the secondary and university level should be preparing students for this reality, but it requires a consistent and sustained effort. Developments such as international discount clothing maker UNIQLO to make English its official language for all meetings, even among all Japanese participants, and the use of English as the official language at Nissan/Renault, show an increased commitment to ELF in business. It remains to be seen whether this trend will increase, but it should be followed with interest. The role of JICA—The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA 2016) should also not be underplayed, as Japan is one of the largest providers of international aid projects, and there is a strong need for ELF among JICA representatives. Yamami 2015 demonstrates that among parents with work experience in Singapore and elsewhere in Asia, and also among those with higher levels of English proficiency, there is much more appreciation of ELF, and less of an NS proclivity. One positive sign of an increased openness to the reality of ELF in Japan among business people, is the recent demand for books on Indian and other varieties of English in Japanese book store chains. Professor Enokizono of CWE, a fluent Hindi and Urdu speaker, and expert on the subcontinent, has authored two recent books on Indian English that are selling briskly. His recent book on developing listening comprehension skills for Indian English (Enokizono 2016) indicates that Japanese business people are eager to adapt to ELF-like settings.
Challenges ahead for ELF in Japan ELF faces a more difficult context in Japan (and elsewhere in Asia) than in EU countries. English is certainly used widely in business in Asia, but the majority of Japanese may still believe that the goal of studying English is to reach native-like proficiency. Japan does not possess the depth of penetration of internationalization of its population as one might find in Europe, and on university campuses in Austria, The Netherlands, Sweden, and even Italy and France. Whereas in Europe a large percentage of research is conducted in English, in Japan almost every field of inquiry still has much of its fundamental research written in Japanese—even if later, key studies are then published in English. Japan has powerful translation abilities, and most of the best known texts in various fields are translated in Japanese. In contrast, the University of Helsinki project “WRELFA”: the Written Corpus of Academic ELF (WRELFA 2015), draws on 372,000 words of academic research blogs, 330 PhD examiner reports in English, and a Scientific ELF Corpus of 759,000 total words with writers from 10 different first language backgrounds. This fascinating compilation of ELF data would be unconscionable in Japan. An important step to increase the status of ELF in Japan would be for the small but growing ranks of academics committed to ELF to join hands with leading business professionals who see the need for ELF, to launch projects to promote understanding of the paradigm. For example, the inadequacy of traditional measures of testing English proficiency, such as the TOEIC or TOEFL, has been repeatedly pointed out by EIL and ELF scholars (Lowenberg 2012; Shohamy 2014). In terms of business leaders, K. Ito, a CWE professor who was formerly managing director of Toyota India, in a recent plenary address (Ito 2016) mentioned that for 172
The status of ELF in Japan
personnel officers in Japan, the TOEIC test is not a good indicator of an employee’s ability to succeed when sent overseas to Delhi. Perhaps such scholars and business leaders could join together to develop a more valuable form of testing.
Conclusion ELF has made inroads into Japan at a rapid rate over just the past five years, demonstrating the great vitality and usefulness of the paradigm. ELF makes much more sense for Japan than world Englishes, since in Japan the main uses of English are in international, rather than intranational domains. ELF can provide Japanese users with more confidence in their English medium interactions, since it does not privilege native speakers, and can raise awareness that each user’s unique “idiolect” is what they naturally bring to any ELF situation. ELF can be a significant help to implementing a more effective ELT in Japan, as well as a paradigm to help Japanese business/science/medical professionals be more effective in their use of English. While Japan is not yet as fertile a ground for ELF as continental Europe, efforts such as the “Global 30” have brought young scholars from Gambia, Uganda, Indonesia, Vietnam, and countless other contexts to the campuses of the top Japanese graduate programs. In addition, efforts of JICA to help developing nations, Japan’s increased focus on business in Asia and South Asia, and its role in ASEAN + 3 (ASEAN plus Japan, Korea, and China), all make it beneficial for Japanese users of English to become effective ELF users. The status of ELF is rising in Japan, but the progress of this increase in status requires considerable effort from the ELF-committed academic community to take full advantage of what ELF has to offer, lest Japan revert to more NS, prescriptivist paradigms.
Notes 1 Whether this be the tea ceremony, flower arranging, judo, archery, or speaking English. 2 The 2nd, 6th and 12th IAWE Conferences were all held in Japan, between 1995 and 2012. 3 While early work on ELF may have been more features-oriented and less cross-cultural communication oriented that traditional work in EIL, for the purposes of this chapter they are considered very close in meaning. ELF does however, have the advantage of established corpora, and a more robust and evolving research agenda. 4 This term is perhaps more useful that the WE efforts to define non-native usages, such as “deviations,” “diversions,” etc. 5 It is perhaps a small triumph that ELF is JACET’s 57th SIG, while one dedicated to CEFR (which might be considered less ELF-friendly, or more oriented towards “standard” English?) is the 58th.
Related chapter in this handbook 39 Suzuki, Liu and Yu, ELT and ELF in the East Asian contexts
Further reading D’Angelo, J. (2013) Japanese English: Refocusing the discussion. Asian English Studies. 15: 99–124. Hino, N. and S. Oda (2015) Integrated practice in teaching English as an international language (IPTEIL): A classroom ELF pedagogy in Japan. In Y. Bayyurt and S. Akcan (Eds.) Current perspectives on pedagogy for English as a lingua franca. Munich: De Gruyter. Murata, K., Ed. (2016) Exploring ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts: Conceptualisation, research and pedagogic implications. London: Routledge. 173
James F. D’Angelo
References Bolton K. (2010) World Englishes and English as a lingua franca: A comparison of approaches with particular reference to English in the Asian context. Keynote Speech, the Fourth International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca, Hong Kong Instittue of Education, May 26, 2011. Breiteneder, A. (2005) Exploiting redundancy in English as a European lingua franca: The case of the “third person -s”. Unpublished MA Thesis: University of Vienna. Retrieved 20 June, 2011 from www.univie.ac.at/voice/page/abstracts/breiteneder_2005.pdf. Crystal, D. (2007) English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. D’Angelo, J. (2016) A broader concept of World Englishes for educational contexts: Applying the WE Enterprise to Japanese higher education curriculum. Unpublished doctoral thesis, North-West University, Vaal Triangle Campus library, South Africa, B. Van Rooy and S. Coetzee-van Rooy advisors. D’Angelo, J. (2015) Nurturing EMI in broad-based Japanese higher education: The case of Chukyo University. In Murata, K. (Ed.) Waseda Working Papers in ELF, 4: 219–228. D’Angelo, J. (2013) Japanese English: Refocusing the discussion. Asian English Studies. 15: 99–124. D’Angelo, J. (2011) What nearby models can Japan consider in the era of globalized higher education? Journal of College of World Englishes, 14: 1–20. Eigo Kyouiku (English Education Magazine) (2016). Retrieved June 24, 2016 from www.fujisan.co.jp/ product/188/. Enokizono, T. (2016) Indo Eigo no Tsubo (A guide to understanding Indian English). Tokyo: ALC. Firth, A. (1996) The discursive accomplishment of normality: on “lingua franca” English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 26(2): 237–259. Graddol, D. (2006) English next: Why global English may mean the end of English as a foreign language. London: British Council. Guardian (2011) Japan launches primary English push. Retrieved July 1, 2016. www.theguardian. com/education/2011/mar/08/japan-launches-primary-english-push. Hall, I.P. (1973) Mori Arinori. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Honna, N. 2008. English as a multicultural language in Asian contexts: Issues and ideas. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Honna, N. and Y. Takeshita (1998) On Japan’s propensity for native-speaker English: A change in sight. Asian Englishes, 1(1): 117–137. Ito, K. (2016). Can TOEIC 730-859 be the requirement for promotion to supervisor in a global corporation expanding in Asia? Keynote Address, the 38th Japan Association for Asian Englishes Conference, Nagoya Japan, June 25, 2016. JACET (2016) Homepage of the Japan Association of College English Teachers. Retrieved July 1, 2016 from www.jacet.org/about_jacet/jacetoverview/ JALT (2016) The Japan Association of Language Teachers. “About JALT” retrieved June 18, 2016 from http://jalt.org/main/about. Jenkins, J. (2014) English as a lingua franca in the international university. London: Routledge. Jenkins J. (2011) Question and answer plenary panel with B. Seidlhofer and A. Mauranen. ELF4, Hong Kong Institute of Education, 28 May 2011. Jenkins, J. (2007) English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (1996) Native speaker, non-native speaker, and English as a foreign language: Time for a change. IATEFL Newsletter 131: 10–11. JICA 2016. The Japan International Cooperation Organization, retrieved June 17, 2016 from www. jica.go.jp/english/about/index.html. Kachru, Y. (2003) Context, competence and communication in World Englishes. In G. French and J. D’Angelo (Eds.) Proceedings: First conference on World Englishes in the classroom. Nagoya: Fujinari Printing, pp. 5–22. Kawashima, T. (2009) Current English Speaker models in senior high school classrooms. Asian English Studies, 11: 25–48. Kirkpatrick, A. (2010) English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong: HKU Press. Lowenberg, P. (2012) Assessing proficiency in EIL. In A. Matsuda, Principles and practices of teaching English as an international language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 84–102.
174
The status of ELF in Japan
Meierkord, C. (1998) Lingua franca English: Characteristics of successful non-native–non-native speaker discourse. Erfurt electronic Studies in English 1998. Retrieved June 30, 2016 from webdoc.gwdg.de/edoc/ia/eese/. Murata, K., Ed. (2016) Exploring ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts: Conceptualisation, research and pedagogic implications. London: Routledge. Murata, K. and M. Iino (2014) A journey through euphoria to marginality, and eventually to the mainstream—an ELF experience. Paper given at the ELF7 Conference, DERE The American College of Greece, Athens, September 4–6, 2014. Reischauer, E.O. (1995) The Japanese today. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Seidlhofer, B. (2009) Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. World Englishes, 28(2): 236–245. Sharifian, F. (Ed.) (2009) English as an international language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Shohamy, E. (2014). Critical language testing and English as a lingua franca: How can one help the other? Plenary address, ELF7 Conference, Athens, Greece, September 4–6, 2014. Sponseller, A. (2015) Poster session on EMI at Hiroshima University. JALT College and University Education SIG Conference, Sugiyama University, Nagoya, Sept 26, 2015. Suzuki, T. (1973) Words in context: A Japanese perspective on language and culture. Tokyo: Kodansha International. Tamagawa University (2016) English as a lingua franca program. Retrieved June 26, 2016 from www. tamagawa.jp/en/highereducation/efl.html Widdowson, H.G. (2014) ELF and the pragmatics of language variation. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca (4)2: 359–372. Widdowson, H.G. (2012) ELF and the inconvenience of established concepts. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1): 5–26. Widdowson, H.G. (2011) Only connect: The wider implications of ELF. Distinguished plenary lecture: The Fourth International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca. Hong Kong Institute of Education, May 28, 2011. WRELFA Project (2015) The corpus of written academic English. Retrieved June 28, 2016 from https://elfaproject.wordpress.com/2015/04/20/wrelfa-written-corpus-of-academic-elf/commentpage-1/ Yamami, Y. (2015) Japanese parental beliefs on language learning and awareness of changing demographics of global language use. Unpublished Masters’ thesis. Chukyo University College of World Englishes.
175
14 ELF in Brazil Recent developments and further directions Telma Gimenez, Michele Salles El Kadri and Luciana Cabrini Simões Calvo
Introduction As we write this chapter, a major turn in our foreign language education policy has taken place, with English replacing Spanish as the compulsory subject at high school level via a presidential decree. As it would be expected, this is not without angry rebuttals from the academic community that sees in the initiative another move towards a neoliberal vision of education and one that clearly marks the connections between language and the economy. That political decision, largely influenced by the private sector interests and in the name of economic recovery, represents a big change in relation to a multicultural perspective that has, if only on paper, been endorsed in the last decades. It is true, though, that making the offer of Spanish compulsory at high school level in 2005 challenged that open approach to the teaching of foreign languages, but the non-obligation of students attending classes was a manoeuvre that kept the spirit of multilingualism alive.1 The fact that the teaching of English is now compulsory at high school level is, therefore, a sign that times are changing. Brazil’s ranking in the world economy gives it a privileged status among the leading nations. Our development has been strongly tied to global flows and English plays an important role in our political and strategic goals. The marriage between language and economic development could be more easily seen in the largest academic mobility program launched by the government, the “Science without Borders Program” (Szundy, 2016). As part of the higher education and research internationalization efforts, the federal government invested heavily in scholarships for undergraduate students to carry out part of their studies abroad, in “universities of excellence”. It was soon discovered that proficiency in English was a fundamental requirement, since most of those universities were in the English-speaking world or in countries where the leading universities were adopting English as the medium of instruction. While this would suggest that an ELF perspective would be readily embraced and greatly enhance the teaching of this language in schools across the nation, “native speakerism” seems to be the predominant model. It is in the context of the increasing visibility of English both in higher education through movements to internationalize the universities and in schools that are now being called upon 176
ELF in Brazil
to make English compulsory, that we will address how ELF has been perceived, studied and implemented in our country in the last decade. First, we will discuss the rise of English in higher education due to the perceived demands to internationalize; then we will review studies that have adopted an ELF perspective and what they tell us about English in Brazil. Against this backdrop we will reflect on potential directions for ELF research as part of a critical agenda in Applied Linguistics in our country.
Internationalization, English and language ideologies It is well known that universities around the world have been pressured to adopt internationalization policies in order to demonstrate their relevance and quality (Hudzik, 2011). Although the reasons to connect local researchers and students to a wider network of science production and dissemination may vary, it is undeniable that rankings have been one of the key tools in this process and a competitive ethos has dominated what can now be considered the global market of higher education. Brazilian universities were gradually acknowledging that need when the federal government launched in 2012 an ambitious program to qualify researchers by offering scholarships mainly to undergraduate students in technological areas to pursue part of their studies abroad in “universities of excellence”. The Science without Borders (SwB) program marks a turning point in the internationalization of higher education in Brazil, with its goal to “promote the consolidation and expansion of science, technology and innovation in Brazil by means of international exchange and mobility”. Among the purposes of such initiative, the government wanted to “induce the internationalization of universities and research centers in Brazil by encouraging the establishment of international partnerships and a meaningful review of their internal procedures in order to make the interaction with foreign partners feasible” (Ciência sem fronteiras 2012). After four years, the program managed to give 73,353 scholarships to undergraduate students, according to the control panel available for public consultation at the program website,2 and initial impact studies are being made to establish the policy effects on the development of science and technology produced in the country. At the moment the majority of the evaluations are based on anecdotal evidence, although some of the studies on SwB tried to use objective indicators such as the information provided in the returning students’ CVs (Sarmento, Thiago and Andreotti 2016). In the study of a small cohort of students who went to Canada in the initial phase of the program, those authors found that many of the returning students seemed to have understood their experience as one that focused mainly on academic and professional dimensions. They did not necessarily develop other capacities envisaged by the program, such as those related to “entrepreneurship, competition and innovation”. While the benefits of the program are challenged by some and praised by others, the new phase announced recently by the authorities will exclude undergraduate students, with the argument that it is too expensive to maintain that number of students abroad for one year or more. No matter how Science without Borders is designed in its next phases, it has already caused a great impact on language education practices in universities, especially in relation to the teaching of English. When the program was launched, it was soon discovered that the undergraduate students lacked the necessary proficiency to attend classes in English-speaking universities, leading to the creation of another important component of the internationalization efforts in Brazil: a large-scale national English language education program – English without Borders (EwB), 177
Telma Gimenez et al.
later renamed Languages without Borders (LwB) (Gimenez 2016). This program illustrates the interconnections between internationalization of higher education and English, and exposes the linguistic ideologies underlying its pedagogical decisions and actions. As Szundy (2016: 104) puts it, Despite the growing research on English as a lingua franca (ELF) and transidiomatic practices within the fields of applied language studies, gatekeeping efforts to maintain mainstream native English standard varieties, mainly the American and British ones, as yardsticks of academic and professional mobility remain vigorous within educational markets. In a similar vein, Gimenez (2016) had already discussed how the native-speaker ideology remains implicitly endorsed by the program thanks to a market-oriented view of education, that favors commodified testing and varieties. After analyzing the institutional discourses of LwB through its website, Szundy (2016) concludes that the native Standard North-American variety is the English legitimized by the program and closely associated with the proficiency Brazilians need to achieve in order to participate in international universities and research centers, a conclusion similar to that presented by Gimenez and Passoni (2014). The fact that the world of policy-making seems to go in a direction opposite to many academics who advocate a lingua franca approach to English reveals the tensions inherent in the teaching of English for internationalization and poses challenges to researchers in this field and it is their work that we discuss next.
ELF voices In this section, we will present an overview of how ELF has been perceived, studied and implemented in our country. To reach this aim, we will draw on three reviews of studies focusing on ELF in Brazil and one recent edited book. In addition to giving this overview of ELF in our national context, we will also focus on the results of our investigations carried out in our state (Paraná) and in our local context of work.3 These publications will enable us to present both national and regional perspectives, helping to create a wider picture of the issues involved in ELF in our country. ELF in our national context In order to portray a picture on ELF in our national context, we draw on three main studies (Calvo, El Kadri and Gimenez 2013; Bordini and Gimenez 2014; Grano 2016). Calvo, El Kadri and Gimenez (2013) focused on Brazilian studies about ELF between 2005 and 2011, investigating the following sources: a) CAPES database of dissertations and theses; b) Google Scholar; c) Brazilian journals in the area of (applied) linguistics; d) proceedings of national events; and e) a recent collection of papers on this subject, edited by Gimenez, Calvo and El Kadri (2011). By using the keywords English as a lingua franca, English as an international language and English as a global language, the authors found out that the majority of them focused on conceptual reflections about ELF, with few investigations concentrating on empirical data or providing practical examples of how to implement ELF in the curriculum. They also pointed out that for the investigated Brazilian researchers, the English language is undergoing change and being reshaped by the many contacts between people from different
178
ELF in Brazil
linguistic settings, moving away from the native-speaker norms. Those authors found ELF to be a promising area in Brazil and pointed out the increasing number of discussions involving ELF in seminars and congresses. Additionally, they considered that not only was a lingua franca approach challenging conceptualizations of language but also that those reflections were being introduced in teacher education programs. Bordini and Gimenez (2014) complemented that survey by examining publications in similar sources but extended it to the period 2005–2012 by using the key terms: English as a lingua franca, English as a global language, English as an international language and English as a multinational language. As it would be expected, they found similar results, and indicated the gap in studies that looked at ELF within a linguistic perspective, i.e. the need for studies that analysed the interactions between Brazilians participating in lingua franca interactions. That result was probably linked to the understandings of ELF revealed in the surveyed studies: “they bring the meaning of international communication of the language, especially due to the fact that the number of nonnative speakers has surpassed the number of native speakers” (Bordini and Gimenez 2014: 29). Obviously, the recognition that English is used for international communication is not sufficient to endorse an ELF approach to language teaching, although most of the investigations were carried out with English language professionals (students from Letras undergraduate courses and English teachers), demonstrating that pedagogical concerns were central to the reviewed authors. A more recent review carried out by Grano (2016) analysed the proposals for English language teaching following an ELF perspective for the period 2012–2015 in CAPES Database of Journals (Portal de Periódicos) and at Google Scholar, using the keywords English as a lingua franca, English as an international language and English as a global language. In a second search, these keywords were combined with the word teaching. The author found that the studies focused on ELF as a reconceptualization of English and its teaching that addressed issues of culture, phonology, intelligibility and teaching materials. It seems that researchers are moving forward in linguistic descriptions as “part of the most recent studies addressed the interactions in ELF and they were not restricted to derive implications for teacher education” (Grano 2016: 10). While there is a plethora of recent publications addressing language policies and the English language in Brazil (e.g. Gimenez 2015; Miranda and Rodrigues 2015; Siqueira 2015; Storto ad Biondo 2016; Martinez 2016; Abreu-e-Lima and Moraes 2016; Gimenez and Passoni 2016), only a few problematize what is meant by ELF in the classroom. An attempt to tackle the issue was carried out by Gimenez, El Kadri and Calvo (in preparation (a)) by putting together a collection entitled English as a Global Lingua Franca and Language Education: A Brazilian Perspective. The purpose was to identify those academics who had expressed interest in addressing ELF from a pedagogical perspective. The aim was to illustrate how ELF has been dealt with in teacher education programs. The volume consists of three parts: i) a conceptual one aiming at critically discussing the concept of a global language and its implications for teaching/teacher education in our context; ii) a section in which beliefs about ELF are explored with teachers and learners; and iii) a practical section with examples of how English as a lingua franca has been dealt in language courses and teacher education programs. Despite having 10 chapters, only 3 presented practices that incorporated ELF in teacher education programs (Gimenez, El Kadri and Calvo in preparation (b); Duboc in preparation; Porfirio in preparation). Most of the other papers presented concepts that should guide educational practices within an ELF perspective. This suggests that educators consider challenging
179
Telma Gimenez et al.
English in terms of its status as a foreign language, the goals to be achieved and its role in a global world should be at the forefront of English language teaching. However, what this means in terms of the linguistic forms and models is unclear. According to those authors, teaching English from a critical perspective may be the key to having access to cosmopolitanism while reassessing local relations (Zacchi in preparation). Zacchi’s point of view is that “the idea of connecting global Englishes with local histories takes into account the position of lingua franca assumed by English in past decades, but doing away with the imperialist bias”. To Zacchi (in preparation) it means to step away from the perspective of English as an imperialist language, on the one hand, and teaching it as a commodity, on the other. He believes it would be more suitable to explore English as hegemonic. Its use may be subversive to the extent that it promotes locality: to him, it would result in a situated teaching that allows for the refashioning of students’ identities. No longer just consumers or guardians of the language. Other points of view are that critical literacy as a form of posthuman pedagogy along with its theoretical assumptions and pedagogical implications presents a suitable alternative for the work in ELT from an ELF perspective (Jordão and Marques in preparation). Jordão and Marques support such a view by stressing that meaning-making is as an on-going process of dialogical dialogue, that is, the searching for the creation of spaces where different meanings can be negotiated. It means to understand discourse in social practice, marked by relations of power and negotiation, thus not being neutral or independent of subjectivity. To them, it would mean to “be local in ELT”, that is, constructing agency for teachers and students of English, helping them to achieve ownership over ELF, to build awareness of their own and other’s meaning-making practices, shortcomings and potentialities in language. A third view is the idea that an intercultural approach should be adopted (Siqueira in preparation). Siqueira argues that English should be taught based on notions of interculturality, difference and interpersonal relations by exploring the roles English plays in their local cultures and the cultures of their possible future interlocutors. To him, linguistic knowledge should be linked to other culturally related phenomena in light of the current context of globalization. In general, to those higher education practitioners, ELF is important for three reasons: i) the linguistic choices a teacher makes in the classroom reflect larger ideologies of dominance, internationalization and/or knowledge in our current context of globalization; ii) it helps them advance their comprehension of culture and intercultural awareness, and to deal with local and global cultural phenomena in more informed ways; iii) it allows them to better position themselves regarding the politics of English in today’s age, and how it can impact their lessons. However, as we can see, they seem to engage more easily with ELF as a label that captures their wish to move towards a critical perspective on ELT; they have more difficulty in translating it into practical teacher education activities beyond reading and discussion of what English means in today’s world. ELF in our regional context The authors of this chapter have been engaged in attempts to introduce ELF in teaching. Three of our studies investigated i) ELF in teacher education programs (El Kadri, Calvo and Gimenez 2014); ii) ELF in a specific teacher education program and an analysis of the material produced by the students who attended the course (Gimenez, Calvo and El Kadri 2015);
180
ELF in Brazil
iii) ELF in a didactic unit produced for an online teacher education program (El Kadri, Calvo and Gimenez 2017). The study conducted by El Kadri, Calvo and Gimenez (2014) examined to what extent an ELF perspective had informed the curriculum of English language teacher education programs in the state of Paraná. The data was gathered through an open-ended questionnaire responded the educators of seven universities from the state. The analysis of their responses suggested that there is the recognition that ELF is an important perspective to be introduced into initial teacher education programs as many of them affirmed familiarity with the subject, although we could not assess their understanding of ELF. Results also indicated that ELF is addressed mainly in the pedagogical component of the program, and not widespread among the teaching staff, suggesting that, in general, traditional language assumptions are not challenged in exclusive language-related courses, thus resulting in isolated attempts and initiatives by those who had contact with the ELF literature. Investigating the students’ understandings in the course “English as a lingua franca”, Gimenez, Calvo and El Kadri (2015) presented a description of the optional course offered to pre-service teachers in order to raise awareness about ELF. The authors analyzed the production of teaching units as the materialization of the participants’ understandings. The general aim of the course was to promote awareness on the differences between English as a foreign language (EFL) and ELF regarding its learning in the Brazilian context. Specifically, it aimed at i) introducing some basic references on English and its global spread; ii) discussing ELF and the implications of the de-centering of the native speaker as a norm; iii) familiarizing the students with some grammatical and discursive features in transcultural communication through the analysis of ELF corpora; and iv) analysing teaching materials according to the discussions above. The production of teaching units was one of the instruments used to assess the students in the course. Through the analysis of the units the authors captured the participants’ views on ELF and the pedagogical implications they identified. In general, the authors indicated that for those pre-service teachers: a) an ELF perspective is about different English varieties (as well as accents) to be brought in the classroom; b) intelligibility is more important than achieving a standard native-speaker variety; c) ELF is related to social/ cultural themes although in a stereotypical way; c) the global and the local are connected, with the students reflecting about the realities in other countries and their own context; d) an ELF perspective can be more easily introduced in activities that privilege oral comprehension and production. In the analysed units, the authors then recognized echoes of the literature on ELF, but due to its short duration, there was insufficient time to include all the aspects from the ELF perspective they considered relevant. Despite this caveat those authors assessed the experience positively, since it moved the participants away from a strict EFL perspective. Another investigation (El Kadri, Calvo and Gimenez 2017) focuses on an initiative to incorporate ELF through a unit in a course that was part of an online program attended by pre-service English language teachers in a public university. Our findings were based on the analysis of the unit according to two instruments: a) a checklist that contained some characteristics associated with ELF according to the literature, and b) the course instructor and tutors’ responses to an open-ended questionnaire. The unit included problem-solving and argumentative tasks, but showed a limitation in proposing an articulation of ELF with teaching/didactic practices; that is, the unit had a more reflective character but it did not bring some tasks in which the pre-service teachers could plan lesson or didactic units articulating some of ELF implications. For the authors, “if this aspect were considered, the future teacher would have
181
Telma Gimenez et al.
the chance to think more about the English classroom and their roles as teachers”. The activities were designed to get the student teachers’ cognitive engagement with ELF but lacked questioning some of its assumptions. Our assessment was that if the course had been longer, it would have been relevant to include tasks to check the participants’ understandings by asking the student teachers to plan lessons or course units taking an ELF perspective into account, or even to pose problems (in vignettes, for instance) and ask them to provide solutions. These reflections are significant because they are an indication that there have been attempts to engage with ELF issues in teacher education in Brazil. The pedagogical implications remain relevant because the teaching of English is gaining increasing importance in the country, as we have stressed in the introduction. These experiences are far from ideal, but they signal a movement towards incorporating perspectives that challenge the status quo and the normativity that has guided our EFL traditions.
Concluding remarks In this chapter we presented a (partial) picture of how the English language has been addressed by policy-making and how an ELF perspective has been received in academic circles in Brazil, by reviewing some of the studies recently carried out. We introduced issues related to policy decisions regarding the teaching of English in relation to internationalization efforts in higher education and their reinforcement of normative views of language. The tensions inherent in the teaching of English for internationalization and the ELF voices represent the major challenges for English language teaching in Brazil today. Despite the context of internationalization being particularly suited to a lingua franca perspective, given that academics are being pushed to function in international circles, the world of policy-making seems to go in a different direction by reinforcing native speakerism. The review of some of recent studies revealed that a critical perspective to English has been closely associated with ELF, suggesting that it is an approach that, together with others derived from postcolonial perspectives (such as World Englishes) allows the deconstruction of traditional ways of teaching English. To us, approaching ELT from an ELF perspective would be an empowering one, because it would allow us to challenge and actively struggle against monolingualism and beliefs tied up with English imperialism. It would allow teachers to focus on questioning normative views on language and education; it would allow teachers to explore, together with learners what we mean by communication and how power relations come into play when we use English. That can have a transformative effect. As Dewey (2014) suggests, questioning assumptions can be a big step forward in constructing other pedagogical practices that are more responsive to local needs and aspirations. Our reflections indicate that a critical agenda in language teaching in the context of internationalization cannot leave aside the discussions carried out by ELF researchers and practitioners. Following Paulo Freire’s steps, we believe the adoption of that perspective in ELT would be liberating for both teachers and learners.
Notes 1 According to the law (Lei 11.161), Spanish should be offered by high schools but attendance was not compulsory, in order to avoid conflict with the national law for education (Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Brasileira), which establishes that a foreign language is compulsory but schools are free to choose which language to offer. 182
ELF in Brazil
2 www.cienciasemfronteiras.gov.br/web/csf/painel-de-controle. 3 The national initiative mentioned in the section above was followed closely at the state level in Paraná, due to the fact that the funding included only federal universities and not the state ones. Paraná has seven state universities and they were left out of EwB. For this reason, in 2014 a regional program was designed under the suggestive name of “Paraná Fala Inglês” (Paraná Speaks English). With similar goals of preparing the academic community to apply for the available scholarships, the program aimed at teaching the learners to take the TOEFL tests, a requirement for participation in SwB (Marson and Borges 2015). Like the national program, this one also does not challenge the standard language ideology based on native speaker norms. While there is tacit acceptance that “English is English”, an ELF perspective remains absent from the reflections on the program. In fact, planning for the second phase suggests that an Inner Circle variety will be privileged, thus doing little to challenge normative models based on native speaker norms.
Related chapters in this handbook 31 Smit, Beyond monolingualism in higher education: a language policy account 32 Murata and Iino, EMI in higher education: an ELF perspective 34 Wingate, Transforming higher education and literacy policies: the contribution of ELF 35 Dewey and Patsko, ELF and teacher education
Further reading Archanjo, R (2016). “Moving globally to transform locally? Academic mobility and language policy in Brazil”, Language Policy, pp. 1–22. doi 10.1007/s10993-016-9408-0. British Council (2014). Learning English in Brazil: Understanding the aims and expectation of the Brazilian emerging middle class. A report for the British Council by the Data Popular Institute. Available from www.britishcouncil.org.br/sites/default/files/learning_english_in_brazil.pdf (accessed 3 October 2016) British Council (2015). English in Brazil: An examination of policy, perceptions and influencing factors. Available from https://ei.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/latin-america-research/ English%20in%20Brazil.pdf (accessed 3 October 2016). Gimenez, T., Ferreira, A.J., Basso, R.A. and Cruvinel, R. (2016) “Policies for English language teacher education in Brazil today: preliminary remarks”, Profile, 18 (1), pp. 219–234. Szundy, P. T. C. (2016). “The commodification of English in Brazilian public universities: language ideologies entextualized in the scope of the program English Without Borders”, Revista da Anpoll, 40, pp. 101–114.
References Abreu Lima, D. and Moraes Filho, W. (2016) “Languages without Borders Program (LwB): building a Brazilian policy for teaching languages towards internationalization” in K Finardi, (eds), English in Brazil: views, policies and programs. Londrina: Eduel, pp. 85–110. Bordini, M. and Gimenez, T. (2014) ‘Estudos sobre inglês como lingua franca no Brasil (2005–2012): uma metassíntese qualitativa’, Signum: Estudos da Linguagem, 17(1), pp. 10–43. Calvo, L.C.S., El Kadri, M.S. and Gimenez, T. (2013). “English as a lingua franca: a Brazilian perspective”, Proceedings of the V International Conference on English as a Lingua Franca – ELF 5, Bogazici University, Istambul, pp. 1–8. Ciência sem fronteiras. (2012, November and December). Available from www.cienciasemfronteiras. gov.br/web/csf-eng/goals (accessed 29 April 2017). Dewey, M. (2014) “Pedagogic criticality and English as a lingua franca”. ATLANTIS Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies vol. 36(2), pp. 11–30. 183
Telma Gimenez et al.
Duboc, A.P M. (in preparation). “The ELF Teacher education: contributions from postmodern studies” in Gimenez, T., El Kadri, M.S. and Calvo, L.C.S (eds), English as a Global lingua franca and language education: a Brazilian perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. El Kadri, M.S., Calvo, L.C.S. and Gimenez, T. (2014) “ELF in Brazilian teacher education programs”, paper presented to the Scientific Meeting of the 7th International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca, Athens-Greece, 4–6 September. El Kadri, M.S., Calvo, L.C.S. and Gimenez, T. (2017). “English as a lingua franca in an online teacher education program offered by a state university in Brazil” in Matsuda, A. (ed.), Preparing teachers to teach EIL: Curricular description. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 181–194. Gimenez, T. and Passoni, T. P. (2014). “Competing discourses between English as a lingua franca and the ‘English without Borders’ program”, paper presented to the Scientific Meeting of the 7th International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca, Athens, Greece, 4–6 September. Gimenez, T. and Passoni, T.P. (2016). “English as a lingua franca and the internationalization of higher education in Brazil” in K Finardi, (eds), English in Brazil: views, policies and programs. Londrina: Eduel, pp. 162–177. Gimenez, T. (2015). “Renomeando o inglês e formando professores de uma língua global”, Estudos Linguísticos e Literários, 2(52), pp. 73–93. Gimenez, T. (2016). “English as a global language and the internationalization of universities” in Basurto-Santos, N. and Cárdenas, M.L (eds), Investigaciones sin fronteras: temas nuevos y perdurables en lenguas extrangeras. Research without borders: new and enduring issues in foreign language education Universidad Veracruzana, Dirección Editorial, Xalapa, , pp. 157–170. Gimenez, T., Calvo, L.C.S. and El Kadri, M. (2011). Inglês como língua franca: ensino- aprendizagem e formação de professores, Pontes Editores, Campinas. Gimenez, T., Calvo, L.C.S. and El Kadri, M.S. (2015). “Beyond Madonna: teaching materials as windows into pre-service teachers’ understandings of ELF” in Bayyurt, Y.S and Akcan, S. (eds), Current perspectives on pedagogy for ELF. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 225–237. Gimenez, T., El Kadri, M.S. and Calvo, L.C.S. (eds) (in preparation, a). English as a global lingua franca and language education: a Brazilian perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Gimenez, T., El Kadri, M.S. and Calvo, L.C.S. (in preparation, b). “Awareness raising about English as a lingua franca in Brazilian teacher education programs” in Gimenez, T., El Kadri, M.S. and Calvo, L.C.S. (eds), English as a global lingua franca and language education: a Brazilian perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Grano, A. (2016). Inglês como lingua franca global e propostas para seu aprendizado (English as a global lingua franca and proposals for its teaching and learning), Unpublished research report, State University of Londrina (UEL), Londrina. Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: from concept to action. NAFSA – Association of International Educators, Washington. Jordão, C.M. and Marques, A.N. (in preparation). “English as a lingua franca and critical literacy in teacher education: shaking off some ‘good old’ habits” in Gimenez, T., El Kadri, M.S. and Calvo, L.C.S. (eds), English as a global lingua franca and language education: a Brazilian perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Marson, I.C.V. and Borges, E.F.V. (2015). “‘Paraná Fala Inglês’ na UEPG: experiência extensionista com foco na mobilidade internacional”, Extensio: R. Eletr. de Extensão,12 (20), pp.73–89. Martinez, R. (2016). “English as a medium of instruction (EMI) in Brazilian higher education” in Finardi, K. (eds), English in Brazil: views, policies and programs. Londrina: Eduel, Londrina, pp. 191–218. Miranda, F.C. and Rodrigues, G.M. (2015). “A perspectiva do Inglês como língua franca e suas implicações pedagógicas” (English as a lingua franca perspective and its pedagogical implications), Claraboia, 2 (2), pp. 42–52. Porfirio, L. (in preparation). “The concept of ELF and English teachers’ education: what to expect from this relationship?” in Gimenez, T., El Kadri, M.S. and Calvo, L.C.S. (eds), English as a global lingua franca and language education: a Brazilian perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Sarmento, S., Thiago, E.M.C.P.S. and Andreotti, V.O. (2016). “Science without Borders – an alternative framework for evaluation”, Interfaces Brasil/Canadá, 16 (1), pp. 40–71. Siqueira, S. (2015). “Inglês como língua internacional: por uma pedagogia intercultural crítica” (English as an international language: for a critical intercultural pedagogy), Estudos Linguísticos e Literários, 52, pp. 231–256 184
ELF in Brazil
Siqueira, S. (in preparation). “English as a lingua franca and teacher education: critical educators for an intercultural world” in Gimenez, T., El Kadri, M.S. and Calvo, L.C.S. (eds), English as a global lingua franca and language education: a Brazilian perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Storto, A. and Biondo, F.P. (2016). “The mobility between languages and the fluxes of globalization: reviewing paradigms, transcending paradoxes”, Revista da Anpoll, 40, pp. 77 –89. Szundy, P.T.C. (2016). “The commodification of English in Brazilian public universities: language ideologies entextualized in the scope of the program English Without Borders”, Revista da Anpoll, 40, pp. 101–114. Zachi, V. (in preparation). “Global Englishes, local histories” in Gimenez, T., El Kadri, M.S. and Calvo, L.C.S. (eds), English as a global lingua franca and language education: a Brazilian perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
185
15 Is English the lingua franca of South Africa? Christa van der Walt and Rinelle Evans
Introduction South Africa – like many others on the continent – is a multilingual country. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996) declares 11 languages as official, granting 9 previously marginalised indigenous languages “parity of esteem” alongside English and Afrikaans. However, as far as international visitors and the majority of middle-class citizens are concerned, English is the lingua franca and the language of prestige in South Africa. A commercial enterprise that markets South Africa, Brand South Africa (2016), declares on its website that “English is the most commonly spoken language in official and commercial public life – but only the fourth most spoken home language”. Being so low down on the list does not, however, upset its number one status. Numerous attitudinal studies, particularly among higher education students and the parents of school-going children, show the belief that English is a global language that guarantees upward social mobility and prestigious jobs (Bosch and De Klerk, 1996, p. 244; Evans and Cleghorn, 2014, p. 2; Mashiyi, 2014, pp. 156–157; Parmegiani and Rudwick, 2014, p. 117). In this chapter, we provide a brief historical background to the prominence of English despite less than 10 per cent of the ±54 million South Africans claiming it as their mother tongue. We allude to the levels of proficiency and various forms of English in South Africa. We follow with a description of the functions of English and the domains where it dominates. Against this background we argue that in reality there is a disjuncture between the perceived status of English and its actual grassroots usage with several other viable contenders for the position of lingua franca.
Contextualising the rise of English in South Africa The initial linguistic landscape of South Africa was primarily shaped by African migration and Anglo-Dutch colonisation throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In 1820, the first large contingent of British settlers established themselves in regions that today remain enclaves of White English speakers although Zulu (Natal), Xhosa (Eastern Cape), and Afrikaans (Western Cape) are the dominant languages in terms of numbers. 186
Is English the lingua franca of South Africa?
In the aftermath of the South African War (1899–1902), the English and Afrikaans speaking groups lived acrimoniously. An attempt at reconciliation was made in 1910 when the “English” provinces of the Cape and Natal and the Afrikaans-speaking provinces of Transvaal and Free State, were declared the Union of South Africa remaining under imperial governance until 1931. Under the then Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd a decision was taken to break away from the Commonwealth and declare itself an independent republic in 1961. Afrikaans was then recognised as an official language alongside English. Despite the rich cultural and linguistic diversity of the country, white supremacy negated other groups, including their languages (Gautschi, 2010; Gough, 1996; Khokhlova, 2015). For the next three decades, Afrikaans dominated the public domain culminating in the 1976 Soweto uprising that saw schoolchildren vehemently oppose the introduction of Afrikaans as a medium of instruction in certain subjects. It was not until 1994 that the hegemony of Afrikaans was broken, when nine Bantu languages were afforded official status in a democratic attempt to extend citizens’ linguistic rights. Four of these are Nguni languages (Zulu, Xhosa, Swati and Ndebele), three are Sotho-Tswana languages (Northern Sotho, Southern Sotho and Tswana) while Venda and Tsonga stand on their own as minority languages. Table 15.1, shows an uneven distribution of English speakers across the country. Provinces that are mainly rural have few, self-professed English home-language speakers. Provinces, where more than a million people use English as a home language, remain the original settler regions of the Western Cape, Kwa-Zulu Natal and Gauteng – the economic hub of the country. The notorious Apartheid racial labelling is still used for census data and Table 15.2 makes it clear that English is claimed as a first language by 9.6 per cent of the population cutting across all racial categories. The most recent national census (2011) indicated that this number was up from 8.2 per cent in a decade, ascribing this 1.4 per cent increase to “Black Diamonds” – a rising middle class with international aspirations. At present, the six most widely spoken South African languages are Zulu at 22.7 per cent, followed by Xhosa at 16 per cent, Afrikaans at 13.5 per cent, English at 9.6 per cent, Tswana at 8 per cent and Sesotho at 7.6 per cent (Statistics South Africa, 2016). Parmegiani and Rudwick (2014, p. 118) describe the distribution and use of English in relation to the other South African languages as “a scenario where African languages Table 15.1 Spread of English across provinces (%) Language Western Eastern Northern Free Kwa-Zulu North Gauteng Mpumlanga Limpopo SA (first) Cape Cape Cape State Natal West English
20.2
5.6
3.4
2.9
13.2
3.5
13.3
3.1
1.5
9.6
Source: Census 2011, p. 25.
Table 15.2 Spread of English across racial groups Language (first)
Black African
Coloured
Indian or Asian
White
Other
English
1, 167, 913 (2.9%)
945, 847 (20.8%)
1, 094, 317 (86.1%)
1, 603, 575 (29.5%)
80, 971
Source: Census 2011, p. 25.
187
Christa van der Walt and Rinelle Evans
continue to be extensively used in informal domains, while English continues to be the undisputed intra-national lingua franca in formal domains” despite few speakers being truly fluent in the language. Ironically, the entrenchment of the status of this colonial language has also been fuelled by Apartheid struggle veterans’ claim that it is the “language of liberation” (Bekker, 2012; Gough, 1996; Khokhlova, 2015; Silva, 1997).
English proficiency of South Africans Most South Africans are at least bilingual; many are multilingual yet English does not necessarily count as one of the languages they speak with confidence or fully understand. English is “disproportionately influential” and “acquiring competence in English is highly desirable” yet it is used with vastly “varying degrees of sophistication” (Khokhlova, 2015, p. 985). As reported on the website SALanguages.com (2016), a national sociolinguistic survey of English language proficiency conducted by the Pan South African Language Board (PanSALB) in 2000 found that •• •• ••
40 per cent of the respondents reported that they used English in interaction with line managers (followed by Afrikaans – 28 per cent and Zulu – 11 per cent); 80 per cent reported the use of English as a language of tuition in the wider educational setting (followed by Afrikaans – 16 per cent and Zulu – 6 per cent); Only 22 per cent fully understand political, policy and administrative-related speeches and statements made in English.
Webb (2002, p. 7) states that “English is probably known by more than 50 per cent of the SA population at a very basic level of communication”, which would not bode well for its use as a lingua franca. He also reports on a survey of English language proficiency in which 49 per cent of their respondents often did not understand or seldom understood speeches in English. This lack of English language proficiency rose to 60 per cent among speakers of Tswana, Ndebele and Venda, particularly among less educated respondents, respondents in rural areas, and respondents in semi-skilled or unskilled communities. The lack of English comprehension skill is also apparent in informal contexts. Respondents rated their ability to follow a story on radio or television in English as follows: Sotho: 28 per cent, Tswana: 14 per cent, Pedi: 19 per cent, Swazi: 27 per cent, Ndebele: 3 per cent, Xhosa: 24 per cent, Zulu: 32 per cent, Venda: 0 per cent and Tsonga: 24 per cent. More recently, the National Income Dynamics Study (NIDS, 2008) polled a representative sample of South Africans to determine, among others, their self-reported English language proficiency. The NIDS data require self-assessment of language proficiency, specifically reading and writing, in the home language as well as in English on a 4-point Likert scale. In their discussion of this survey, Posel and Zeller (2010) provide an overview of previous sociolinguistic surveys and agree with Deumert, Inder and Maitra (2005) “that self-assessed levels of proficiency are mostly over-estimated and that the language skills of those participants who report average or high proficiency in English are often less than basic”. In Posel and Zeller’s (2010, p. 14) analysis of the NIDS data, they note differences between younger (between 15 and 30) and older (over 30) respondents in perceived reading and writing ability in English: 188
Is English the lingua franca of South Africa?
African adults aged 15 to 30 years are almost twice as likely as older African adults to report reading very well in English; and whereas only 5 per cent of young adults reported not being able to read in English at all, almost 31 per cent of older adults reported no ability to read English. Similar changes are apparent when comparing male and female respondents in the different age groups, with more female respondents reporting good language proficiency in their home language and in English. Although these differences can be attributed to young people over-reporting their competence, Posel and Zeller (2010, p. 14–15) suggest that “the data would also be consistent with socio-economic changes since the ending of apartheid”, since it seems unlikely that young women as a group would over-report their language abilities. Attempting to obtain an overview of language proficiency, the authors compare respondents who reported high levels of proficiency in both their home language and in English: “the NIDS data suggest that approximately 65 percent of adults in South Africa are home language proficient whereas only 47 percent are English language proficient. Both home language and English language proficiency are lowest among African adults (Posel and Zeller, 2010, p. 17). Nel and Müller (2010, p. 636) suggest reasons for this situation: Lack of access to newspapers, magazines, TV and radio; lack of opportunity to hear or to speak English; lack of English reading material at home and at school; and poor language teaching by teachers whose own English proficiency is limited. Although spoken by so few and not understood by many, as Probyn (2001, p. 250) notes, “English remains the language of power and access – economically, politically, socially – despite the fact that it is the mother tongue of a relatively small minority . . . indigenous languages, although spoken widely at family and community level, are relatively disempowered”. This trend may worsen if the highbrow push for “English-only” by the next generation of upwardly mobile South Africans continues.
English as spoken in South Africa Linguistic studies on the features of native and non-native varieties of English in South Africa are scant. The existence of particular varieties is an obvious remnant of the Apartheid system where ethnolinguistic groups were separated and particular norms for English language use developed in each community. However, all local languages have enriched the English spoken at the tip of the African continent, adding not only unique vocabulary, idiomatic expressions, intonations and pronunciations but also attempting to cement a national identity in post-apartheid South Africa. The point of English as a lingua franca is for it to be used as an additional language by the majority of South Africans and census records give an indication of the English language resources that are available in the form of teachers, civil servants and the like. In terms of language acquisition, both in- and out-of-class experiences with English will probably be with native and non-native varieties of English. Such English language resources are spread unevenly throughout the country, with rural areas having the least exposure to English. This is the situation referred to by Balfour (2002, p. 27) when he notes that “In South Africa, however, what is understood to be ‘English’ [. . .] is problematic because the quality of language instruction is dependent on social-economic as well as geographical variables”. 189
Christa van der Walt and Rinelle Evans
So does English function as a lingua franca in South Africa? Calls for a specific South African standard for English language teaching have died down since the 1990s. This is not ideal, since it assumes that speakers know what the most desirable variety may be for acquisition purposes and in the process prejudice regarding “proper English” is painfully evident in particular teachers’ attitudes (see e.g. Van der Walt, 2007). The phenomenon that Bobda (2006) calls “the new mother tongues” in his country (Cameroon) is also evident in South Africa, where parents who are home-language speakers of African languages or Afrikaans make a conscious decision to introduce English as their home language and children grow up as home-language speakers of a variety of South African English. Bobda (2006, p. 67) argues that there should be reference to new mother tongues since “French, English and Pidgin English have taken over the mother tongue status and functions of indigenous languages”. Acknowledging the role of English as a lingua franca in this way could work against additive bi-/ multilingualism, since its role as a “traffic” language requires describing not only its context-specific use but also its place among the many other South African languages. The importance of access to a standardised (and by implication powerful) variety of English is rejected by Balfour (2002, p. 10) when he says that [t]he need for common access seems to me to be another way of defining the need for one standardised variety available to all; yet the question of “whose standard?” has become, most unhelpfully, the focus of a now sterile debate. From an ELF perspective it seems necessary to revive the debate not in terms of a standard per se, but certainly in the form of what Seidlhofer (2009, p. 241) calls codification, “with a conceivable ultimate objective of making it a feasible, acceptable and respected alternative to ENL [English as a native language] in appropriate contexts of use”. By codification we mean the acknowledgement of native and non-native varieties of English in South Africa, since it goes much further than standardization towards a single South African English. When one thinks of English language use in terms of Kachru’s 1985 distinction between the inner, the outer and the expanding circle of English language users, it becomes difficult to find an easy fit for the country as a whole. We concur with Branford (1996, p. 48) when he says, “an intelligent respect for one another’s ‘Englishes’ is one of the many tolerances that must be learned and practised in a future South Africa”. However, the concern ought to be less the variety of English spoken but rather the quality of an English that can ensure success in a globalised world.
English in education Very topical is the current national student drive (2015/2016) for decolonised, free education that again includes violent opposition against Afrikaans being permitted as a language of tuition at tertiary institutions. Ironically, English with its undisputed colonial roots is unquestionably the preferred language of learning and teaching despite few students being sufficiently academically literate in it (Smit, 2010; van Dyk, 2005). English remains the gatekeeper in higher education, although some academics call for increased attention to African languages (Maseko, 2014) and highlight the benefits of mother tongue education (Alexander, 2000, 2002; Heugh, 2005; Smit, 2010). Likewise, voices calling for English plus multilingual education seem louder (Koch and Burkett, 2005; Hibbert and van der Walt, 2014; Van der Walt and Klapwijk, 2016). 190
Is English the lingua franca of South Africa?
Since English is an additional language, often even third or fourth, for the majority of South Africans, its use as a language of learning and teaching (LoLT) has been blamed for low pass rates, particularly at school level, to the extent that the Department of Basic Education conducted research on the effectiveness of translating school-exit examinations into African languages. The experiment showed that “The translated paper[s] did not improve the performance of learners because of a lack of scientific concepts in African languages”1 (National Examinations and Assessment, 2009, p. 8). This conclusion is simplistic, but it does marginally suggest that English is not necessarily the problem, as Leibowitz (2004) also concludes in her study of academic literacy in English at higher education level. In his discussion of the future of English as a lingua franca in South Africa, Balfour (2002) relativises the role of English in school success by indicating that several issues play a role; among them poverty and poor resourcing of schools. Although all these issues demand the urgent attention and rigorous investigation that Balfour calls for, the NIDS results suggest that poor reading and writing proficiency in English implies that fewer students are able to gain access to higher education, because English is the main (if not only) language of learning and teaching. It is, therefore, worrying that surveys related to English language proficiency at tertiary level indicate serious problems (Van Dyk, 2005). For a language to be used as a lingua franca, it needs to be taught well and taught widely. In their study on the effect that teachers’ poor language proficiency in English has on their learners, Nel and Müller (2010, p. 645) conclude that, “A dark picture regarding teacher and learner English language proficiency emerges” with diverse factors (as Balfour (2002) also contends) conspiring against the teachers: overcrowded classes, lack of exposure to English print materials and media outside the classroom; in fact in any language. When this situation is coupled with “student-teachers’ perceptions of their own needs and proficiency in English, their perceptions of the level of support that they render to ESL learners, their perceptions regarding differentiated assessment of a diverse learner corps, and limited ESL resources availability” (Nel and Müller, 2010, p. 646), the future of English as a lingua franca seems dark. Moreover, voices against the dominance of English also argue that the language entrenches disadvantage because “language habits and perceptions are formed during the cognitive development of the rising generations, that is, in the process of education, and old habits tend to persist” (Kotzé, 2014, p. 17). After at least three years of instruction in a home language, the vast majority of learners switch to English as a LoLT in fourth grade making mastery of English crucial for knowledge transfer and meaning-making. It thus remains curious that in post-apartheid education, a colonial language rather than any of the indigenous languages is favoured as a LoLT. Elsewhere in Africa, education systems have been “looking for ways to promote literacy in the vernaculars as a means of erasing the colonial legacy” (Lilly, 1982, n.p.; see also Benson, 2004; Stroud, 2002; 2003). However, the strong rejection of the local Bantu languages as LoLTs by parents and policy makers appears to stem from the historic association with the pitiable quality of Bantu education and adds to the intricacy of the current language-in-education debates (Lafon and Webb, 2008).
The use of English in the civic domain As the previous section showed, English is the preferred language of education, mostly owing to its perceived elite status that acts as a social marker and access to key professions. Despite desegregation at all levels, little cross-cultural socialisation occurs and most South Africans would be using their home languages for such interactions. Moving beyond the 191
Christa van der Walt and Rinelle Evans
confines of the private space, geographical context and racial identity would generally determine which languages are used in service encounters. Even in urban areas, it would not be unusual to switch from an initial encounter in English to another regional language. English and the media National and regional daily newspapers appear in other languages and their readership tends to surpass that of the English dailies. According to the South African Audience Research Foundation (Readership Summary 2015), English language newspapers like the Cape Argus (358, 000), Citizen (426, 000), The Star (602, 000) and The Times (331, 000) all have a fairly steady readership. However, the true status of English as a lingua franca is clear when one compares these numbers to newspapers that were initially published for a readership that did not use English as a home language, for example, the Daily Voice (which includes Afrikaans articles and has a readership of 437, 000), The Sowetan (which started out as a so-called township newspaper, with a readership of 1, 611, 000) and The Sun (which uses a localized form of English with a readership of 5, 157, 000), it is clear that English is not merely used, but has been appropriated for local purposes. Although there are newspapers in other languages, notably the Son (Afrikaans with a readership of 934, 000) and Isolezwe (isiZulu with a readership of 1, 128, 000), South Africans who read newspapers seem to read them mostly in English. The picture is no different when it comes to popular magazines. Of the 78 monthly magazines, 70 are English (Readership Summary, 2015). According to the 2011 Census (Statistics South Africa, 2016), 10, 761, 27 people own television sets and 1 million fewer own a radio. For the latter group, there is a much wider choice of community language stations in addition to the public radio stations that include English. English is much more evident on TV. There are three main public television channels, of which one carries mostly English content. More importantly, people who can afford satellite TV have a slew of English language programmes, including British, American and African (outside of South Africa) channels to choose from. English and state departments Since the Constitution declares 11 languages official, one would expect adherence to this provision when it comes to service delivery at national and provincial levels as practically stated in Section 6(3) (b): The national government and provincial governments may use any particular official languages for the purposes of government, taking into account usage, practicality, expense, regional circumstances and the balance of the needs and preferences of the population as a whole or in the province concerned; but the national government and each provincial government must use at least two official languages. Municipalities must take into account the language usage and preferences of their residents. (Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996) State departments have each drafted their own language policy; a selection of these will be described to show the differences in their responses to the call for department-specific language policies.
192
Is English the lingua franca of South Africa?
South African National Defence Force (SANDF) The SANDF was one of the first organs of post-Apartheid South Africa to draft its language policy, identifying English as its “thread language” (Language Policy for the Department of Defence 1998). Although this provision was opposed, mainly by Afrikaans-speaking members of the public, it was clear that the inclusion of former liberation army soldiers as well as troops from the former homelands called for a speedy decision regarding the language of command and operations (De Klerk and Barkhuizen, 1998). The Department of Arts and Culture (DAC) This department’s language policy was tabled and approved on 30 October 2014, two decades after the adoption of the new Constitution. The policy seems more nuanced than that of the SANDF when it identifies six factors that “will be taken into account in arriving at the choice of official language(s) the DAC will use in each context/situation” (DAC, 2014, p. 4): usage, practicality, expense, regional circumstances and “the balance of the needs and preferences of the public it serves” (DAC, 2014, p. 5). In a table that lists the main contexts or situations, English is reserved for inter and intra-government as well as international communication. The Department of Science and Technology (DST) There is a clear positioning at the start of the DST policy, where it is stated that Compared to other government departments (e.g. the South African Police Service, or the Department of Home Affairs) the Department’s direct communication with the public is limited. Most of its communication is with the public entities and other government departments, where English is accepted as the language of common usage. (Language Policy of the Department of Science and Technology, 2014, p. 4) The responsibility for increasing access to science and technology in African languages is placed neatly at the door of another organ of state, the National Research Foundation: [T]he South African Agency for the Advancement of Science and Technology, a business unit of the National Research Foundation, does the most important work in raising public awareness of science and technology, and should therefore be encouraged to increase its communications in official languages other than English. (Language Policy of the Department of Science and Technology, 2014, p. 4) The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) The most recent language policy to be gazetted is that of the DCS (2016). Unlike the DAC and the DST, the policy provisions of the DCS are based on a survey (Department of Correctional Services Language Policy, 2016, p. 8): 193
Christa van der Walt and Rinelle Evans
A survey was conducted in 2006 by the DCS. The survey findings indicated that the majority of the DCS community (personnel and inmates), prefer English as a business language. Although English came up as the preferred business language, the findings further suggested that the challenge facing the Department is that the quality of written and verbal communication in English is very poor. Eighty-one percent (81 per cent) of participants in the survey had at least NQF level 1 (Grade 7) proficiency in English. Two other preferred official languages were also identified by the survey for each Region and these differ from Region to Region. To our knowledge this is the only state department that explicitly mentions the level of English language proficiency, but it does not indicate any measures to address the problem despite the provision that “English shall be the business language of the Department” (Department of Correctional Services Language Policy, 2016, p. 9). Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) In the final report of the Language Plan Task Group (LANGTAG) the complexity of language use in the Department of Justice was already pointed out in 1996, when the Task Group acknowledges that in the case of the Department of Justice, the possible impact of an official language policy on inter-provincial and province-central Government relations, for example the language in which judgements are written, necessitates a special and perhaps urgent in-depth study of this sector. (LANGTAG 1996, p. 3) When one considers the use of English as a lingua franca in court proceedings, the language becomes a stumbling block for ordinary people who need to gain access to justice in a language that they do not use every day. For this very reason the draft2 language policy of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (2015) identifies at least three and in some cases five languages to be used in “service points” in the various provinces. English and Afrikaans appear in all the combinations (Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, 2015, p. 11). In addition, the policy states that “The doj&cd [sic] will for practical reasons, in general, use English to conduct its business and to provide services to all the citizens” (Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, 2015, p. 17). One of the biggest problems, however, is the provision that states, “Interpretation services will be provided where necessary, subject only to limitations imposed by lack of resources” (Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, 2015, p. 17). The role of court interpreters is a problematic and contentious issue, and Lebese (2013, p. 135) in one of the few studies on the topic, finds (among many other problems) that “court interpreters omit information uttered in the original utterance and add information which was not contained in the original utterance”. Needless to say, this situation does not support the exercise of justice sufficiently. From this admittedly brief overview, it becomes clear that “English is the undisputed de facto language of preference in government (including the Department of Education)” (Kotzé, 2014, p. 19), but this position is criticised by intellectuals who wish to raise the status of African languages. Prah (2007, p. 16) bemoans the decline of multilingualism
194
Is English the lingua franca of South Africa?
in South African society and levels the following accusation: “African elites owe their positions of privilege and influence to the use of the colonial languages”. In Parliament Afrikaans is the only language other than English that is heard sometimes, despite the fact that interpretation services are available for the other languages. The situation has not changed since Luckett’s (1993, p. 39) description, where English is the “vertical medium” for higher domains such as education, politics and law … seldom heard outside middle class contexts … and African languages are typically used for the “lower domains” such as family, sport, religion … [and] … are not considered suitable for higher education or for serving the needs of the modern state.
Conclusion The important point that emerges from this chapter is that despite its status as an apparent lingua franca, or maybe because of its status as a lingua franca, English also acts as a barrier to social and educational mobility, particularly as far as rural communities are concerned. Although its high status is undisputed, there are other contenders for the position of lingua franca. Urban vernaculars have developed rapidly and have been adopted by multilingual communities as localised lingua francas, for example, Pretoria Sotho, tsotsitaal, or flaaitaal. Young children growing up in such environments are increasingly heard to use these varieties as their language of communication. In the Western and Northern Cape, Afrikaans is still widely used as a lingua franca. With the influx of immigrants and migrants, a case could be made for an active development of Swahili or French as a Pan-African lingua franca, as Wildsmith-Cromarty and Conduah (2015) argue. It is in this diversity of languages, cultures and communities that English lives as one lingua franca among several and it is in this complex context that it acquires its particular shape and flavour. South Africans have developed a taste for it and its continued use will depend on the degree to which it maintains a reputation as a language that empowers. However, many voices argue that the dominance of English entrenches unequal power relations (Khokhlova, 2015, p. 990) or as Balfour (2002, p. 25) notes, “the position of English was, and continues to be, much more ambiguous; resented as an inaccessible lingua franca, envied as a ‘gateway to progress’”.
Notes 1 This perception is widespread yet not valid. No translation will help if learners have not been exposed to translated terms in the course of their schooling. 2 Although the time for feedback on the policy has expired, there is no evidence at this stage that a final policy has been gazetted.
Further reading De Klerk, V. (ed.) (1996). Focus on South Africa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Evans, R. and Cleghorn, A. (2012). Complex Classroom Encounters:A South African Perspective. Rotterdam: Sense. Hibbert, L. and Van der Walt, C. (eds) (2014). Multilingual Universities in South Africa. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mesthrie, R. (ed.) (1995). Language and Social History. Cape Town: David Phillip.
195
Christa van der Walt and Rinelle Evans
Schneider, E.W., Burridge, K., Kortmann, B., Mesthrie, R. and Upton, C. (eds) (2004). A Handbook of Varieties of English: Vol. 2: Morphology and Syntax, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Van der Walt, C. (2013). Multilingual Higher Education: Beyond English Medium Orientations. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. www.salanguages.com/index.htm www.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=3839 (website of Statistics South Africa)
References Alexander, N. (2000). English Unassailable But Unattainable: The Dilemma of Language Policy in Education in South Africa. Praesa Occasional Papers, No. 3. Cape Town: Praesa/University of Cape Town. Alexander, N. (2002). Linguistic rights, language planning and democracy in post-apartheid South Africa. In S. Baker (ed.) Language Policy: Lessons from Global Models. Monterey, CA: Monterey Institute of International Studies, pp. 116–129. Balfour, R. (2002). Post-colonial twilight: English as a failed lingua franca. English Academy Review: Southern African Journal of English Studies, 19(1), pp. 20–32. Bekker, I. (2012). The story of South African English: A brief linguistic overview. International Journal of Language, Translation and Intercultural Communication, 1 (1), pp. 139–150. Benson, C. (2004). Do we expect too much of bilingual teachers? Bilingual teaching in developing countries. International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism, 7(2–3), pp. 204–221. Bobda, S.A. (2006). The emergence of “new mother tongues” in Africa and its implications: the example of Cameroon, in C. van der Walt (ed.), Living Through Languages: An African Tribute to René Dirven. Stellenbosch: African SunMedia, pp. 55–70. Bosch, B and De Klerk, V. (1996). Language attitudes in the Eastern Cape. In V. de Klerk (ed.), Focus on South Africa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 231–249. Brand South Africa. (2016). Available at www.southafrica.info/about/people/language.htm#distribution (accessed 25 March). Branford, W. (1996). English in South African society. In V. de Klerk (ed.), Focus on South Africa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 35–52. Census 2011. 2011. Report No. 03-01-41. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. (1996). Available at www.gov.za/documents/constitution/ chapter-1-founding-provisions (accessed 11 April 2016). De Klerk, V. and Barkhuizen, G.P. (1998). Language policy in the SANDF: a case for biting the bullet? Language Problems and Language Planning, 22(3), pp. 215–236. Department of Arts and Culture. (2014). DAC official language policy. Available at www.gov.za/sites/ www.gov.za/files/DAC%20Official%20Language%20Policy_.pdf (accessed 11 April 2016). Department of Correctional Services Language Policy. (2016). Available at www.gov.za/sites/www. gov.za/files/39680_rg10560_gon166.pdf (accessed 11 April 2016). Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. (2015). Available at www.gov.za/sites/www. gov.za/files/38811_gon448.pdf (accessed 11 April 2016). Deumert, A., Inder, B. and Maitra, P. (2005). Language, informal networks and social protection: Evidence from a sample of migrants in Cape Town, South Africa. Global Social Policy 5(3), pp. 303–328. Evans, R. and Cleghorn, A. (2014). Parental perceptions: A case study of school choice amidst language waves. South African Journal of Education, 34(2), pp. 1–19. Gautschi, J.R. (ed.) (2010). Hello South Africa Phrase Book 11 Official Languages. Benmore: Hello South Africa Publishing (Pty). Gough, D.H. (1996). English in South Africa. In P. Silva (ed.) A Dictionary of South African English on Historical Principles. Cape Town: Oxford University Press, pp. vvii–xix. Heugh, K. (2005). Mother tongue is best. Human Sciences Research Council Review 3(3), pp. 6–7 Hibbert, L. and Van der Walt, C. (eds) (2014). Multilingual Universities in South Africa. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kachru, B.B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle. In Quirk, R. and Widdowson, H. (eds) English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–30. 196
Is English the lingua franca of South Africa?
Khokhlova, I. (2015). Lingua franca English of South Africa. Procedia: Social and Behaviourial Sciences 214, pp. 983–991. Koch, E. and Burkett, B. (2005). Making the role of African languages in higher education a reality. South African Journal of Higher Education 19 (6), pp. 1089–1107. Kotzé, E. (2014). The emergence of a favourable policy landscape. In Hibbert, L. and Van der Walt, C. (eds) Multilingual Universities in South Africa. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. pp. 15–27. Lafon, M. and Webb, V. (eds)(2008). Standardisation of African Languages: Language Social Realities. Johannesburg: Institute Francais d’Afrique du Sud. LANGTAG. (1996). Overview, Recommendations and Executive Summary. Final Report of the Language Plan Task Group. Pretoria: State Language Services. Language Policy for the Department of Defence. (1998). Available at http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/ handle/10500/2105/08AppendixA.PDF (accessed 11 April 2016). Language Policy of the Department of Science and Technology. (2014). Available at www.gov.za/ sites/www.gov.za/files/38155_gen947.pdf (accessed 11 April 2016). Lebese, S.J. (2013). The undefined role of court interpreters in South Africa. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of South Africa, Pretoria. Available at http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/ 10500/11923/dissertation_lebese_sj.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed 3 April 2016). Leibowitz, B. (2004). Becoming academically literate in South Africa: Lessons from student accounts for policymakers and educators. Language and Education 18 (1), pp. 35–52. Lilly, M. (1982). Language policy and oppression in South Africa. Cultural Survival, 6(1), n.p. Luckett, K.M. (1993). “National additive bilingualism”: Towards the formulation of a language plan for South African schools. Southern African Journal of Applied Language Studies, 2(1), pp. 38–60. Maseko, P (2014). Multilingualism at work in South African higher education: From policy to practice. In Hibbert, L. and Van der Walt, C. (eds), Multilingual Universities in South Africa. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 28–45. Mashiyi, N. (2014). Tertiary educators’ reflections on language practices that enhance student learning and promote multilingualism. In Hibbert, L. and Van der Walt, C. (eds), Multilingual Universities in South Africa. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. pp. 145–165. National Examinations and Assessment. (2009). Report on the National Senior Certificate Examination Results. Department Basic Education. Available at www.education.gov.za/LinkClick. aspx?fileticket=l3hlVk9sypk%3D (accessed 12 April 2016). National Income Dynamics Study. (2008). Available at www.nids.uct.ac.za/nids-data/data-access (accessed 11 April 2016). Nel, N. and Müller, H. (2010). The impact of teachers’ limited English proficiency on English second language learners in South African schools. South African Journal of Education, 30, pp. 635–650. PanSALB (2000). Language Use and Language Interaction in South Africa: A National Sociolinguistic Survey. Pretoria: PanSALB. Parmegiani, A. and Rudwick, S. (2014). isiZulu-English bilingualisation at the University of KwaZuluNatal: An exploration of students’ attitudes. In Hibbert, L. and Van der Walt, C. (eds), Multilingual Universities in South Africa. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 107–122. Posel, D. and Zeller, J. (2010). Home language and English language ability in South Africa: Insights from new data. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 29 (2), pp. 115–126. Prah, K.K. (2007). Challenges to the promotion of indigenous languages in South Africa. Cape Town: Review commissioned by the Foundation for Human Rights in South Africa. October – November 2006. Submitted in January 2007. Available at www.casas.co.za/FileAssets/NewsCast/misc/ file/204_CV_Challenges%20to%20the%20Promotion%20of%20Indidegous%20Languages%20 in%20Sou_.pdf (accessed 11 April 2016). Probyn, M. (2001). Teachers voices: Teachers reflections on learning and teaching through the medium of English as an additional language in South Africa. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4(4), pp. 249–266 Reaching critical mass (RCM). (1993). Reaching critical mass survey report. Cape Town. Readership Summary. (2015). Available at www.saarf.co.za/amps-readership/2014/AMPS%20 JUN%2014-%20Readership%20Summary%20incl.%20Non-pay.pdf (accessed 12 April 2016). SALanguages .com. 2016. Available at http://salanguages.com/ (accessed 7 May 2017). Seidlhofer, B. (2009). Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. World Englishes 28(2), pp. 236–245. 197
Christa van der Walt and Rinelle Evans
Silva, P. (1997). The Major Varieties of English. Papers from MAVEN Conference 97, Växjö, Sweden: Växjö University. Smit, U. (2010). Conceptualising English as a lingua franca (ELF) as a tertiary classroom language. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, 39, pp. 59–74 Statistics South Africa. (2016). Census 2011. Available at www.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=3839 (accessed 11 April 2016). Stroud, C. (2002). Towards a Policy for Bilingual Education in Developing Countries. Education Division Documents No. 10. Stockholm: Sida. Stroud, C. (2003). Postmodern perspectives on local languages: African mother-tongue education in times of globalization. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 1, pp. 17–34. Van der Walt, C. (2007). A World Englishes perspective in English language teacher training: reluctance and rejection. Journal for Language Teaching 41(1), pp. 101–114. Van der Walt, C and Klapwijk, N. (2016). English-plus multilingualism as the new linguistic capital? Implications of university students’ attitudes towards languages of instruction in a multilingual environment. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 15(2), pp. 67–82. Van Dyk, T. (2005). Towards providing effective academic literacy intervention. Per Linguam 21(2), pp. 38–51. Webb, V.N. (2002). Language policy development in South Africa. Paper presented at the World Congress on Language Policies, Barcelona, 16–20 April 2002. Available at www.linguapax.org/ wp-content/uploads/2015/09/CMPL2002_T3_Webb.pdf (accessed 5 April 2016). Wildsmith-Cromarty, R. and Conduah, A.N. (2015). Issues of identity and African unity surrounding the introduction of an exogenous African language, Swahili, at tertiary level in South Africa. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 17(6), pp. 638–653.
198
Part III
ELF characteristics and processes
16 Analysing ELF variability Ruth Osimk-Teasdale
Introduction The variable use of language has been described as central to ELF communication, for example by Seidlhofer (2011: 110f.), who writes that the use of ELF is characterised by “hybridity and dynamism, fluidity, and flexibility [. . .] heightened variability and a premium on mutual accommodation”. In essence, variable use in ELF communication means the use of language forms and functions that are not in accordance with standard language or conventionalised NS use of English. It is thus not surprising that such variable language use is challenging to capture. In this contribution, the experience gained from the part-of-speech tagging (POS tagging) of VOICE serves as an example of how to display variable aspects of language use. I argue that while it is a challenge to describe the degree and type of variability in ELF data with pre-defined, conventional linguistic categories, the attempt to ‘squeeze’ ELF into such categories also highlights where it varies from linguistic convention and as such challenges the validity of established linguistic concepts for variable, adaptable language use.
Variability in ELF Variability of use is neither novel nor unique to ELF communication but an intrinsic feature of all language use, as was already recognised some 40 years ago by William Labov (Widdowson 2015: 360). This intrinsically dynamic and variable nature of language constitutes the very pre-requisite for it to be used as a tool in interaction. In this respect, variability in ELF can be seen as exemplifying a general feature of all natural language use. However, variability has also been found to be especially evident in ELF communication itself, because there, a certain linguistic flexibility is required as speakers do not belong to a single speech community and use ELF to bridge potential language- and culture-related gaps (Widdowson 2016: 35–36). For this purpose, English “continually gets appropriated and re-fashioned by its speakers” (Seidlhofer 2011: 111). It is this re-fashioning of English that is particularly characteristic of ELF communication, since it also involves drawing on linguistic resources other than English and an adaptation of these for the communicative situation at hand. As such, 201
Ruth Osimk-Teasdale
variability in ELF interactions can be seen as connected to variable communicative settings, characterised by “temporary relationships, with speaker constellations frequently being tied and untied anew for each emerging interaction” (Hülmbauer 2009: 325). Hülmbauer argues that the interlocutors need to create meaning in these situations and hence, “[v]ariability, i.e. the particularity of constellations as well as their fleetingness, can be regarded as an inherent feature of ELF communication” (2009: 325). The variability in ELF use concerns language forms and functions, and various linguistic levels, e.g. phonology, lexis, morphosyntax or pragmatics. Variable forms are for example the zero-realisation of third-person -s (e.g. Breiteneder 2009), word coinages (Pitzl, Breiteneder and Klimpfinger 2008) but also traditionally more ‘fixed’ forms such as chunks (Mauranen 2009), idioms (Pitzl 2012) or phrasal verbs (Märzinger 2012). Variability also occurs when certain paradigmatic forms are used with syntagmatic functions different to their codified ones (Osimk-Teasdale 2013, 2014, 2015). Moreover, certain communicative strategies can give rise to variability of forms. The third-person singular zero marking in ELF, for example, has been suggested to be in part result of accommodative moves between interlocutors (Cogo and Dewey 2006: 84). Variability in ELF data has been approached from a number of different angles. For example, Baird, Baker and Kitazawa (2014: 190) suggest that a fruitful way of explaining the “fluidity, variability and dynamism of ELF interactions” is Complexity Theory, and they stress in particular the importance of approaching a multi-faceted issue such as ELF from different directions. Another way of viewing variation is in terms of “some virtual capacity for exploitation, inherent in the encoded language itself” (Seidlhofer 2011: 110). The idea of this “virtual capacity” in ELF is that speakers exploit available language resources with regard to what is possible, though has not been codified, similar to creativity in poetry (Widdowson 1997). This does not eliminate “reference to some norm” (Seidlhofer 2011: 118), as the definition of creativity is that it diverts in some way from a norm (see also Pitzl, Chapter 19 this volume). Rather, in ELF interactions, these norms are different from Standard English as well as being stretched (Seidlhofer 2011: 118). Therefore, aspects of “adaptation and nonconformity” (Widdowson 1997: 140) in relation to norms are integral parts of the use of language as a virtual resource. As such, variability in language, or divergence from codifications, does not inhibit success in communication (Seidlhofer and Widdowson 2009: 94), but forms a prerequisite for it to function in a wide range of settings between speakers of different language and cultural backgrounds (see e.g. Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey 2011; Seidlhofer 2011). However, ELF speakers are also “pragmatic” about variable language use (Ehrenreich 2009: 140), applying new forms especially when communicatively necessary (Pitzl 2012: 39). The issue of variability is central to ELF research because of the kind and degree of variability exhibited in ELF, which makes it difficult to gloss over such language use. On the contrary, recent ELF research has embraced and explicitly studied this variability, thus highlighting its prevalence. However, this variability is marked because rather than occurring within L1 speech communities, it takes place between speakers of different lingua-cultural backgrounds, and its use extends over a wide range of communicative contexts and purposes. The way variation is approached in ELF research is thus to be clearly distinguished from a view based on L1 speech communities where the focus is usually on which variable features are established in order to form a variety of English (Widdowson 2015: 363). Rather, the focus on ELF research is to investigate the “process of variation itself, on what motivates the variable use of linguistic resources in the achievement of communicative purposes in different contexts of use” (Widdowson 2015: 363; original emphasis). The investigation 202
Analysing ELF variability
of the way linguistic resources are adapted in ELF contexts also calls for a reconsideration of established concepts, such as the role and usefulness of norms and standards (Dewey 2012; Widdowson 2012) or the usefulness of linguistic categorisation for actual language use (Osimk-Teasdale 2015).
Analysing variation in ELF data by POS tagging In order to describe ELF interactions, a large amount of systematically collected data is needed. Since Seidlhofer’s identification of a “conceptual gap” (Seidlhofer 2001: 151) between the reality of a widespread use of ELF and the lack of description thereof, a number of spoken and written ELF corpora have become available. Apart from VOICE, one of the first ELF corpora was the spoken corpus of English as a lingua franca in academic settings (ELFA), as well as, more recently, the Asian corpus of English (ACE, which is based on the methodology of VOICE), and the corpus of academic spoken English (CASE), which all adopt a similar perspective and conceptual approach. The availability of the first ELF corpora constituted without any doubt a major milestone for ELF research and description, as it made the systematic analysis of ELF possible in a new way. At the time of its release in 2009, VOICE was the first freely available corpus of transcribed, spoken ELF interactions, and in 2013, the first ELF corpus to be annotated with part-of-speech (POS) tags (see VOICE 2013). POS-tagging is a common type of annotation in which word classes, including various morphosyntactic sub-categories, are assigned to each token in a corpus by automatic and manual procedures. This type of annotation is generally carried out with the purpose to increase the usability of corpora, as the addition of such categories opens the data to a larger number of research questions, and can, for example, yield insights into the ways speakers use language variably from conventionalised NS use or standard language. But how does one go about tagging a corpus that is characterised by variable forms and functions that often differ from those commonly assigned in works of reference, such as dictionaries? The only types of evidence available in corpora are the language forms and their co-textual and contextual environment, while the speakers’ intentions are not accessible to the (digital or human) tagger. This is true for both native and non-native language use in corpora alike. However, while for L1 corpora, taggers typically refer to commonly assumed standards and draw on native speaker intuition, this is far more difficult, if not impossible for unconventional corpus data such as contained in VOICE, as the speakers refer to various different language (and cultural) resources, and adapt these to the respective communicative settings. Hence, the tagging of VOICE was not merely a matter of letting an automatic tagger assign L1-based word class categories. While, in principle, these categories are needed in order to increase the usability for the corpus (and tagging is product oriented), the challenge consisted in finding a way to work with conventional categories and codifications, while departing from these in order to do justice to the variable language use present in spoken ELF data (for a discussion of the problems of describing natural language use with pre-defined categories see also e.g. Denison 2013 and Widdowson 2012). As a consequence, this process of using taggers to account for unconventional, variable ELF data in simple categorical terms drew attention to exactly those forms that were variable from codifications of English. In this sense, the tagging in VOICE had two sides: it was not only an analytic exercise for increasing usability of the corpus, but also – even mainly – a discovery procedure. These two aspects of POS tagging in VOICE, i.e. the product of POS tags on the one hand, and the conceptual challenges that arose from assigning these on the other, 203
Ruth Osimk-Teasdale
created the need to assign word classes transparently without glossing over the variability that is so prominent a feature of the ELF data being tagged. But how does one do this and what compromises are called for? The tagging of data means a classification of language in terms of a reference, which defines which word class category a form belongs to. For the tagging of VOICE, a dictionary was chosen as the main point of reference. The choice for this reference dictionary was made for reasons of convenience, e.g. to ensure consistency in the annotation and spelling among the annotation teams, and because it presented the most customary NS usage at the time.1 While large amounts of the data could be tagged in reference to the dictionary or with the information supplied by automatic taggers, there were also numerous cases that occurred with categories other than those that were listed in the reference dictionary and that therefore presented a variation from codified language use. Notably, these issues are by no means unique to the annotation of ELF corpora, but reportedly occur in other (L1 and L2) corpora as well. However, in these other corpora, these issues are either only marginally addressed (if at all),2 or the variable character of spoken, spontaneous language use is compromised. This is done by, e.g. either editing the data to remove features typical of spoken language, or ‘normalising’ variable forms (especially by non-native users) in the tagging procedure to resemble standardised, written language. Naturally, some adaptation of spoken language is to some degree inevitable, as the only way to deal with spoken utterances is to convert them to written language, namely by transforming them into transcripts. However, it seems that the data, especially that of non-native users, have often been adjusted to suit the particular methodology in corpus annotation, and to ease the task of annotating the corpora. By this, inherently, the non-codified language use is measured against conventions of NS usage, judging any divergence from it as inferior and not worthy of linguistic description. In tagging VOICE, within a framework of ELF research, a different approach was chosen: The main aims were visibility of the variability as well as consistency and traceability of the tag assignment. The latter two mean that the tag assignment should be as consistent as possible among each type of variability, and the tag decisions become traceable for the corpus users. This traceability, in fact, is one of the main assets of the annotation of VOICE, as the corpus comes with a large amount of documentation, such as detailed markup and spelling conventions (VOICE Project 2007); tagging and lemmatisation guidelines (VOICE Project 2014); and the explanation of the decision processes behind these (e.g. Breiteneder et al. 2009; Osimk-Teasdale 2015). The visibility of variability means that variability in form or function should be displayed, rather than disguised, in each assigned POS tag. This also meant that a tag reflects how a form varies from codified norms, e.g. the word class categories listed in the reference dictionary, but, rather than resolving this ‘conflict’ between ELF usage and codified language use, the variability is merely made transparent, while leaving further analysis to the corpus user. In order to display as much information as possible about the variable language use, a dual tagging system was developed; each token in the corpus received a double tag, one for form followed by a tag for function of the token in brackets, in the format FORMtag(FUNCTION-tag). In cases that coincided with the word class(es) listed in the reference dictionary, both tags are identical, in cases where a discrepancy between ELF use in VOICE and the reference dictionary was found, the tags differ. The display of variability with the dual tagging system developed for VOICE will be illustrated below by three particularly frequent examples of variability found in the tagging process. 204
Analysing ELF variability
The first type of variability encountered was the non-canonical use of paradigmatic forms, such as realistical in the example below: (1) S1: some questions are tricky@@ maybe not realistical (EDint330:634, L1= scc-RS)3 This type of variability concerned forms that are not listed in the reference dictionary at all, but are generally formed according to regular word formation processes. These forms, such as realistical, were marked
(pronunciation variations and coinages) during the transcription process (Pitzl, Breiteneder and Klimpfinger 2008: 22). In the POS-tagged version these forms received a form-tag PVC, to indicate that the form is non-canonical. A function tag according to its syntagmatic function was also assigned, which was an adjective in the case of realistical above. The tagging of realistical was therefore realistical_PVC(JJ). Another type of variability were those forms listed in the reference dictionary but occurring with a different paradigmatic function in VOICE, e.g. single nouns in plural function, such as university in two university.4 (2) S3: th- there are there are two university in [place2] (PRint30:27, L1=ita) In such cases, the variability was made transparent by giving a form-tag for singular noun, but a function-tag for plural noun use: university_NN(NNS). The third type of variable language use in VOICE concerned words ending in -ing, which can function as adjectives, verbs or nouns in sentences, both when occurring alone, as exemplified for sharing in (3) below, as well as when they are part of a compound noun, such as steering crew in example (4). (3) S4: for the sharing in responsibilities (POwsd372:570_3, L1= mlt-MT) (4) S1: <6> er (.) the most convenient (.) way for us AND (1) in accordance what we agreed last time the steering (crew) steering (crew) would me would be indeed to omit (.) the entire paragraph (1) (POmtg541:1020, L1=fin-FI) Although the ending -ing can be used for the formation of new words in English generally, the high number of occurrences of such tokens in VOICE that were not covered by the reference dictionary indicates that the use of the ending -ing by ELF users in VOICE is especially variable. In total we found 14,011 tokens ending in -ing that could be either classified as nouns, adjective or verbs, and for which a uniform tagging solution had to be sought. Given this high number, it was no surprise that the reference dictionary was not sufficient for the classification of such items. As a solution to this, a very open way of handling these cases was adopted, in which the tagging was decided upon from the immediate environment of a token ending in -ing in a manual tagging procedure. This meant that rather than comparing the tokens directly to the reference dictionary, the researchers would look at each individual case and decide what the most appropriate tag was according to the syntactic and contextual environment. For example, sharing in (3) above was decided to be a noun because of the article the preceding it. In addition, a tag was given to all tokens ending in -ing in order to facilitate the tracing of all such forms by corpus users. With means of the dual tagging procedure all tokens ending in -ing received the form-tag VVG, referring generically to all forms 205
Ruth Osimk-Teasdale
ending in -ing. The function-tag (noun or verb) was assigned manually according to context, as demonstrated for sharing and establishing in examples (5) and (6).5 (5) for the sharing_VVG(NN) in responsibilities (6) so basically establishing_VVG(VVG) quotas xxx is this okay for everyone What emerges from the examples above is that the categorisation and display of variability is not straightforward, and involves finding an inevitable compromise between being transparent to corpus users and making room for the flexible language use of the ELF speakers. It was found that the dual tagging system was one way to achieve exactly that. It might be argued that the dual tagging system resembles conventional error tagging procedures carried out for L2 corpora, in that the non-codified use is marked in reference to an L1-based dictionary. Admittedly, using external points of reference does involve an inevitable compromise: labelling tokens with linguistic categories inevitably has to be done in reference to conventionally defined unit(s) in order to be recognisable for a large user base of researchers, and this referencing may detract from the individual character of the data. At the same time, however, it has been argued that a feasible way of displaying the character of ELF data is by describing it in terms of similarity or difference from a familiar point of reference (cf. Pitzl, Breiteneder and Klimpfinger 2008: 25). For a non-codified form– function relationship as in two university above, for example, it can be said that in reference to a traditional linguistic category, university has the form of a singular noun, but functions as plural. The perspective taken in ELF research differs from that taken in other approaches to L2 use of language learner corpus studies, as it does not presume that such use is erroneous. Rather, the format chosen for such cases in the POS tagging of VOICE displays that use as different from certain codifications of English. While the tagging of VOICE highlights cases where ELF data is variable when compared to with conventional linguistic categories, an analysis of such cases is then left to the researcher working with the data, as in VOICE this information is merely displayed rather than resolved. As argued above, the POS tagging of ELF data in VOICE gives rise to numerous conceptual (re-)considerations of the way we think about and analyse language. One conceptual question, which is discussed in the previous paragraph, concerns the limited suitability of available categories for actual language use and how to handle this in analytical linguistic tasks. Another issue, which also relates to learner vs. ELF language described above, and that became prominent in the tagging process, was the treatment of (ELF) user vs. (EFL) learner data in corpus linguistics and linguistics generally (see e.g. Mauranen 2011 and Seidlhofer 2011 for previous discussion of the importance of this distinction). In particular, the question arose what exactly was the distinction between language learners and users and their respective data, as, though they exhibit similar characteristics, they tend to be treated very differently, i.e. that learner data is mainly annotated in terms of errors or ‘adapted’ to what is intuitively assumed to be native speaker usage (by, for example, means of error tagging or ‘normalising’ non-codified language use), while user data tends to be described and tagged ‘in its own right’, thus viewing differences from standard language as variable language use. In the POS tagging of VOICE we came to the conclusion that the main difference between learners and (ELF) users can be viewed as being one of different perspectives, rather than the communicative setting, language proficiency or characteristics of the data, as I have argued at length (Osimk-Teasdale 2015). Implications of these different perspectives are crucial. They relate to the way the language output of users and learners is described in the literature, where 206
Analysing ELF variability
language learners are generally viewed in direct comparison to the target language speakers, whereas users’ language is assumed to be communicatively purposeful and to fulfil certain functions. This, in turn, has an influence on the different aspects of language output that are focussed on in the literature, depending on whether the speakers are defined as learners or users of the language, and on the conclusions that are drawn. Unfortunately, it also means that literature on learners and users is often not taken into account mutually, even though both fields could doubtlessly profit from such an exchange.
Conclusion Although inherent to all language use, variability is undoubtedly a particularly prominent aspect of ELF data as well as a focus of ELF research. The tagging of VOICE provides an example of how to make this variability transparent in practical corpus annotation tasks. To achieve this, a number of novel solutions were required, as well as compromises sought between creating space for the linguistic variability evident in the data and developing a usable product in terms of a POS-tagged corpus. This is because conventional linguistic entities and existing tagging strategies are, though in some respects useful tools, too restrictive to describe the variability of natural language use, as is evident in ELF data. In the annotation of VOICE, the main aims were to make the difference between codifications and the language variability used in ELF communication visible (rather than dissolving this ‘disparity’), to annotate the variability consistently and to make all tagging decisions traceable for the corpus users. A ‘dual tagging system’, which was especially developed for VOICE was a way to achieve exactly this visibility, the detailed accompanying corpus documentation provided information about the tagging system and the underlying decision processes. The tagging of VOICE differs in approach from common annotation procedures applied to L1 and L2 corpora in that, rather than glossing over the kind of conceptual and descriptive problems that tagging gives rise to it explicitly engages with them. This is a different kind of tagging, appropriate for the phenomenon of ELF as described at the beginning of the article. The very nature of ELF data is a challenge to accepted ideas and practices in linguistic description. In particular, the attempt to describe variable aspects of ELF data with conventional categories clearly reveals the inadequacy of existing linguistic categories for the description of natural language use. But this inadequacy also highlights the more extensive variability of ELF usage as being more flexible than the conventional encodings of standard language. In carrying out a tagging exercise on ELF data, one cannot help but become aware of the complex adaptive ways in which the resources of English can be put to communicative use, nor, at the same time, of the limitations of conventional ways of thinking in seeking to describe them.
Notes 1 For the transcription and annotation of VOICE, the seventh edition of the Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary (OALD7) was chosen as the dictionary of reference used for annotating VOICE. For a detailed discussion of the reasons for choosing the reference dictionary see Breiteneder et al. (2006) and Pitzl, Breiteneder and Klimpfinger (2008). Other points of reference used included grammars, frequency lists of other corpora and corpus descriptions. These as well as a more detailed account of the challenges and uses of using ENL points of reference for ELF data are discussed in Osimk-Teasdale and Dorn (2016). 2 But see for example Rahman and Sampson (2000) or Meurers and Wunsch (2010) who discuss variable and non-codified language use and the display in corpus annotation in more detail. 207
Ruth Osimk-Teasdale
3 EDint330: ID of speech event; 634: utterance number in the speech event; L1=scc-RS: first language of speaker, here: Serbian, RS: corresponding country, here: Serbia (abbreviation of languages according to the ISO 639-2 codes, abbreviation of corresponding countries according to the ISO 3166-1-alpha-2 codes). Emphasis added. 4 These cases and the annotation of these are discussed in more detail in Osimk (2013), OsimkTeasdale (2014) and Osimk-Teasdale and Dorn (2016). 5 As it was often particularly difficult to decide between verbal and adjectival use of a token, the only options for function position were either noun or verb tags. The reference dictionary was used solely for adjectival use of tokens ending in -ing, such as interesting, ongoing etc., meaning that all items that were listed as adjectives in the reference dictionary received an adjective tag, as we considered them to be conventionalised.
Related chapters in this handbook 4 Larsen-Freeman, Complexity and ELF 7 Seidlhofer, Standard English and the dynamics of ELF variation 8 Widdowson, Historical perspectives on ELF 19 Pitzl, Creativity, idioms and metaphorical language in ELF 21 Björkman, Morphosynctic variation in spoken English as a lingua franca interactions: revisiting linguistic variety
Further reading Osimk-Teasdale, R., (2014). “I just wanted to give a partly answer”: capturing and exploring word class variation in ELF data. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3 (1), pp. 109–143. Osimk-Teasdale, R. and Dorn, N. (2016). Accounting for ELF: categorising the unconventional in POS-tagging the VOICE corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 21(3), pp. 372–395. Seidlhofer, B., (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H.G. (2015). ELF and the pragmatics of language variation. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(2), pp. 359–372. Widdowson, H G. (2016). ELF, adaptive variability and virtual language. In Pitzl, M.-L. and OsimkTeasdale, R. (eds) English as a lingua franca: perspectives and prospects. Contributions in honour of Barbara Seidlhofer. Boston, MA and Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 31–37.
References Baird, R., Baker, W. and Kitazawa, M. (2014). The complexity of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3 (1), pp. 171–196. Breiteneder, A. (2009). English as a lingua franca in Europe: an empirical perspective. World Englishes, 28 (2), pp. 256–269. Breiteneder, A., Klimpfinger, T., Majewski, S. and Pitzl, M.-L. (2009). The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE): a linguistic resource for exploring English as a lingua franca. ÖGAI-Journal, 28 (1), pp. 21–26. Cogo, A., and Dewey, M. (2006). Efficiency in ELF communication: from pragmatic motives to lexico-grammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5 (2), pp. 59–93. Denison, D. (2013). Parts of speech: solid citizens or slippery customers? Journal of the British Academy, 1, pp. 151–185. Available from: www.britac.ac.uk/templates/asset-relay.cfm?frmAsset FileID=13251 [Accessed 6 May 2016]. Dewey, M. (2012). Towards a post-normative approach: learning the pedagogy of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1 (1), pp. 141–170. Ehrenreich, S. (2009). English as a lingua franca in multinational corporations: exploring business communities of practice. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds) English as a lingua franca: studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 126–151. 208
Analysing ELF variability
Hülmbauer, C. (2009). “We don’t take the right way. We just take the way that we think you will understand”: the shifting relationship between correctness and effectiveness in ELF. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds) English as a lingua franca: studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 323–347. Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44 (3), pp. 281–315. Märzinger, K.. 2012. The use of phrasal verbs in English as a lingua franca. MA thesis, University of Vienna. Mauranen, A. (2009). Chunking in ELF: expressions for managing interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6 (2), pp. 217–233. Mauranen, A. (2011). Learners and users: who do we want corpus data from? In Meunier, F., Granger, S., Gilquin, G. and Paquot, M. (eds) A taste for corpora: in honour of Sylviane Granger. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 155–171. Meurers, D. and Wunsch, H. (2010). Linguistically annotated learner corpora: aspects of a layered linguistic encoding and standardized representation [online]. Available from: www.sfs.uni-tuebin gen.de/~dm/papers/meurers-wunsch-10.pdf (accessed 6 May 2016). Osimk-Teasdale, R. (2013). Applying existing tagging practices to VOICE. In Mukherjee, J. and Huber, M. (eds) Corpus linguistics and variation in English: focus on non-native Englishes (Proceedings of ICAME 31). Helsinki: VARIENG. Available from www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/13/ osimk-teasdale (accessed 9 May 2017). Osimk-Teasdale, R. (2014). “I just wanted to give a partly answer”: capturing and exploring word class variation in ELF data. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3 (1), pp. 109–143. Osimk-Teasdale, R. (2015). Parts of speech in English as a lingua franca: the POS tagging of VOICE. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Vienna. Osimk-Teasdale, R. and Dorn, N. (2016). Accounting for ELF: categorising the unconventional in POS-tagging the VOICE corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 21(3), pp. 372–395. Pitzl, M.-L. (2012). Creativity meets convention: idiom variation and remetaphorization in ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1 (1), 27–55. Pitzl, M.-L., Breiteneder, A. and Klimpfinger, T. (2008). A world of words: processes of lexical innovation in VOICE. Vienna English Working Papers, 17 (2), pp. 21–46. Rahman, A. and Sampson, G. (2000). Extending grammar annotation standards to spontaneus speech. In Kirk, J.M. (ed.) Corpora galore: analyses and techniques in describing English: papers from the Nineteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerised Corpora. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 295–311. Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11 (2), pp. 133–158. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seidlhofer, B. and Widdowson, H.G. (2009). Conformity and creativity in ELF and learner English. In Albl-Mikasa, M. Braun, S. and Kalina, S. (eds) Dimensionen der Zweitsprachenforschung. Dimensions of Second Language Research. (Festschrift for Kurt Kohn). Tübingen: Narr, pp. 93–107. VOICE Project. (2007). VOICE transcription conventions [2.1]. Available from: www.univie.ac.at/ voice/voice.php?page=transcription_general_information (accessed 6 May 2016). VOICE. (2013). The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version POS Online 2.0). Available from: http://voice.univie.ac.at/pos/ (accessed 6 May 2016). VOICE Project. (2014). VOICE Part-of-Speech tagging and Lemmatization Manual [1st revised version]. Available from: www.univie.ac.at/voice/documents/VOICE_tagging_manual.pdf (accessed 6 May 2016). Widdowson, H.G. (1997). EIL, ESL, EFL: global issues and local interests. World Englishes, 16 (1), pp. 135–146. Widdowson, H.G. (2012). ELF and the inconvenience of established concepts. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1 (1), 5–26. Widdowson, H.G. (2015). ELF and the pragmatics of language variation. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4 (2), pp. 359–372. Widdowson, H.G. (2016). ELF, adaptive variability and virtual language. In Pitzl, M.-L. and OsimkTeasdale, R. (eds) English as a lingua franca: perspectives and prospects. Contributions in honour of Barbara Seidlhofer. Boston, MA and Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 31–37.
209
17 The pragmatics of ELF Alessia Cogo and Juliane House
Introduction This chapter offers an overview of research into the pragmatics of English as a lingua franca. We begin with an exploration of the initial work on the pragmatics of ELF, which focused on empirical studies of talk among non-native students of English, in controlled environments. We then explore current work, which focuses on accommodation processes and pragmatic strategies, including multilingual aspects. This more recent work delves into the intercultural nature of lingua franca communication, where more attention is dedicated to working towards pragmatic understanding, focusing on how speakers construct and negotiate understanding and how they solve miscommunication problems. An overview of this work includes the areas of negotiation of meaning, the use of interactional elements, discourse markers, idiomatic expressions and multilingual resources. We also explore pragmatic strategies in two specific domains, namely business and higher education, while addressing the relation between pragmatic aspects and issues of culture and identity. Throughout the examination of latest developments in ELF pragmatics, we emphasize how ELF is “an open-source phenomenon”, which is constantly adapted by its users and varies according to the context where it is used.
Earlier studies in the pragmatics of ELF Earlier studies in the pragmatics of ELF were based on small-scale data collection of mainly international students’ talk in informal contexts. The findings of these early studies were influenced by the kind of data collected and the simulated nature of the conversations, which affected the level of engagement and pragmatic work done by the participants. In her early work on ELF, Meierkord (1996) examined ELF as a learner language that exhibited interlanguage characteristics, but also adaptations to the communicative potential of the English language. Meierkord looked at audiotaped English dinner table conversations elicited in a British student residence from students of many different L1 backgrounds.
210
The pragmatics of ELF
She examined opening and closing phases, gambits, topic management, politeness, turntaking, overlaps and hesitation phenomena and found that ELF talk showed surprisingly few misunderstandings. If misunderstandings did occur, they were generally left unresolved. Further results included short turns, frequent use of non-verbal supportive back channels and little interference from L1 norms. This last finding is however problematic, as Meierkord had no contrastive baseline data for the many languages involved in her study. A further limitation of Meierkord’s study is that she collected simulated conversations, which may explain her participants’ lack of engagement in solving misunderstandings. Overall Meierkord’s initial work was influential in pragmatic terms for the emphasis on interactional elements and collaborative talk. Some of Meierkord’s findings were confirmed in other early work on ELF by Firth (1990, 1996). They analysed telephone conversations between employees of Danish companies and their foreign partners, supplementing their analyses with ethnographic information. The authors stress the “fleeting” nature of ELF talk, the fluidity of norms reflecting participants’ insecurity regarding which norms are operative, as well as their often strained attempts at conversational attuning. This tended to result in overtly consensus-oriented conversational behaviour and interactants’ attempts to “normalize” potential trouble sources in a preventive way, rather than attend to them explicitly, via for instance repair initiation, reformulation, or other negotiating behaviours. As long as a threshold of understanding was achieved, ELF participants appeared to adopt the “let-it-pass” principle, an interpretive procedure that makes the interactional style “robust”, and consensual. In general, ELF talk was found to be a joint achievement of interactants, who successfully engage in their interactional and interpretive work in order to sustain the appearance of normality. This behaviour is evident in the marked absence of “other repairs”, requests for information or confirmation. “ELF participants”, says Firth “have a remarkable ability and willingness to tolerate anomalous usage and marked linguistic behaviour even in the face of what appears to be usage that is at times acutely opaque” (Firth 1996: 247). Furthermore there are many remarkable collaborative actions, i.e. joint discourse production in the talk. In sum, ELF users appear to be competent enough to monitor each others’ moves at a high level of awareness, and to acquire new items as they become established in the ongoing talk. However, later work, especially in more domain-dependent talk, finds less frequent let-it-pass (only when talk is non-consequential) and tends to lose the over-emphasis on make-it-normal, which seems to assume a deficient perspective towards ELF ELF talk, which is considered “abnormal”. Similar results were presented by Lesznyak (2004), who analysed an ELF interaction at an international students’ meeting in the Netherlands and compared this interaction with talk involving groups of native speakers of English, Hungarian and German and with an interaction between native speakers of English and ELF speakers. Her focus was on topic management and, as opposed to her English as a foreign language (EFL) data where topic management corresponded to native British English norms, ELF interactions showed a lengthy process of finding common ground, negotiating footing and establishing communicative rules as participants’ initially divergent behaviour was gradually transformed into convergent behavioural patterns. ELF interactants were found to jointly work out the rules for their particular encounter arriving at a shared interpretation of the social situation they had found themselves in, including explicit marking of cohesion and coherence through deictic procedures as expressions of shared knowledge.
211
Alessia Cogo and Juliane House
Recent work on the pragmatics of ELF In recent work the focus is on pragmatic understanding, especially on how interactants accommodate to each other, construct and negotiate understanding and how they solve miscommunication problems. This research can be divided into four main areas: negotiation of meaning, use of interactional elements, including discourse markers, idiomatic expressions and multilingual resources. All these aspects underlie the importance of accommodation in pragmatic work, which has been has been theorized as major characteristic of ELF communication from the start (e.g. Jenkins 2000). Negotiation of meaning Considerable research has been dedicated to the aspect of negotiating meaning in naturally occurring talk, focusing on the strategies used to construct meaning and/or solve non- understanding. Strategies research includes the moves that are performed after the trouble in communication and those that occur before any signal of non-understanding has taken place in conversation (cf. Cogo and Dewey 2012: 120–135ff.). Pre-emption signals draw attention to a specific point in the conversation before any obvious non-understanding has occurred, and strategies such as repetition and paraphrasing, can be used as proactive measures to avert understanding problems. Excerpt 1 shows one such example and focuses on pre-empting in relation to idiomatic expressions (transcript conventions are located in the appendix to this chapter (p. 221)). Here the participants discuss a work-related task one of them has just finished. Excerpt 1 01 S1: so she’s so relieved 02 S2: oh [all right that’s goo::d 03 S1: [that she passed messages 04 S2: mhm= 05 S1: =but I have to do that by Monday 06 S2: =mhm 07 S1: =it’s ok so she’s re-that’s why I said don’t step on the stones … cause so 08 relaxed you-you might feel 09 S2: (chuckle) 10 S2: oh all ri:ght [I see 11 S1: [yeah 12 S2: but is it just a Japanese:: eh:: way of saying? 13 S1: yeah and when we finish something 14 S2: mhm mhm 15 S1: sort of our concentration … will not be … ah how can I explain … not 16 disturbed … we can’t concentrate on something (Cogo and Dewey 2012: 131) This extract focuses on the expression “stepping on the stones” (line 07), which is the item pre-emptied by S1, when she refers to her colleague who has finished a task and was asked to be careful about stepping on the stones. The Japanese idiom is used to warn somebody who may be “relaxed” (line 08) and careless and therefore trip over and hurt 212
The pragmatics of ELF
themselves. S1 has already started explaining the reason when this expression would be used (because she “passed messages” line 3) even before the expression is introduced (which happens only in line 07 “don’t step on the stones”). In line 12, a comprehension check is carried out to explicitly clarify if the expression used by S1 is a “Japanese way of saying” and this is immediately followed by S1’s confirmation and the addition that the idiomatic expression is used when a task is finished (line 13). The “we” in line 13 is a contextualization cue that refers to Japanese people who would use that idiomatic expression. S1 seems aware that these kinds of expressions may be culturally specific and not easily understood, therefore the engagement in pre-empting work. Pre-empting strategies, such as comprehension checks and paraphrases can prove to be quite useful in monitoring participants’ understanding, as they require speakers to engage in a constant joint effort, especially when explicit signals of non-understanding are absent. Other research shows how both paraphrasing and comprehension checks are used to enhance “understanding and to possibly even secure it in the event that shared understanding has not yet been achieved” (Kaur 2009: 113). A number of studies (e.g., Cogo 2009; House 2010; Lichtkoppler 2007; Mauranen 2012; Pitzl 2005 among others) have shown that strategies such as repetition, both self-repetition and other-repetition, and rephrasing are commonly used for this kind of interactional monitoring in intercultural communication. Furthermore, different kinds of repetitions, ranging from word-by-word repetition to rephrasing are used for various functions. Repetition, for instance, can be used both to draw attention to a possible non-understanding and to solve a communication problem afterwards. As with repetition, so-called “Represents” (cf. Edmondson 1981) are often used in ELF interactions in order to pre-empt potential communication problems (e.g. House 2002, 2010). Represents – in the literature also known as echo, mirror, or shadow elements – are multifunctional gambits that serve to repeat or “represent” (part of) previous speakers’ moves. Represents fulfill different functions: (a) as a strategy with which speakers’ working memory in comprehension and production is deliberately supported; (b) a coherence-creating strategy with which lexical-paradigmatic clusters are systematically built up for speaker and addressee; c) a signal of receipt and confirmation of comprehension of one’s interactant; d) a meta-communicative procedure that strengthens interactants’ awareness of their own and others’ talk. Represents are typical of genres such as psycho-therapeutic interviews, instructional and aircraft control discourse, where information is deliberately and routinely restated to create coherence and ensure understanding. Excerpt 2 is an example of the strategic use of Represents taken from the corpus of the Hamburg ELF project “Multilingualism and Multiculturalism in German Universities” Excerpt 2 A: a nd if erm things like Nigerian English, Indian English which is a sort of variety in itself it should be respected B: should be respected The repetition of “should be respected” by B is not just a simple echoing of A’s words, but provides a more obvious agreement and therefore alignment to the other speaker. In order to be in a better position to resolve the question of whether the use of Represents is an indication of L1 transfer (especially in Asian backgrounds where it could be used for politeness and consensus building) or an interactional strategy showing functions a–d above. 213
Alessia Cogo and Juliane House
House (2010) collected additional ELF data featuring exclusively non-Asian interactants of varying L1s (German, French, Czech, Croatian), of the same educational level, age group and ELF competence. In these interactions, the use of Represents was also found to be remarkably frequent, which supports her hypothesis that Represents in ELF talk are proof of ELF users’ strategic competence. Other-repetition is also explored in Mauranen (2012)’s work, where it is also used to emphasize more explicit agreement in academic talk. Excerpt 3 S6 and the ASAT is all in the cytoplasm and in mitochondria so [that’s why] S5 [yeah] S6 the ALAT rises more easily S3 and is more specific S6 yeah more specific that’s right, S5 and then there are the serum (Mauranen 2012: 222–223; transcript adapted for readability) In the conversation shown in Excerpt 3, from a seminar in internal medicine, the repetition of “more specific” by S6 has the effect of emphasizing the agreement, which is already expressed by yeah, thus making the message more explicit. Simply using other agreement tokens, such as yes or yeah, would not have had the same effect. Here S6 is not only agreeing, but siding with the interlocutor and showing that they align with their assessment. Mauranen (2012: 222) explains that this kind of repetition provides “added value” in that it emphasizes the speaker’s stance and contributes to making the message clearer and more explicit. Other studies (Björkman 2013; Cogo 2009; Kaur 2012; Gotti 2014; Lichtkoppler 2007) have shown that the various kinds of repetition, Represents and rephrase/paraphrase are often used as explicitness strategies. Self-initiated repair Another pre-emptive strategy of meaning negotiation is self-initiated repair. When recognizing a source of potential trouble, speakers often resort to the practice of “repairing” their own talk. In the Hamburg advising session data (House and Levy-Tödter 2010), the professor frequently undertakes such trouble-preventing self-repair, thus indicating awareness of potential miscommunication. Consider the following excerpt: Excerpt 4 A: Erm then you makes make a just a drawing about the distribution always you know something I can tell the results more or less from from the plot (…) (House and Levy-Tödter 2010: 36) A immediately self-repairs the item “makes”, which he seems to identify as an error in need of repair. This not only shows A’s awareness of his own production and capacity for self-monitoring and strategic competence, but also the relevance of normative language ideologies influencing speakers’ production (Cogo 2016). Overall, research has highlighted how increasing explicitness is an important process behind other strategies emerging from lingua franca communication, such as meta-discourse and utterance completion, which make the purpose and understanding of an utterance explicit. 214
The pragmatics of ELF
Co-construction of utterances Another powerful strategy of meaning negotiation in ELF interactions is the joint construction of utterances by participants. Such a co-construction strategy acts as a solidarity and consensus booster. The Hamburg ELF data (House 2002, 2010) also reveals a strong and consistent demonstration of consensus in the face of linguacultural differences. In Excerpt 5 the three ELF users join forces to gradually (and successfully) build up the discourse in co-operation: Excerpt 5 A: the most of the most of Chinese in foreign countries they speak not Mandarin they don’t speak Mandarin but can only these erm B: dialects? A: yes dialects C: dialects A: dialects their dialects Participants’ attempts to negotiate what it is that one of them wants to convey may lead to a feeling of community and group identity. ELF seems to be used here as an egalitarian tool (cf. “We’re all in the same boat” in Cogo 2010: 303). Speakers often negotiate their meanings and routinely support each other, even paying each other compliments. Interactional elements Another aspect of ELF pragmatic research has been discourse skills related to the management of the interaction, such as discourse markers and back-channelling that aim at managing successful discourse. Discourse markers, like other interaction managing items, express meanings of information management and also mark interpersonal relations between interlocutors. They range from very short, fixed expressions to longer units of more or less variable sequence. House (2009) and Baumgarten and House (2010a) suggest that ELF speakers may not only use different discourse markers but also attribute different functions to them. For instance, in the case of the discourse marker you know, ELF speakers do not seem to use it for the interpersonal function, or for appealing to common knowledge but for different purposes. In House (2009) the hypothesis was put forward that you know is often re-interpreted by ELF interactants to become a more self-referenced way of highlighting both formulation difficulties and coherence relations in speakers’ own turns. Results show that a) as you know occurs with much greater frequency in so-called “considered talk” phases as opposed to ritualized phatic opening, closing and small talk phases; b) the more fluent speakers are, the more they use you know; and c) most importantly, there is a surprisingly frequent co-occurrence of you know and the conjunctions but, and, because. When you know co-occurs with these conjunctions, it acts as a re-enforcing or focussing strategy, making the connection expressed by these conjunctions more salient. You know is thus used as a focussing device, emphasizing the adversative, causal and additive relations expressed by the conjunctions but, because, and and. Excerpt 6 is an example of you know co-occurring with but in the sense described above: 215
Alessia Cogo and Juliane House
Excerpt 6 H: S: A:
n o matter how many people speak in the university they some of them speak really well English but you know the real life it’s different and you have to learn English yes (ehm)(1sec) this institute where you’re working at is this the only possibility to erm to learn English …
A closer look at how the conjunctions but, because and and function in their co-occurrence pattern with you know shows that they often signal “externally operating relations” located in the external context of what is being said (i.e., not the socio-communicative process that constitutes the speech event in the forms of interaction between speaker and hearer, which would be internal). The fact that you know tends to co-occur with conjunctions that signal experiential relations rather than addressee-related ones seems to confirm the hypothesis that you know is here not primarily used interpersonally. Interestingly, you know is also used in ELF talk on its own as a relational phrase where speakers indicate implicit conjunctive relations of addition, contrast, opposition, concession and cause without the co-presence of the cue words and, but and because. Finally, you know also functions as a coherence marker in a different sense: it is used whenever the speaker is momentarily “incoherent”, fumbles for the appropriate formulation, and tries to repair her misstep using you know as a signal revealing planning difficulties. Here you know occurs in midutterance, often inside nominal, verbal and adverbial groups, acting at a more local, micro level. Taken together, in ELF talk you know – despite the overt presence of you as secondperson personal pronoun in this construction – does not seem to address co-participant(s) or elicit mutual engagement, and no response from the addressees is expected or given. So you know is primarily used to help speakers process and plan their own output, and to link spans of discourse. Other discourse markers, such as I think, I don’t know and I mean are also re-interpreted in ELF talk (Baumgarten and House 2010a). ELF speakers frequently use I think and I don’t know in their prototypical meanings, preferring formal structures (main clause complement structures) over the more grammaticalized structures and pragmaticalized meanings as these are expressed in the verbal routine forms preferred by native speakers of English. For instance, I think in ELF talk is used to express the speaker’s subjective opinion, and I don’t know is used to express speakers’ insufficient knowledge about a topic of the discourse. These uses indicate that ELF speakers have re-interpreted these discourse markers. I mean is often used with a strong evaluative element in ELF talk over and above its main function of clarification, i.e., I mean functions as a focalizing device serving as a point of departure for subjective evaluation, expressing speakers’ affective involvement. The marker so also seems to function more as a speaker-supportive than an interpersonally active element in the Hamburg ELF data examined. So is here used as a deictic element to both support the planning of upcoming moves and to help speakers “look backwards” summing up previous discourse stretches. So can thus be characterized as a complex double-bind element, acting as a sort of (mental) hinge between what has come before and what will occur next. So is used very frequently in the Hamburg ELF academic advising sessions. As opposed to uses of so as an interpersonal marker, ELF users realize it to express self-attention, as a discourse-structurer and a “fumble” to overcome formulation problems. 216
The pragmatics of ELF
Consider excerpts 7 and 8: Excerpt 7 S: I actually better take some notes P: mhm (1 sec) so: there is ONE one man er he is working for erm for [company 1] S: mhm P: and erm so he is er in the erm working in (.) with the er design and calculation of [company 1] P’s use of so in both his turns in Excerpt 7 is clearly not back-referenced to S’s announcement that he will take notes. Rather, following the hesitation signal mhm, the pause, the connector and and the hesitation signal erm, P uses so to “get himself going again”, resuming the train of thought expressed in his previous move. Excerpt 8 S: and ja I also have a question about that I mean I think erm the erm procedures are a little different in Germany how do you generally apply to er firms like this for Diplomarbeit [diploma thesis] P: mhm mhm S: or master thesis P: okay S: is it just erm P: it should be at first a letter erm where you erm you are stating er WHO who you are and what you are doing so you are studying at this university and in this in this program and erm so within this program you have a a module in composites and so you are interesting in the subject and you are asking erm erm for a a a a a subject a a a master thesis subject in this= S: =in this field yeah In his first use of so in excerpt 8, P uses so in mid-turn, initiating an elaboration of the previous phrase “what you are doing”, using so to egg himself on with his explanation. In its second occurrence, so follows a hesitation marker, and in the third occurrence the connector and – in both cases so introduces elaborations and explanations. In sum, so operates here as a speaker-supportive strategy at particular places in the discourse, mostly following hesitations and breaks. So might also be interpreted as displaying the speaker’s mental processes anchoring the discourse in a particular co-text and context, and contextualizing the speaker’s processes of perception, planning, understanding, and affective stance. Another frequent interactional element is the minimal response or backchannel item (see, for example, Cogo 2009; Kalocsai 2011; Wolfartsberger 2011), that is, short verbal and non-verbal signals given to interlocutors to indicate that s/he can continue speaking, such as yeah, ok, mhm mhm. Early research in intercultural pragmatics (cf. House 1996) showed that L2 English speakers make limited use of back-channeling discourse markers but more recent work with naturally occurring interactions shows that backchannels are common and used for various functions. Baumgarten and House (2010a) and House (2013, 2014), for instance, draw a distinction between the agreement marker yes and the use of yeah as a presentation marker at the beginning or final stage of a turn. At the beginning of an utterance the marker is often used as a face-keeping device, to display attentiveness and gain time (similar to well), 217
Alessia Cogo and Juliane House
while at the end of the utterance it is used for positive final emphasis. The following example, taken from Baumgarten and House (2010b), shows the marker in a turn-initial position in academic discourse at an oral examination. Excerpt 9 E: ehm (2) why is age relevant/ (1.5) or how is age relevant in the process of second language acquisition? S: yeah, in the ... (1.5) if you just start with the process of learning a language Here S is clearly not using yeah as an agreement token, but to introduce the answer, probably displaying attention, while gaining time to think about the answer. Mauranen (2009) explores how various kinds of interactive elements can be used in talk when managing the topic of conversation, when organizing the succession of turns and when displaying stance. One example she provides from her ELFA (English as a lingua franca in academic settings) corpus is the phraseological unit in my point of view (a conflation of in my view and from my point of view). As she puts it, this uncommonly long phraseological unit “is at the interface of linguistic convention and creativity” (Mauranen 2009: 231), in the sense that it uses known lexical material that is displayed in an unconventional sequence. As well as being used in turn-taking, this expression signals the opinion of the speaker, but over and above it also functions as a marker of a view divergent from that of the interlocutors. Backchannels, phraseological units and discourse markers of these kinds all contribute to supporting meaning making in intercultural communication. Other phenomena that facilitate communication in this sense are idioms and idiomatic expressions. Multilingual resources Unlike common assumptions, ELF talk is not only English-language based, but often includes items from other languages, most often from ELF users’ mother tongues. Such recourse to speakers’ L1 is of course most common whenever interactants share an L1. Code-switching into the L1 often occurs in routinized parts of an encounter such as small talk, opening and closing phases as well as at topic boundaries (House 2016). Excerpts 10 and 11 show how an academic advisor, a German professor (P), makes use of code-switching to get his meaning across to the other two participants who both know German. WM, his assistant, is a native speaker of German, and the Spanish student (S) has a working knowledge of German, the professor here uses code-switching as a strategy to overcome his own limitations in ELF: Excerpt 10 P: (reads title softly) yeah then just take this off S: yes P: we’ll do it by quickly its S: so I need to (0.5) write= P: =ja ja [yes yes] S: this office for uh (1 sec) they approve the new P: ja ja ja [yes yes yes] S: without 218
The pragmatics of ELF
WM: without P: without this application always it it it it it is easily you can design a a a a a a cantilever slab within one week (0.5) not more to do it= WM: =or a shorter time P: (fast) for a shorter everything (…) S: erm P: joh ja können wir mal ruhig machen (to WM) [yes yes we can certainly do this] it should be no problem By using the German discourse marker ja, the professor also reassures the student about changing the title of her work. This is done automatically and subconsciously, and as soon as the phrase starting with ja is uttered, a switchback into English occurs. In the last move, P again resorts to German to give a brief instruction, but in mid-utterance he again switches back to ELF. Consider also Excerpt 11, in which another code-switching sequence occurs: Excerpt 11 P: Statements are sometimes aber [but] in general you just say here for example the code something something like this and then you you don’t say (0.5) basis is maybe about this one they made some tests or whatsoever or from the other equation you cannot read I I think somewhere did did you cho this one is ok (fast) in principle (fast) but the other equation the next one the cc equation cc equation you to your code so there must be some similarity there is literature available about this (0.5) mister [name3] has made some publication in Germany about this how he comes to this number this is for example the big discussion the be the debate about this number it is something which must be in your thesis S: (fast) Ja[yes] P: Okay? for this YES and erm haben sie noch was nee des is der erste Teil war fertig [anything else no this is the first part is finished] WM: Ja [yes] In Excerpt 11, P’s switch into German is followed by WM’s uptake with the German ja. P’s code-switching occurs at a critical point in the talk in that it marks the end of one part of the advising session where P asks whether the session should go on or not. We can characterize P’s utterance as an organizational move and liken it to the type of “management talk” frequently used in other instructional settings such as language classrooms. Code-switching often involves the use of discourse markers , in particular “uptakers” (Edmondson 1981). They usually occur as second-pair parts of an exchange, often expressed with reduced monitoring of one’s own production, i.e., automatically and with little conscious control. That switching into one’s L1 should occur in this particular interactive slot is thus easily explained. A similar finding is presented in Pölzl and Seidlhofer (2006), where the authors document the use of Arabic gambits and other L1 discourse phenomena in ELF talk. Cogo (2009) also documents the use of code-switching in ELF discourse. Interestingly, she found that interactants sometimes switch not to their respective L1s but to a third shared language. Research has shown that multilingual strategies are used to various ends, which are often overlapping and inter-related. These are: (1) the sharing of a sense of non-nativeness (cf. Cogo 2009, 2012; Hülmbauer 2009); (2) the collaborative construction of meaning 219
Alessia Cogo and Juliane House
(cf. Cogo 2010; Vettorel 2014); and (3) the creation of a sense of intercultural communitymembership or identity (cf. Pölzl and Seidlhofer 2006). Across most studies there is an understanding that using multilingual resources involves the development of accommodation practices, which ensure sensitivity to speakers’ cultural backgrounds and linguistic repertoires, while adapting their resources for communicative effectiveness. Other studies explore how speakers engage in collaborative co-construction of meaning, while signalling their community membership and making code-switching an intrinsic part of their ELF interaction. In the example below, a negotiation and expansion of meaning by using multilingual resources becomes an opportunity to display intercultural identities. A group of colleagues engage in small-talk and comment on a set of pictures posted by a wedding couple on a personal website, which are described as “cheesy”, before the interactants start elaborating on the meaning of “cheesy”. Excerpt 12 S2 yeah a bit too much I think @@ S1 so … blue flower we say … fleur bleue S3 why? …[ to say that it’s cheesy? S1 [fleur-yeah … fleur bleue means … you know when you have these pictures with little angels of S2 a:::h [yeah S3 [yeah S1 fleur bleu S2 kitsch- [kitschig S1 [kitschig yeah @@@ Cogo (2010: 301) The adjective cheesy provides an opportunity to engage in negotiation of meaning, and is taken up by participants and translated by means of code-switching into French first and German later, thus searching for common understanding and nuances of meaning. While S1 attempts to provide a different version of the cheesy meaning with fleur bleue, he pre-empts a possible non-understanding with a paraphrase of the meaning, i.e. the pictures of little angels carrying blue flowers, which are considered (in S1’s sociocultural community) cheesy. Then, S2 offers her own interpretation with the German kitschig and they confirm understanding with various repetitions and confirmatory discourse markers (yeah and laughter). In documenting the use of back-channelling, discourse markers and utterance completion characteristic of ELF intercultural exchanges, this extract is also another example of the sort of interactional supportive work explored above in the section on Interactional elements. Moreover, the interaction in Excerpt 12 seems to go beyond the search for meaning and negotiation of understanding. Participants resort to their own socio-cultural background, build on participants’ contributions, while at the same time creating a sense of comity, solidarity and in-group belonging.
Conclusion In sum, recent findings with naturally occurring ELF data (as opposed to the earlier set-up, experimentally collected data) show that the let-it-pass strategy is not as frequent as earlier studies anticipated. This may be justified by the purpose-oriented nature of communication
220
The pragmatics of ELF
(such as business context in Cogo 2012, 2016 and Pitzl 2005; academic contexts in Björkman 2013 and Mauranen 2006), which, unlike small talk, is consequential if understanding is not achieved. Such findings also support earlier observations (House 2002; Mauranen 2006) that communication problems are not very frequent in ELF discourse, because speakers resort precisely to the pre-emptive and negotiating strategies described above to ensure possible misunderstandings are either avoided or carefully negotiated. Overall, ELF research has developed exponentially in recent years and the initial emphasis on systematic and recurrent features has been replaced by a focus on ELF’s flexibility and fluidity, which, in pragmatic terms, has translated into more research on pragmatic processes and accommodation. Lately, more work was done on emergent multilingual practices, which highlight the complexity of ELF intercultural pragmatics. These include translanguaging practices (cf. Jenkins 2015, Cogo Chapter 29 this volume), which involve mobilizing a repertoire of resources in a flexible and integrated way, going beyond the stable and fixed separation between languages.
Appendix: Transcript conventions =
latching (i.e. speech following the previous turn without a pause)
(.)
short pause (unmeasured)
(0.5)
measured pause
[ abc]
overlapping speech
[...]
omitted transcript
@ laughing utterances in the speaker’s first language (L1) are put between tags indicating the speaker’s L1, such as de = German, sp = Spanish. utterances in languages THAT are neither English nor the speaker’s first language are marked LN with the language indicated.
Further reading Kaur, J. 2016. Using pragmatic strategies for effective ELF communication. In Murata, K. (ed.) Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts. Oxford: Routledge, 240–254. Mortensen, J. 2012 Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity of epistemic stance marking. In N. Baumgarten, J. House and I. Du Bois (eds) Subjectivity in Language and in Discourse. Bingley: Emerald, 229–246. Zhua, H. 2015. Negotiation as the way of engagement in intercultural and lingua franca communication. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4, 63–90.
References Baumgarten, N. and House, J. 2010a. I think and I don’t know in English as a lingua franca and native English discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 45, 1184–1200. Baumgarten, N. and House, J. 2010b. Discourse markers in high-stakes academic ELF interactions: Oral exams. Paper given at the 3d ELF conference, Vienna, May 2010. Björkman, B. 2013. English as an Academic Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter.
221
Alessia Cogo and Juliane House
Cogo, A. 2009. Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: a study of pragmatic strategies. In Anna Mauranen and Elina Ranta (eds), English as A Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 254–273. Cogo, A. 2010. Strategic use and perceptions of English as a lingua franca. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 46/3, 295–312. Cogo, A. 2012. ELF and super-diversity: A case study of ELF multilingual practices from a business context, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1/2, 287–313. Cogo, A. 2016. “They all take the risk and make the effort”: Intercultural accommodation and multilingualism in a BELF community of practice. In L. Lopriore and E. Grazzi (eds) Intercultural Communication. New Perspectives from ELF. Rome: Roma Tre Press, 365–383. Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. 2012. Analysing English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-Driven Investigation. London: Continuum. Edmondson, W. 1981. Spoken Discourse: A Model for Analysis. London: Longman. Firth, A. 1990. “Lingua franca” negotiations: Towards an interactional approach. World Englishes 9, 69–80. Firth, A. 1996. The discursive accomplishment of normality: On “lingua franca” English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237–258. Gotti, M. 2014. Explanatory strategies in university courses taught in ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3/2, 337–361. House, J. 1996. Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 225–252. House, J. 2002. Communicating in English as a lingua franca . In S. Foster-Cohen (ed.) EUROSLA Yearbook 2. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 243–261. House, J. 2009. Subjectivity in English as a lingua franca: The case of you know. Intercultural Pragmatics 6, 171–194. House, J. 2010. The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca. In A. Trosborg (ed.) Handbook of Pragmatics, vol. 7. Berlin: de Gruyter, 363–387. House, J. 2013. Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca. Journal of Pragmatics 59, 57–67. House, J. 2014. Managing academic discourse in English as a lingua franca. Functions of Language 21, 50–66. House, J. 2016. Own-language use in academic discourse in English as a lingua franca. In K. Murata (ed.) Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts. Oxford: Routledge, 59–70. House, J. and Levy-Tödter, M. 2010. Linguistic competence and professional identity in English medium institutional discourse. In B. Meyer and B. Apfelbaum (eds) Multilingualism at Work. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 13–45. Hülmbauer, C. 2009. “We don’t take the right way. We just take the way that we think you will understand”: The shifting relationship of correctness and effectiveness in ELF communication. in A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds) English as Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 323–347. Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. 2015. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice 2/3, 49–85. Kalocsai, K. 2011. The show of interpersonal involvement and the building of rapport in an ELF community of practice. In A. Archibald, A. Cogo and J. Jenkins (eds) Latest Trends in ELF Research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 113–137. Kaur, J. 2009. Pre-empting problems of understanding in English as lingua franca. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds) English as Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 107–123. Meierkord, C. 1996. Englisch als Medium der interkulturellen Kommunikation: Untersuchungen zum non-native-/non-native-speaker Diskurs. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Kaur, J. 2012. Saying it again: Enhancing clarity in English as a lingua franca (ELF) talk through selfrepetition. Text & Talk, 32/5, 593–613. Lesznyak, A. 2004. Communication in English as an International Lingua Franca. Norderstedt: Books on Demand. Lichtkoppler, J. 2007. “Male. Male.” – “Male?” – “The sex is male” The role of repetition in English as a lingua franca conversations. Vienna English Working Papers, 16/1, 39–65. 222
The pragmatics of ELF
Mauranen, A. 2006. Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177, 123–150. Mauranen, A. 2009. Chunking in ELF: Expressions for managing interaction. Journal of Intercultural Pragmatics, 6, 217–233. Mauranen, A. 2012. Exploring ELF in Academia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pitzl, M-L. 2005. Non-understanding in English as a lingua franca: Examples from a business context. Vienna English Working Papers 14/2, 50–71. Pölzl, U. and Seidlhofer, B. 2006. In and on their own terms: the “habitat factor” in English as a lingua franca interaction. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177, 151–176. Vettorel, P. 2014. English as a Lingua Franca in Wider Networking. Berlin: De Gruyter. Wolfartsberger, A. 2011. ELF business/business ELF: Form and function in simultaneous speech. In A. Archibald, A. Cogo and J. Jenkins (eds). Latest Trends in ELF Research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 163–184.
223
18 Pronunciation and miscommunication in ELF interactions An analysis of initial clusters Ishamina Athirah Gardiner and David Deterding
Introduction It is nowadays well established that not all features of pronunciation are equally important in maintaining intelligibility in ELF interactions, and Jenkins (2000) has proposed a Lingua Franca Core (LFC) of the features of English phonology that are essential for avoiding misunderstandings in international communication in English. Jenkins (2007) further notes that, for features of pronunciation that do not cause misunderstandings to occur, variation in their realisation can contribute to the distinct accent of speakers, allowing them to maintain their own identity without too much danger of affecting intelligibility. However, further research involving more data in a wide range of different environments is needed to establish with greater confidence which features of pronunciation really are important for ensuring intelligibility in ELF settings. Jenkins (2000) claims that it is important for initial consonant clusters to be maintained, while there is scope for some simplification of final clusters without too much impact on intelligibility, and Deterding (2013) confirms these suggestions, showing that simplification of initial clusters such as /kl/ and /pr/ can often give rise to misunderstandings, while omission of a final /t/ in phrases such as mashed potatoes or a /d/ in bend back, is less likely to affect intelligibility. Indeed, speakers in the UK routinely omit /t/ and /d/ in phrases such as this (Cruttenden, 2014, p. 314), and Wells (2008, p. 145) suggests that any /t/ in Christmas is only present ‘in very careful speech’, so it would seem strange to expect ELF speakers to produce these sounds. The current study investigates ELF conversations that took place in Brunei, looking at initial clusters in more detail in order to determine the extent to which simplification or substitution occurs and focusing on the degree to which accurate production of initial clusters is important for maintaining intelligibility.
Data Recently, a corpus of misunderstandings has been collated from ELF conversations that took place in Asia (Deterding, 2013). The corpus is based on nine recordings collected as part of 224
Pronunciation and miscommunication in ELF
the ACE project (Kirkpatrick, 2010), eight of them involving two speakers and one involving four speakers. Just the eight recordings involving two speakers are analysed here. All of the speakers in these eight recordings come from places in Southeast and East Asia: Brunei (Br), China (Ch), Hong Kong (Hk), Indonesia (In), Japan (Jp), Laos (Ls), Malaysia (Ma) and Taiwan (Tw). In addition, data from a second corpus is also analysed in this chapter, with 10 recordings of between 20 and 25 minutes each, all involving a Bruneian being interviewed by someone from elsewhere (Ishamina and Deterding, 2015). The non-Bruneian speakers in this second corpus come from China (Ch), France (Fr), Korea (Ko), the Maldives (Md), Oman (Om) and Vietnam (Vn). In both sets of data, the two speakers in each recording do not share a common first language, so the data fits the definition provided by Seidlhofer (2011, p. 7) that ELF involves ‘any use of English among speakers of different first languages for whom English is the communicative medium of choice, and often the only option’. In total, about 9 hours and 20 minutes of speech is investigated. The speakers are labelled with F or M (to indicate their gender) followed by a two-letter code to indicate their place of origin. In cases where there is more than one participant of the same gender from a country they are numbered, so, for example, the six female speakers from Brunei are labelled FBr1 to FBr6. Even though FBr6 and FCh5 are from the first corpus that was recorded, they are labelled with a high number, in order to ensure consistency with the labelling in other analyses (e.g. Ishamina and Deterding 2015). A total of 3,313 words with initial clusters have been identified in the data, 64 with three consonants, mostly /str/ (e.g. strong, stress) and /stj/ (e.g. student), while the remaining 3,249 tokens have two consonants in the cluster. Of the two-consonant initial clusters, 983 involve /s/ plus another consonant, particularly /st/ (e.g. study, still), /sk/ (e.g. school, skill) and /sp/ (e.g. speak, spicy), while the other 2,266 involve a consonant other than /s/ together with a liquid /r, l/, especially /fr/ (e.g. from, friend), /pr/ (e.g. probably, primary), /pl/ (e.g. place, play) and /kl/ (e.g. class, close), or a consonant other than /s/ together with an approximant /w, j/, such as /kw/ (e.g. quite, question), /fj/ (e.g. few, future) and /mj/ (e.g. music, museum). The clusters with the fewest tokens are /sf/, with just a single token of sphere, and /ʃr/, with two tokens of shrimp.
Consonant omission Of the 64 words that begin with three consonants, the middle plosive is omitted in six words: MHk omits the /p/ in one token of split and the /t/ in one token of stroke, while MBr3 omits the /t/ in three tokens of stress and MBr2 omits the /t/ in one token of stressful. In all the other 58 cases, all three consonants are produced. Of the 3,249 words that begin with two consonants, the cluster is simplified in 136 tokens. In all cases, it is the second consonant that is omitted apart from two tokens: in one, /b/ is omitted from black by FCh5 who pronounces the word as [rɛk]; and in another case, FVn omits the initial /f/ in free, pronouncing the word as [riː]. The most common simplifications are: 31 tokens of /r/ omitted from /pr/ in words such as probably (5 tokens) and project (3 tokens); 19 tokens of /r/ omitted from /fr/ in a range of words including fry/fried (5 tokens), free/freedom (4 tokens) and from (3 tokens); 16 tokens of /r/ omitted from /br/, especially in brunei (10 tokens) and breakfast (5 tokens, all by MLs); and 15 tokens of /l/ omitted in /pl/, including play (5 tokens by MLs) and plastic (4 tokens by MHk). The only omission of consonants other than liquids and approximants involves /t/, which is absent from /st/ in 13 tokens, including 4 tokens of start/started. 225
Ishamina Athirah Gardiner and David Deterding
Consonant change A total of 74 words exhibit a change in the initial cluster. Five tokens exhibit both change and simplification, with the /bl/ at the start of black pronounced as [r] by FCh5 (as mentioned above) and 4 tokens beginning with ‘thr’ pronounced as [f], 3 tokens of three and one of throw, all by MHk. Of the 69 words in which there is a change in the consonant cluster but no simplification, a common change involves the 25 words beginning with ‘thr’: in 10 tokens the initial cluster is pronounced as [fr] by MHk, in 10 tokens it is pronounced as [tr] by a range of speakers, and in 5 tokens it is pronounced as [sr], 4 by FTw and 1 by MFr. However, given that variable realisation of voiceless TH is often regarded as acceptable in ELF interactions (Jenkins, 2007) and also that use of [t] for voiceless TH is widespread throughout Southeast Asia and might even be emerging as the norm in the region (Deterding and Kirkpatrick, 2006), it is questionable whether these words involving initial voiceless TH should be classified as involving consonant change in an ELF setting. The remaining 44 words mostly involve /l/ being pronounced as [r]: there are 19 tokens in which /pl/ is pronounced as [pr], especially in words such as play and place(s) by various speakers from China, and 17 tokens in which /kl/ is pronounced as [kr], particularly 10 tokens of class starting with [kr] by FJp. There is just a single token of /r/ in a cluster being pronounced as [l]: MLs pronounces brother with [bl] at the start. It seems that, while /l/ is sometimes omitted and sometimes pronounced as [r], in contrast /r/ may be omitted but is rarely pronounced as [l].
Misunderstandings Kaur (2009) makes a valuable distinction between a ‘misunderstanding’, in which the listener thinks they know what is said but gets it wrong, and a ‘non-understanding’, in which the listener is unable to guess what is said. However, in reality, it is often hard to make this distinction, so here we refer to all words that are not understood as misunderstandings. Only a small percentage of misunderstandings are signalled in the recordings, as many speakers, including speakers of ELF, have a tendency to adopt the ‘let-it-pass’ strategy (Firth, 1996) in the hope that a few misunderstood words will not matter in the long run. Deterding (2013, p. 113) estimates that only about 11 per cent of the instances of misunderstanding in the ELF interactions in his data are signalled by means of such strategies as asking for clarification or when the interlocutor makes an inappropriate response, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, the interlocutor keeps quiet or provides some kind of backchannel to pretend that they actually do understand. Therefore, in order to identify misunderstandings that are not signalled, we depended on feedback from the participants. We asked them about what they did not understand, and in some cases, we asked them to transcribe a few words in a selected extract that we suspected might have been problematic. There are two limitations to this methodology. First, we cannot be sure, on the basis of a subsequent failure to transcribe some words accurately, that a misunderstanding did actually occur, as it is possible that, in the context of the conversation, everything was understood perfectly well, and it was only later, when listening to the recording, that some words were not clear. And second, we have almost certainly missed some tokens of words that were not understood. It would be ideal to get both participants in all the conversations to transcribe the whole recording, but transcribing speech is tedious and time consuming, and it is clearly not feasible to ask all participants to do this. 226
Pronunciation and miscommunication in ELF
Altogether we identified 321 misunderstandings. We then attempted to classify the factors that caused them, and in many cases more than one factor is implicated. For instance, in Example 1, FTw does not understand meal plan, and she hears view pen instead. (In these examples, the location from the start of the recording is shown in seconds. Short pauses are shown as ‘(.)’ while the duration in seconds of longer pauses is indicated inside the brackets. Misunderstood words are bold and underlined. In this case, FTw also does not understand dorm, but here we will just focus on meal plan.) Example 1: MHk + FTw (Location: 1969) Context: MHk is talking about the cost of tertiary education in America. 1 MHk 2 3 FTw 4 MHk 5 FTw
you send the kid you know to the university (1.3) tuition is a major part of it you know (.) all the (.) you know (.) dorm (.) the meal plan (.) just killing view pen what is that yeah meal you know eating you know ah meal
There are two key factors that cause this misunderstanding of meal plan to occur: first, MHk omits the /l/ in plan; and second, FTw is not familiar with the term meal plan to refer to a schedule for university students in the USA to pay for their meals. So we classify this as involving both pronunciation and unfamiliar lexis. The classification of factors causing the 321 tokens of misunderstandings to occur is shown in Table 18.1, in which the figures do not add up to 100 per cent because of crossclassification. Clearly, pronunciation is the biggest factor in causing misunderstandings to occur, confirming the claims of Jenkins (2000) that pronunciation is crucial in international interactions in English, though unfamiliar lexis can also cause a problem. Bruneians sometimes use lexical items that are unfamiliar to speakers of English from elsewhere, including in our data words such as turrets, shawl, starchy and wharf and phrases such as acquired taste, for good, role playing and cooperating teacher, and they also occasionally use Malay terms such as ugama (‘religion’) and sekolah rendah (‘primary school’), forgetting that their interlocutors may not know these words. While such unfamiliar lexis and code-switching by the non-Bruneian speakers also sometimes causes misunderstandings, such as hotpot by FCh5, knuckle of pork by FTw, and pehin menteri ugama (‘the honorable minister of religion’) by MIn, most of the instances of misunderstanding involving lexis and code-switching in our data are by the Bruneian speakers. Grammar is implicated in just over 20 per cent of misunderstandings, though both Deterding (2013) and Ishamina and Deterding (2015) suggest that it usually only plays a minor role and is rarely the main factor in causing misunderstandings to occur. Table 18.1 Classification of factors that caused the 321 tokens of misunderstandings to occur Classification
Misunderstandings
Pronunciation Lexis Grammar Code-switching Miscellaneous
237 (73.8%) 106 (33.0%) 66 (20.6%) 17 (5.3%) 8 (2.5%)
227
Ishamina Athirah Gardiner and David Deterding
One further point should be made about the frequency of misunderstandings involving pronunciation: in some cases in which it is implicated as the main factor, it is actually the listener’s pronunciation that causes the problem. For example: MKo hears neuro-linguistic spoken by MBr3 with initial /nj/ as ‘nearer linguistics’ because he is most familiar with an American accent in which words which start with neuro would not generally have /j/ (Wells, 2008, p. 537); and FVn hears shrimp spoken by FBr2 as ‘trip’ even though the /ʃr/ at the start sounds perfectly clear. FVn subsequently confirmed that she knows the word shrimp, and we conclude that this misunderstanding may have occurred because Vietnamese has no /ʃ/ (Hansen, 2006), so FVn has problems differentiating /t/ from /ʃ/. We should remember that understanding is a cooperative venture by both parties, and phonological failures cannot always be attributed to the speaker (Smith, 1992). Misunderstanding of words with simplified initial clusters A total of 52 words that are misunderstood start with an initial cluster. In 19 of these tokens, there is no simplification or change in the cluster, so in most of these tokens the problem is lexical, not phonological. Examples include starchy, freshies, spinning (top), squash (the game) and stranded by various Bruneian speakers and great in the phrase ‘great leap forward’ by FTw. In other cases, the issue is phonological but connected with something other than the initial cluster. For instance, there is no simplification of the initial /sp/ in spade (in ‘garden spade’) said by MHk, but the word is misunderstood by FTw because the final /d/ is missing and she subsequently transcribed ‘garden spade’ as ‘gardens where’ with no final consonant; and pressure said by MIn has an initial /pr/ that is not simplified, but the word is misunderstood by FTw, probably because the medial consonant is voiced, though it is hard to be certain as in her transcription she was unable to make a guess about the word. In 29 words that are misunderstood, the initial cluster is simplified. Of these tokens, 20 are spoken by MHk; 18 tokens with simplified initial clusters uttered by him are not understood when he is talking to FTw and 2 are not understood by FMa; 9 tokens involve /l/ omitted from /pl/: plastic (4 tokens), plough (2 tokens), plant, planting and plan (1 each). Example 2 illustrates that even in the common phrase ‘plastic container’ in the context of talking about pollution, FTw hears past instead of plastic as a result of the omitted /l/. Example 2: MHk + FTw (Location: 1564) Context: MHk is talking to FTw about wastage and pollution. 1 MHk how long you know for the (.) nature you know to digest this plastic container MHk also omits the /l/ from /kl/ in two tokens of close and one of class, though the biggest problem with this last one is the absent final /s/, and he omits the /l/ from /fl/ in one instance of flaming (to be discussed below in Example 3), and one of floating. In addition, there are five words spoken by MHk that are misunderstood because of omission of /r/: three tokens of process and one each of provide, phrase and three, the last of which is produced with an initial [f ]. Even when simplification of the consonant cluster seems to be the main issue, it is not always the sole factor. In line 1 of Example 3, FMa understands freezing perfectly well, even though the /r/ is omitted, because ‘freezing cold’ is a common phrase; but when the /l/ is omitted from flaming, she hears fuming instead of flaming, largely because ‘flaming hot’ is not a common phrase. So we can conclude that this token of misunderstanding occurs because of unexpected lexical usage as well as the simplified consonant cluster at the start of flaming. 228
Pronunciation and miscommunication in ELF
Example 3: MHk + FMa (Location: 1211) Context: MHk is discussing why he does not like relocating. 1 MHk because every time when i relocate you know. either really cold freezing cold 2 FMa mm 3 MHk or flaming hot The eight misunderstood words with simplified initial consonants spoken by participants other than MHk are listed in Table 18.2. (In cases in which the listener, in subsequent feedback, was not able to make a guess, or in which, in the recording, the listener appears completely puzzled, the entry in the ‘Heard as’ column is shown as ‘?’.) In black spoken by FCh5, the initial /b/ is omitted, and in free by FVn, /f/ is omitted. In all other cases, it is the second consonant that is omitted. In the context in which they occur, some of these misunderstandings are surprising, but they were all confirmed either by feedback from the participants or occasionally they are signalled in the recording. An instance of the latter is shown in Example 4. Clearly FBr2 does not understand FVn as a result of the missing /f/ from the start of free, as in line 2 she says pardon, even though we might expect ‘free time’ to be understandable from context. (In this example, ‘?’ indicates rising intonation.) Example 4: FBr2 + FVn (Location: 1211) Context: FVn is asking FBr2 about her hobbies. 1 FVn 2 FBr2 3 FVn 4 FBr2
yeah e:rm and how about what do you often do in your free time? pardon? what do you usually do in your free time? well erm (.) i like to (.) mmm (2) play games?
Clearly, simplified initial consonant clusters can be problematic. Of the 142 tokens with a simplified initial cluster, 52 (37 per cent) are misunderstood. It is not true that simplification of initial clusters always leads to misunderstandings, and for instance the /r/ in brunei is omitted on nine occasions by a range of different speakers but this word is never misunderstood, as there is not much else that [buːnaɪ] could refer to. Nevertheless, simplification of initial clusters does quite often have an impact on intelligibility. Table 18.2 Tokens with simplified initial clusters that are not understood Speaker
Listener
Word
Heard as
Context
FBr1 FBr3 FCh3 FCh5 MLs MLs MLs MLs FVn
FMd FCh2 FBr4 FBr6 FBr6 FBr6 FBr6 FBr6 FBr2
grandparents studied trick black swan break treaty present present free
?parents said tick rex one bake ? ? ? ?
my late grandparents erm are was in korea like i i studied there right? and trick the mosquitoes yes i just saw the (.) black swan. i liked it. the food they serve in (.) coffee break or when we discussions er the treaty agreement i saw: some present from er: my former the former prime minister present to your what do you often do during your free time?
229
Ishamina Athirah Gardiner and David Deterding Table 18.3 Misunderstood words with changed initial clusters and no simplification Speaker
Listener
Word
Heard as
Context
FJp FCh5 FCh5 MIn
FBr6 FBr6 FBr6 FTw
fluently club trekking three
poetry crowd (checking) three?
to study abroad? can: speak English fluently the president of er international club they talk to er rafting? and trekking i have three children (.) how many you have
Misunderstanding of words with changed initial clusters Of the 74 words with a changed consonant in the initial cluster, just 6 are misunderstood. Two of these have already been mentioned because they also involve simplification: black with initial [r] by FCh5, and three with initial [f] by MHk. The remaining four tokens are shown in Table 18.3. In the first token, fluently has [fr] at the start, and FBr6 subsequently indicated that she mis-heard it as poetry. In the second token, club starts with [kr], and after the recording FBr6 stated that she heard it as crowd. The third misunderstanding involves trekking pronounced with initial [tʃ], and the wider context is shown in Example 5. Although there is no evidence from the recording that a misunderstanding has occurred, in FBr6 subsequently transcribed the word as ‘(checking)’ to indicate that she did not know what the word was. Example 5: FCh5 + FBr6 (Location: 1415) Context: They are talking about outdoor exercise, such as walking through the forest. Temburong is a rural district in Brunei, with lots of forest. 1 FBr6 so what did you do in temburong 2 FCh5 er rafting? and trekking 3 FBr6 oh wow We might note that trekking as [tʃekɪŋ] is actually quite similar to the way that someone from the UK might say the word, as initial /tr/ is often pronounced as [tʃr] (Wells, 2011). It seems that mimicking native patterns of speech is not necessarily effective in maintaining intelligibility in ELF interactions. Finally, there is the misunderstanding of three because of the initial [tr], one of the very rare instances in our data in which use of a sound other than [θ] for initial voiceless TH seems to cause a problem, and we might note that variation in the pronunciation of TH is one of the key areas of variation which are seen as acceptable in the LFC (Jenkins, 2000). The context is shown in Example 6 (in which overlaps are shown with <1> and <2>, and laughter is shown with ‘@’). Example 6: MIn + FTw (Location: 1415) Context: FTw is asking MIn about his family 1 FTw 2 MIn 3 FTw 4 MIn 5 FTw 6 MIn 230
so all your family are here? yeah eventually er (.) i have three children (.) how many you have we got two oh great <1> @@@ <1> and how about you. do you <2> (have three) <2> three i have three i have three childrens yeah
Pronunciation and miscommunication in ELF
In fact, FTw seems to guess correctly in line 5 (though the overlapping speech makes it hard to be sure, which is why the words ‘have three’ are shown in brackets). However, even if she does appear to guess correctly, the fact that she needs to ask for clarification after MIn has just said that he has three children suggests that some kind of misunderstanding has taken place. We noted above that there are 69 words in which the initial cluster is changed (excluding the 5 tokens that also exhibit simplification). Here, we find that only 4 of these 69 words (6 per cent) are misunderstood, which is much less than the 37 per cent noted above for misunderstanding the words with a simplified initial cluster. It seems that, while using [r] in place of /l/ in an initial cluster can occasionally have an impact on intelligibility, substitution of consonants in initial clusters is generally less of a problem than simplifying them.
Discussion In this chapter, we have focused on misunderstandings that occurred in ELF recordings made in Brunei of conversations between speakers from different countries, and we have analysed 321 tokens of misunderstanding. This is almost certainly an underestimate, as there are likely to have been lots of words that were misunderstood but that we cannot detect in the absence of full, detailed transcripts by all of the participants, something that is not feasible in many cases. Yet, at the same time, it can also be considered an overestimate, as many of the tokens that we have identified do not represent any kind of breakdown in communication. Even if the participants may not have understood every single word in some cases, the conversations nearly always proceeded smoothly with few awkward moments. Indeed, participants in ELF interactions are generally proficient in making themselves understood (Mauranen, 2006), in accommodating to the needs of their interlocutors (Cogo and Dewey, 2012; Jenkins, 2007), and by adopting a ‘let-it-pass’ strategy under which a few misunderstood words do not matter too much (Firth, 1996). Indeed, 321 misunderstandings in 9 hours and 20 minutes represents one every 1 minute and 44 seconds, which is not very frequent, confirming the successful nature of the interactions. Nevertheless, some misunderstandings do occur, and it is valuable to consider what contributes to them. Pronunciation has been identified as a key factor in many cases, and it seems that in more than one-third of tokens in which simplification of initial consonant clusters occurs, this results in a misunderstanding. While it is not necessary to retain all consonants in every case, as omitting the /r/ in brunei is not a problem (in the context of recordings taking place in Brunei), and the occasional omission of /r/ in from is unlikely to have much impact on intelligibility, other omissions, such as the omission of /r/ in process or the /l/ in plastic can be more problematic.
Conclusion Overall, the study supports the claim by Jenkins (2000) that initial consonant clusters are important in maintaining intelligibility in English interactions in international settings, but it suggests that replacement of the second consonant is less of a problem than its omission. In particular, the current data finds that use of [r] in place of /l/ in an initial cluster is not often a problem, and this suggests that teachers should focus on maintaining the full number of consonants in initial clusters, but they might not need to worry too much about the exact nature of the second consonant. Of course, further research is needed in a wider range of contexts to confirm this conclusion, as it is likely that only some modifications are acceptable while others have a serious impact on intelligibility. However, if the result is replicated 231
Ishamina Athirah Gardiner and David Deterding
elsewhere, it has important implications for priorities in the classroom. Furthermore, there is little evidence that use of [t], [s] or [f] for the sound at the start of words that begin with ‘thr’ has much impact on intelligibility, and this confirms the suggestion that the exact realisation of voiceless TH is not something that teachers should focus on.
Related chapters in this handbook 11 Kirkpatrick, The development of English as a lingua franca in ASEAN 22 Hynninen and Solin, Language norms in ELF 41 Llurda, English language teachers and ELF 42 Baird and Baird, English as a lingua franca: changing ‘attitudes’
Further reading Cruttenden, A. (2014). Gimson’s Pronunciation of English (8th edn.). Abingdon: Routledge. Deterding, D. (2013). Misunderstandings in English as a Lingua Franca: An Analysis of ELF Interactions in South-East Asia. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Jenkins, J (2000). The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seidlhofer, B (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wells, J.C. (2008). Longman Pronunciation Dictionary, 3rd edn. Harlow: Longman.
References Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-Driven Investigation. London: Continuum. Cruttenden, A. (2014). Gimson’s Pronunciation of English (8th edn.). Abingdon: Routledge. Deterding, D. (2013). Misunderstandings in English as a Lingua Franca: An Analysis of ELF Interactions in South-East Asia. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Deterding, D., and Kirkpatrick, A. (2006). Emerging South-East Asian Englishes and intelligibility. World Englishes, 25(3/4), pp. 391–409. Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, pp. 237–259. Hansen, Jette G. (2006). Acquiring a Non-Native Phonology. London: Continuum. Ishamina, A., and Deterding, D. (2015). The role of noun phrases in misunderstandings in Brunei English in ELF settings. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(2), pp. 283–308. Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kaur, J. (2009). Pre-empting problems of understanding in English as a Lingua Franca. In English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings, Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds), pp. 107–123. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). Researching English as a lingua franca in Asia: the Asian Corpus of English (ACE) project. Asian Englishes, 13(1), pp. 4–18. Mauranen, A. (2006). Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as a lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177, pp. 123–150. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, L.E. (1992). Spread of English and issues of intelligibility. In The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, Kachru, B. (ed.), pp. 74–90. Urbana, IL and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Wells, J.C. (2008). Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (3rd edn). Harlow: Longman. Wells, J.C. (2011). How do we pronounce train? John Wells’s Phonetic Blog, 22 March 2011. Accessed 11 September 2016 at http://phonetic-blog.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-do-we-pronounce-train.html. 232
19 Creativity, idioms and metaphorical language in ELF Marie-Luise Pitzl
Introduction Idioms are semi-fixed (multi-word) expressions that have acquired a conventionalized, specific, usually figurative, meaning in the course of time and are usually codified with this meaning in reference works. There is an abundance of definitions of the concept in the literature, which usually also overlap with related terms like phraseology, fixed expressions, proverbs and multi-word units. Many idiom researchers have proposed a rough distinction between a broad and a more narrow definition of idiom, with the narrow meaning of idiom referring to a unit which is “fixed and semantically opaque or metaphorical” (Moon 1998: 4). Expressions in this narrow idiom category and their variable and creative use in ELF are the focus of this chapter. For a number of years, ELF researchers have been interested in the use of idioms in ELF, investigating phenomena like idiomatizing (e.g. Seidlhofer and Widdowson 2007; Seidlhofer 2009, 2011) and chunking (e.g. Mauranen 2009), but also metaphoricity (e.g. Pitzl 2009, 2011, 2012) and figurative language (e.g. Franceschi 2013) in relation to idioms. Idioms as discussed in this article (i.e. in the narrow sense) are typically low in frequency and high in metaphoricity; they stick out from the surrounding conversation because of their figurativeness. Other expressions often referred to as ‘idiomatic’ and captured by terms like collocations, phraseological units or formulaic language are very often just the opposite: high in frequency, but low in metaphoricity. These will not be discussed here in detail (but see e.g. Mauranen 2012; Vetchinnikova 2015 for insights on ELF phraseology). After introducing the concept of norm-following and norm-developing creativity and exploring the synchronic-diachronic link between idiom and metaphor, this chapter will use examples mostly from the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE) to provide an overview of how ELF speakers vary idioms. It will discuss the multilingual aspect of metaphorical creativity in ELF settings and finally illustrate the range of functions that creative idioms and metaphors have been shown to fulfill in ELF interactions.
233
Marie-Luise Pitzl
Creativity in language use, creativity in ELF Many descriptive studies have brought to light the variability and situational adaptability of ELF (see e.g. Jenkins et al. 2011; Seidlhofer 2011; Cogo and Dewey 2012; Björkman 2013; Vettorel 2014 and many chapters in this handbook). Although certain processes of variation as well as certain functional motivations, such as increasing explicitness or emphasizing (see below), recur, ELF is different in each context of use, influenced by “the situationality factor which determines every lingua franca interaction anew and on its own” (Hülmbauer 2009: 323; emphasis in original). Prompted by descriptive ELF insights (from the mid-2000s onwards), creativity has thus been proposed as an essential category for ELF to help us make sense of the variability that is so characteristic of it. Creativity is a phenomenon that psychologists often see as a precursor (or even prerequisite) for innovation and change in a particular domain (e.g. Csikszentmihalyi 1999). Fields of science or art or technology are usually seen as such domains, but so is language (cf. e.g. Carter 2004; Pope 2005; Pitzl 2012, 2013). It is therefore not surprising that creativity is generally viewed as one of the key properties of human language (e.g. Pope 2005; Yule 2010). Humans’ ability to coin new words, build novel sentences, write new texts is something that many linguists and non-linguists call creative. If we delineate the concept more concisely in relation to variability, i.e. a key characteristic of ELF interaction, we might define linguistic creativity as “the creation of new (i.e. non-codified) linguistic forms and expressions in ongoing interaction/discourse or the use of existing forms and expressions in a non-conventional way” (Pitzl 2012: 37). Defined in this way, linguistic creativity includes new (surface) forms as well as new meanings ascribed to conventional forms. Crucially, this does not imply intentional creation or even necessarily open-choice processing (see e.g. Sinclair 1991; Erman and Warren 2000); it only describes the occurrence of forms or meanings we might call ‘creative’. Whether these forms are brought about consciously by (ELF) speakers or not, is a different matter. As is evidenced in this definition, creativity in language use (and other domains) always relies on norms and conventions. As is discussed below, creativity needs norms, since without them, any attempt at creativity would be inappropriate, meaningless and unintelligible – and thus useless (and not creative) (see Pitzl 2013: 5–7). A crucial aspect of conceptualizing (linguistic) creativity therefore rests in the role we attribute to these norms and conventions.
Norm-following and norm-developing creativity During the past decades of research in linguistics, linguistic creativity has, on the one hand, been conceived of as essentially rule-governed, even rule-generated by Chomsky (whose position is critically examined by Joseph 2003, for example). While Chomsky’s account of rule-generated creativity is certainly an extreme one (not shared by the author of this chapter), more moderate but similar positions on creativity being brought about through the more or less regular application of norms are also held by many non-generativists. Thus a new word can be created relying on the norms of morphology, for example. On the other hand, linguistic creativity has also been conceived as going beyond this rule-generated nature, subverting existing ‘laws’ and conventions (Ricoeur 1981 [2000]: 344). Like the first kind, this second kind of creativity necessarily involves the recognition of and reliance on existing norms. Crucially, it is not just generated by these norms; it tests their boundaries and expands them. We can therefore distinguish two types of creativity: norm-following and norm-developing creativity. Norm-following creativity is rule-generated, combinational, and exonormative 234
Creativity and metaphorical language in ELF
(cf. Type 1 creativity in Pitzl 2012). It encompasses the infinite number of ways in which a normative system can be realized, resulting in a potentially infinite number of creative linguistic outcomes. In contrast to this, norm-developing creativity is rule-generating, exploratory-transformational, and endonormative (cf. Type 2 creativity in Pitzl 2012). It goes beyond what the normative system allows at a certain point in time. Variability, as is so characteristic of ELF, occurs as a result of both these types of creativity. But it is the second type of creativity that may prompt linguistic change, since it has the potential to transcend the boundaries of current norms and may therefore effect changes in the normative system itself (Pitzl 2012; cf. Larsen-Freeman 2016: 141). A crucial issue, which is the subject of ongoing discussion in ELF research (see e.g. Baird et al. 2014; Baker 2015b; Vetchinnikova 2015; Larsen-Freeman 2016) in this respect, concerns the question of what we mean by normative system. At which level are linguistic norms (creatively) applied and potentially transcended? On the one hand, it is common to conceive of ‘languages’ and ‘varieties’ as such systems. So one way of transcending conventional boundaries might be to transcend language boundaries. Code-switching, codemixing and multilingual practices might be viewed as examples of this in many contexts (see section on metaphorical creativity and multilingual resources below). Yet, if extensive code-mixing is the common mode of communication for a particular Transient International Group (cf. Pitzl 2016) of ELF speakers, transcending language boundaries might arguably not be seen as very creative for this group (cf. e.g. Jenkins 2015; Cogo 2016). On the other hand, it is equally commonplace to view different levels within a language as normative systems (such as grammar, lexis, morphology, pronunciation – and also idioms). Each of these levels is governed by norms that are more or less regular (at the level of morphology or grammar, for example) or rather intransparent and somewhat unsystematic (like at the level of idioms). Crucially, because of these different levels, it is possible for norm-following and norm-developing creativity to occur simultaneously. So although words like increasement, approvement, or bigness (cf. Pitzl et al. 2008; Seidlhofer 2011: 103–104) are instances of norm-developing creativity (Type 2) at the level of lexis, they are also norm-following (Type 1) since they conform to general principles of ‘English’ morphology by making use of ‘regular’ suffixation. It is this tension between conventionality and norm-following creativity at one level and nonconformity and norm-developing creativity at another level that ensures intelligibility and functionality of many new linguistic expressions. This is also central for the use – and variation – of idioms in ELF interactions. A second crucial issue, once again of particular (but not exclusive) relevance for idioms, is that norms and conventions are always tied to a particular context and point in time. Norms are not norms, once and for all. They are not generalizable across centuries, sometimes not even across decades or years. What used to be creative at one point in time, may become ‘normal’ and regular – and thus eventually un-creative. (Or it may not.) Linguistic creativity can thus be regarded as an essential driving force of language change. It offers a synchronic pragmatic window on developments that may (or may not) have more long-term diachronic effects. This synchronic-diachronic dimension of creativity is particularly relevant when we look at the notion of idiom and also metaphor, in the context of ELF, but also in L1 use of any language.
Idioms, metaphors and re-metaphorization in ELF Considering the definition of idiom proposed at the beginning of this chapter, researchers commonly agree that the distinction between what is seen as an idiom and what as a 235
Marie-Luise Pitzl
metaphor is, in many ways, a diachronic one. Best-example idioms of a language are often described as “frozen phrases that were originally metaphors” (Hanks 2006: 26). Idioms are regarded as complex linguistic constructions that are intrinsically creative because “their internal structure incorporates the systematic and creative extension of semantic structures” (Langlotz 2006: 11). Broadly speaking, metaphors – in themselves a highly complex category – can be viewed as instances of norm-following and potentially norm-developing creativity. They are normfollowing and combinational in that they combine previously unrelated words/concepts in individual realizations of the general convention ‘A is B’. This leads to instances of normdeveloping creativity at the level of semantics and idioms, i.e. new meanings and new syntagmatic combinations are created. The fact that some creative metaphors eventually become established as conventional idioms (as illustrated in Figure 19.1) indicates the link between dispersed individual instances of linguistic creativity and the general process of language variation and change. If we are interested in idiom variation and in creativity as it occurs in ELF, it makes sense to take on board the argument that the degree to which an idiom can be systematically and creatively manipulated in discourse is dependent on the degree to which the idiom’s intrinsic creativity [i.e. its metaphoricity] remains accessible to the language user or can be reestablished by him or her. (Langlotz 2006: 11) In other words, the degree of metaphoricity still inherent in a conventional idiom might be an indicator of how/in what way this conventional expression can be varied by a speaker. While the statement by Langlotz is made for L1 English use, it seems essential for ELF, which is characterized by linguistic variability (see e.g. Dewey 2009). What we might find in ELF – as well as in language play with idioms by L1 users (e.g. Carter 2004) – is that the possibly dormant metaphors ‘contained’ in idioms are actually quite active (or re-activated) and thus allow for a considerable degree of flexibility in the formal use of an idiom, while still maintaining intelligibility through the (re-)activated metaphor. I have thus proposed that idioms might undergo a process of re-metaphorization (Pitzl 2009, 2011, 2012; cf. also Franceschi 2013: 86) in ELF (and sometimes also L1 use), through which metaphoricity is re-introduced or re-emphasized in otherwise conventionalized idioms. Whether this is done intentionally (or not) by a speaker, is secondary; the underlying mechanism of re-metaphorization is the same. The path described by the upper arch and upper arrow in Figure 19.1 is thus the commonly known and generally accepted one in L1 use: Some creative metaphors turn into conventional, semi-fixed (and possibly codified) idioms. A conventionalized idiom (on the right) then has mostly ceased to be creative – at a particular time for a particular group of (L1) speakers in a particular context. It might still be interpreted as a creative metaphor, however, by someone who is not part of the particular group of speakers (or by someone who makes the interpretation in a different decade or century). If the idiom is varied in form, whether intentionally or not, and therefore different from what is conventional at the time for the group, this is an instance of linguistic creativity, as defined above. Some idiom variations might be norm-following creativity in that they are relatively systematic. Whether a speaker says smooth the way or smooth the path, for example, makes relatively little difference semantically, as way and path are nearly synonymous. 236
Creativity and metaphorical language in ELF
Idiomatizing/idiom conventionalized
taken up by other speakers creative metaphor
(semi-)ixed, lexicalized codiied idiom
formal variation
Re-metaphorization
Figure 19.1 Idiom building and re-metaphorization
If an ELF speaker in VOICE says we should not wake up any dogs (cf. Pitzl 2009) or it will explore por- hopefully not in our faces but it will explore (cf. Pitzl 2012), however, this clearly transcends the boundaries of conventional syntagmatic idiom structures; so these examples would be instances of the second type of creativity (i.e. norm-developing). Crucially, this does not mean that these occurrences necessarily lead to long-term changes; it just means that they would have the potential to trigger them. Formal variation, especially when it transcends accepted conventional use, can thus heighten and re-emphasize the metaphoricity of an expression through the process of re-metaphorization (see the lower arch and lower arrow in Figure 19.1). Instead of regarding an idiom as a frozen or dead metaphor, one might therefore consider certain deliberate uses of metaphors in ELF as formally resembling already existing English – or also other language – idioms. Crucially, re-metaphorization is not a process that is ‘reserved’ or specific just to ELF; it also happens in L1 use (e.g. in language play and punning as well as unintentional idiom variation by ‘native speakers’). Similarily, idiom building is not just the prerogative of L1 speakers, but can also happen in ELF contexts (see e.g. Seidlhofer 2009). Starting with more conventional and systematic examples of idiom variation, the next section will outline how ELF speakers vary idioms. This will be followed by a short discussion of more complex instances of creative idioms that relate to the multilingual dimension of metaphorical creativity. Finally, the range of functions that creative idioms and metaphorical language fulfill in ELF interactions will be illustrated.
How are idioms varied in ELF? In describing formal characteristics of creative idioms in ELF (i.e. idioms that are instances of linguistic creativity), it makes sense to start categorizing examples according to three types of idiom variation that are well attested also in L1 English corpora: lexical substitution, syntactic variation and morphosyntactic variation (cf. Langlotz 2006: 179). The examples cited in the following sections are produced by ELF speakers in speech events recorded in VOICE, unless otherwise indicated. Beginning with the first type, lexical substitution means that a speaker replaces one lexical element in an idiom with another lexical element. Original and substituted elements tend 237
Marie-Luise Pitzl
to belong to the same word class, i.e. a noun is usually replaced by a noun, an adjective by an adjective. One way of classifying instances of creative idioms with lexical substitution is therefore in relation to the word class. Alternatively, however, it seems more interesting to look at the semantic relationship between the two words (cf. Langlotz 2006: 180). Not surprisingly, ELF speakers generally tend to substitute semantically related words, creating expressions like draw the limits (cf. ‘draw the line’) or turn a blank eye (cf. ‘turn a blind eye’). Sometimes these substituted words are hyponyms or superordinate terms, such as in don’t kill the messengers (cf. ‘shoot the messenger’) or sit in the control of (cf. ‘be in control of’) in VOICE. Examples of this are also found in ELF online use by Vettorel (2014: 202), for example play with phrases (cf. ‘play with words’), and in ELFA (English as a lingua franca in academic settings) by Franceschi (2013: 86), for example, don’t step on each other’s feet (cf. ‘step on somebody’s toes’). In the example by Franceschi, a term of embodiment is substituted for another (feet for toes), but lexical substitution also occurs with terms of embodiment being used in the place of more abstract concepts. Examples of this kind in VOICE are keep in the head (cf. ‘bear/ keep [sb/sth] in mind’) or doesn’t come to their head (cf. ‘come to mind’) (cf. also Seidlhofer 2009: 204–205; Pitzl forthc.). Only on rare occasions is the substituted word more abstract than the original. If this is the case, the substituted term is usually more closely linked to the topic of discussion, as in smooth the process (cf. ‘smooth the path/way’), which is uttered when ELF speakers are actually discussing a process. With regard to morphosyntactic variation, creative idioms in VOICE exhibit instances of pluralization, (such as carved in stones or pieces by pieces), flexible use of determiners (like in sit in the control of, already mentioned above), and prepositional variation such as in the right track, on the long run and remember from the head (cf. also examples in Vettorel 2014: 202–203 in ELF online use). Syntactic variation, i.e. changes in the constructions that are considered part of an idiom, happens either via extending constructions or, more frequently, via internal syntactic modification. Such internal modification may, for example, occur through insertion of adjectives, adverbs or pronouns. Some examples of this in VOICE are a bigger share of this pie, go er into much details, the big crest of the wave and two different sides of the same coin. As some examples indicate, the three types of variation are not mutually exclusive. They can occur in combination, up to the point where it becomes difficult to identify a particular type (or types) of variation. Thus, expressions like it will explode por-hopefully not in our faces but it will explode or the phrase i feel that many times i am pulling the brakes are varied considerably from potentially corresponding idioms, to the extent that it seems justifiable to regard them also without reference to conventional idioms. As ELF speakers build on, re-activate and exploit the “metaphoric potential” (Cameron 1999: 108) and inherent creativity (cf. Langlotz 2006: 11) of conventional expressions, it makes sense to look at some examples primarily as instances of metaphorical creativity, that is to say, new linguistic forms and expressions that rely upon and become possible through metaphor as a shared universal mechanism.
Metaphorical creativity and multilingual resources Shifting the focus from idiom to metaphor, we can therefore posit that deliberate metaphors and metaphorical creativity in ELF interactions tend to arise in three different ways: they may be related to and varied from existing English idioms (like most examples in the previous section). Second, they may be entirely novel in that the metaphorical image seems to be 238
Creativity and metaphorical language in ELF
created ad hoc by the speaker. And third, metaphors may be created when other language idioms are transplanted into ELF. While in theory, each of these scenarios can occur on its own, expressions like we should not wake up any dogs illustrate that more than one of them may also apply to the same expression. That is to say, the metaphor we should not wake up any dogs may have been influenced by an idiom from another language as well as by an English idiom (see Pitzl 2009: 308–310). The extent to which the individual multilingual repertoires (IMRs) of speakers in an ELF interaction will overlap in the shared multilingual resource pool (MRP) of a particular ELF group is unpredictable (see Pitzl 2016; cf. also Hülmbauer 2009, 2013; Cogo 2012). The shared MRP of a group of ELF speakers is bound to vary considerably from context to context and will often only be discovered gradually by participants throughout an interaction (see Jenkins 2015: 64). Sometimes speakers’ IMRs may overlap quite a bit; in other ELF contexts, they may be rather distinct. Of course, idioms in languages other than English are always present in ELF speakers’ IMRs – and any idiom that is part of the speaker’s IMR is linked to a particular metaphorical image. We can thus conceive of a speaker’s IMR as encompassing idioms in several languages as well as their corresponding metaphors. This means that the shared MRP in a particular ELF context also encompasses (the same or similar) idioms in different languages – as well as the corresponding metaphors and mental images. Participants in an ELF situation therefore do not only have a shared MRP, but, more specifically a shared multilingual idiom resource pool and a shared multilingual metaphor resource pool (see Pitzl 2011: 289–290; 2016: 301–304). If, to what extent and how ELF speakers make use of these (shared) non-English idioms and metaphors, however, is situationally dependent. When non-English idioms and/or their corresponding metaphorical images become relevant in ELF contexts, this can happen in essentially two ways. On the one hand, metaphorical images inherent in non-English idioms can ‘leak’ (see Jenkins 2015: 75 on ‘language leakage’) into ELF discourse without speakers’ (and listeners’) awareness, for example by means of implicit and usually unconscious transfer. This is, of course, a process that is not unique to ELF as a site of transient language contact in transient international groups (Pitzl 2011: 33–36; 2016; see also Jenkins 2015) but a process that is equally relevant for long-term language contact situations typical in postcolonial settings (see Schneider 2012). On the other hand, non-English idioms may enter ELF interactions as explicitly signaled and flagged instances of multilingual metaphorical creativity that function as representations of multilingual and multi/transcultural identities and repertoires. In these cases, the speakers themselves draw attention to the multilingual and transcultural nature of ELF as a site of language contact and emphasize that ELF is always more than just ‘English’ or ‘Anglo’. Such explicit signaling can occur with ‘Englishized’ versions, i.e. non-English idioms and metaphorical images from other languages translated into English. This happens, for example, when a Dutch ELF speaker introduces a saying in holland that er we don’t have savings but under the bed we have a lot of er money in the sock in an ELF business meeting in VOICE (see Pitzl 2009: 314–316). Yet, metaphorical creativity may occasionally also involve switches into another language, which may (or may not) be the speaker’s L1. When a Serbian ELF speaker in conversation with Maltese ELF speakers signals we [i.e. Serbians] have a proverb like Italians immediately before uttering the idiom fuma come un turco in its original Italian wording in VOICE, this switch is clearly motivated by the particular situation; it is appropriate and functional because of the shared MRP of these particular ELF speakers. Uttering the proverb in Italian, the Serbian ELF speaker indicates “a special bond to another language or culture” (Klimpfinger 2009: 361) with regard 239
Marie-Luise Pitzl
to Italian, i.e. the language she switches into, but also with regard to Serbian (i.e. her L1), which, she says, has a proverb just like Italian. She displays her multilingual identity and builds linguistic as well as ‘cultural’ rapport with her Maltese ELF interlocutors, who, she knows, will understand her Italian phrase (see Pitzl 2016 for a more detailed discussion).
Why do ELF speakers use metaphors and creative idioms? As is illustrated by this example of multilingual metaphorical creativity, ELF speakers’ use of idioms and metaphors – including non-English ones – tends to fulfill a range of functions in different ELF contexts. Signaling ‘cultural’ affiliation(s) and multilingual identities is particularly noticeable when non-English idioms are explicitly introduced, as in the examples in the previous section. Oftentimes ELF speakers negotiate their ‘cultural’ identities as individuals and/or members of particular communities in ELF encounters, affiliating (or distancing) themselves from others (cf. Baker 2015a, 2015b; Zhu Hua 2015). In this way, ELF speakers build inter/transcultural territories relevant to particular ELF contexts. As illustrated, this inter/transcultural dimension of (non-English) idioms and metaphors often also coincides with other functions, like creating solidarity and rapport in the case of fuma come un turco. When creative idioms and metaphors are used without explicit reference to other languages/cultures, they fulfill a range of specific functions in ELF interactions that can be broadly organized along the lines of Halliday’s (1985: xiii) distinction between ideational and interpersonal (see e.g. Pitzl 2012; Pitzl forthc.). A similar organization of two overall categories is also suggested by Franceschi (2013), who distinguishes communication strategies and social functions in relation to idioms in ELFA, a distinction that also partly corresponds to the Hallidayan one. With regard to the interpersonal/social dimension of idioms and metaphors, establishing and maintaining rapport and solidarity are just one aspect, illustrated for example by creative idioms like we are all on the same [. . .] on the same boat I think . . . on the bus on the train discussed by Cogo (2010: 303). Related to maintaining rapport, creative idioms and metaphors are also used by ELF speakers to mitigate propositions and minimize potential face threats, which may involve humorous undertones, as in the ball is in your corner in VOICE (Pitzl forthc.; see also examples in Pitzl 2009; Franceschi 2013). Humor and joking by means of metaphorical creativity can, however, also occur just for their own sake, i.e. without being intended to mitigate a face threat. Furthermore, ELF speakers sometimes use creative idioms and metaphors to express subjectivity, project stance and position themselves in relation to a particular issue, as in expressions like to my head or i feel that many times i am pulling the brakes in VOICE. When we turn to the second category, i.e. idioms and metaphors being used for ideational and transactional purposes, metaphorical expressions serve functions like emphasizing (e.g. i’m up to my hh big toe i’m a cargo guy; all this shit it takes hell a lot of time), summarizing (e.g. what i was trying to sort of like put together in a nutshell here) and increasing explicitness (e.g. a joint program doe- doesn’t exist in the air so to say) in different ELF interactions. On several occasions, these transactional functions become especially relevant when speakers are discussing rather abstract concepts or topics that they try to explain or describe by using metaphors and idioms. A central characteristic of many creative idioms and metaphors in ELF interactions is that they are multifunctional, that is to say they fulfill more than one specific function. Thus, many instances of metaphorical creativity cited above operate at an interpersonal as 240
Creativity and metaphorical language in ELF
well as at an ideational level. The same phrase can express humor and mitigate a sensitive proposition (interpersonal/interactional) and summarize what was said before (ideational/ transactional). Although evidence in VOICE suggests that some ELF speakers have a greater tendency of using creative idioms and metaphors than others, metaphorical creativity as discussed in this chapter is widely used by ELF speakers from all kinds of L1 backgrounds. Individual creative expressions, as illustrated in this chapter, are generally not on the way to becoming new lexicalized ‘ELF idioms’, i.e. they are not on the way ‘back’ to becoming conventional idioms in the idiom-metaphor loop proposed in Figure 19.1. They are, however, part of localized practices of ELF communication. Rather than being a hindrance or the cause for confusion, they are usually successful in the respective ELF contexts in fulfilling a range of interpersonal and ideational discourse functions.
Conclusion This chapter has summarized existing research on creativity and the use of idioms and metaphor in ELF. Having outlined the notion of norm-following and norm-developing creativity, it has discussed these concepts in relation to idiom and metaphor, paying particular attention to the synchronic-diachronic link of idiom and metaphor and to the process of re-metaphorization. In the second half, the article has attempted to provide insights to the questions how idioms are varied and why they are used by ELF speakers. Relying primarily (though not exclusively) on examples from VOICE, the chapter has provided an overview of different types of formal idiom variation, such as lexical substitution, syntactic and morphosyntactic variation. The multilingual aspect of metaphorical creativity was discussed, showing how non-English idioms may enter ELF either implicitly (without being flagged or noticed) or explicitly as ‘Englishized’ versions or code-switches. Finally, the range of interpersonal and ideational functions fulfilled by creative idioms and metaphors was illustrated, providing evidence that metaphorical creativity is part of ELF as situationally created by multilingual speakers.
Related chapters in this handbook 4 Larsen-Freeman, Complexity and ELF 16 Osimk-Teasdale, Analysing ELF variability 17 Cogo and House, The pragmatics of ELF 24 Canagarajah and Kumura, Translingual Practice and ELF 27 Pullin, Humour in ELF interaction 29 Cogo, ELF and multilingualism 40 Wright and Zheng, Language as system and language as dialogic creativity: the difficulties of teaching English as a lingua franca in the classroom
Further reading Franceschi, V. (2013). Figurative language and ELF: idiomaticity in cross-cultural interaction in university settings. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2 (1), pp. 75–99. 241
Marie-Luise Pitzl
Pitzl, M.-L. (2009). “We should not wake up any dogs”: idiom and metaphor in ELF. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 299–322. Seidlhofer, B. (2009). Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a lingua franca. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6 (2), pp. 195–215.
References Baird, R., Baker, W. and Kitazawa, M. (2014). The complexity of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(1), pp. 171–196. Baker, W. (2015a). Culture and complexity through English as a lingua franca: rethinking competences and pedagogy in ELT. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(1), pp. 9–30. Baker, W. (2015b). Culture and identity through English as a Lingua Franca: Rethinking concepts and goals in intercultural communication. Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton. Björkman, B. (2013). English as an academic lingua franca: An investigation of form and communicative effectiveness. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Cameron, L. (1999). Identifying and describing metaphor in spoken discourse. In Cameron, L. and Low, G.D. (eds), Researching and applying metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 105–132. Carter, R. (2004). Language and creativity. The art of common talk. Abingdon: Routledge. Cogo, A. (2010). Strategic use and perceptions of English as a lingua franca. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 46 (3), pp. 295–312. Cogo, A. (2012). ELF and super-diversity: a case study of ELF multilingual practices from a business context. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1 (2), pp. 287–313. Cogo, A. (2016). “They all take the risk and make the effort”: intercultural accommodation and multilingualism in a BELF community of practice. In Lopriore, L. and Grazzi, E. (eds), Intercultural communication: New perspectives from ELF. Rome: Roma Tre Press, pp. 365–383. Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2012). Analyzing English as a lingua franca: A corpus-driven investigation. London: Continuum. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In Sternberg, R. (ed.), Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 313–335. Dewey, M. (2009). English as a lingua franca: heightened variability and theoretical implications. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 60–83. ELFA. (2008). The corpus of English as a lingua franca in academic settings. www.helsinki.fi/elfa/ elfacorpus (accessed 22 December 2016). Erman, B. and Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20 (1), pp. 29–62. Franceschi, V. (2013). Figurative language and ELF: idiomaticity in cross-cultural interaction in university settings. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2 (1), pp. 75–99. Halliday, M. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Hanks, P. (2006). Metaphoricity is gradable. In Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S.T. (eds), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 17–35. Hülmbauer, C. (2009). “We don’t take the right way. We just take the way that we think you will understand”: the shifting relationship between correctness and effectiveness in ELF communication. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 323–347. Hülmbauer, C. (2013). The real, the virtual and the plurilingual: English as a lingua franca in a linguistically diversified Europe. Unpublished Dissertation: Universität Wien. Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice, 2 (3), pp. 49–85. Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44 (3), pp. 281–315. Joseph, J.E. (2003). Rethinking linguistic creativity. In Davis, H.G. and Taylor, T.J. (eds), Rethinking linguistics. London: Routledge Curzon, pp. 121–150. Klimpfinger, T. (2009). “She’s mixing the two languages together”: forms and functions of codeswitching in English as a lingua franca. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 348–371. 242
Creativity and metaphorical language in ELF
Langlotz, A. (2006). Idiomatic creativity: A cognitive-linguistic model of idiom-representation and idiom-variation in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2016). Complexity theory and ELF: a matter of nonteleology. In Pitzl, M.-L. and Osimk-Teasdale, R. (eds), English as a lingua franca: Perspectives and prospects. Contributions in honour of Barbara Seidlhofer. Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 139–145. Mauranen, A. (2009). Chunking in ELF: expressions for managing interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6 (2), pp. 217–233. Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moon, R. (1998). Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pitzl, M.-L. (forthc.). Creativity in English as a lingua franca: Idiom and metaphor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pitzl, M.-L. (2009). “We should not wake up any dogs”: idiom and metaphor in ELF. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 299–322. Pitzl, M.-L. (2011). Creativity in English as a lingua franca: Idiom and metaphor. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Vienna. Pitzl, M.-L. (2012). Creativity meets convention: idiom variation and re-metaphorization in ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1 (1), pp. 27–55. Pitzl, M.-L. (2013). Creativity in language use. In Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J. (eds), Handbook of Pragmatics: 2013 Installment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–28. Pitzl, M.-L. (2016). World Englishes and creative idioms in English as a lingua franca. World Englishes, 35 (2) (Special issue on Language contact in World Englishes), pp. 293–209. Pitzl, M.-L., Breiteneder, A. and Klimpfinger, T. (2008). A world of words: processes of lexical innovation in VOICE. Vienna English Working Papers, 17 (2), pp. 21–46. Available from: http:// anglistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/views_0802.pdf (accessed 1 April 2016). Pope, R. (2005). Creativity: History, theory and practice. London: Routledge. Ricoeur, P. (1981) [2000]. The creativity of language. In Burke, L. Crowley, T. and Girvin, A. (eds), The Routledge language and cultural theory reader. London: Routledge, pp. 340–344. Schneider, E.W. (2012). Exploring the interface between World Englishes and second language acquisition – and implications for English as a lingua franca. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1 (1), pp. 57–91. Seidlhofer, B. (2009). Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a lingua franca. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6 (2), pp. 195–215. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seidlhofer, B. and Widdowson, H.G. (2007). Idiomatic variation and change in English: The idiom principle and its realizations. In Smit, U., Dollinger, S., Hüttner, J., Kaltenböck, G. and Lutzky, U. (eds), Tracing English through time: Explorations in language variation (Festschrift for Herbert Schendl, Austrian Studies in English vol. 95). Wien: Braumüller, pp. 359–374. Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vetchinnikova, S. (2015). Usage-based recycling or creative exploitation of the shared code? The case of phraseological patterning. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4 (2), pp. 223–252. Vettorel, P. (2014). English as a lingua franca in wider networking: Blogging practices. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. VOICE. (2013). The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version 2.0 online). Director: Barbara Seidlhofer; Researchers: Angelika Breiteneder, Theresa Klimpfinger, Stefan Majewski, Ruth Osimk-Teasdale, Marie-Luise Pitzl, Michael Radeka. http://voice.univie.ac.at (accessed 1 April 2016). Yule, G. (2010). The study of language (4th edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zhu Hua, (2015). Negotiation as the way of engagement in intercultural and lingua franca communication: Frames of reference and interculturality. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4 (1), pp. 63–90.
243
20 Grammar in ELF Elina Ranta
Introduction Many ELF-related sources cite grammar as one of the “most studied” aspects of ELF. In actual fact, however, serious investigations into the syntax or structure of ELF are still rare, and ELF grammar easily loses out in popularity to descriptions of other linguistic levels, such as lexis or pragmatics in ELF. The impression of a vast number of grammatical studies may be due to numerous publications listing “frequently occurring” grammatical features of ELF – without analysing them further or sometimes even without providing their occurrence rates. This kind of listing could rather be termed “feature spotting” (see Seidlhofer 2009), which, without more in-depth investigation does not really help in describing ELF grammatically or in illuminating how (or whether!) ELF differs from other kinds of Englishes in terms of grammar. The reason why ELF syntax has drawn rather little scholarly attention so far may lie in the assumption that because ELF is (mostly) second-language1 use, SLA (second-language acquisition) studies on grammar have already covered the area and, thus, studies on ELF material could not bring out anything new. This assumption will be addressed below in the first section that argues for the importance of ELF-specific grammatical studies. To do this, we will also have to distinguish between ELF and SLA, and define ELF linguistically. Material-wise, there should no longer be hindrances for in-depth ELF grammar research as large enough databases – first and foremost the ELFA, VOICE and ACE corpora – on authentic ELF use from different parts of the world and from different domains of language use are already there for researchers to utilize. The present chapter seeks to answer three central questions of ELF grammar in light of what we know so far. After giving justification to ELF-specific grammatical studies (i.e. “Why study grammar in ELF?”) and after providing a brief linguistic conceptualization of ELF, I move on to ask: What can we expect from ELF grammar (on the basis of what we know about other fields of English studies)? And what do we know about ELF grammar so far?
Why study grammar in ELF? So why undertake grammatical investigation into ELF, when there is already a large body of information on grammar in SLA? What distinguishes between SLA and ELF? The distinction 244
Grammar in ELF
is actually two-fold. On the one hand, the circumstances for interaction we are looking at in each case are different, and on the other hand, the ways researchers look at their data differ dramatically in each field. Let us take a closer look at the differences, beginning with the circumstances of interaction. In essence, research into English as a lingua franca is research on language use in real-life circumstances between different speakers, while the goal of second-language acquisition research is to uncover the processes underpinning individual learners’ acquisition of a certain code – and most often in a classroom setting. Mauranen (2012) defines ELF as second-language use (SLU) in contrast to second-language acquisition (SLA). As she says, because SLA usually takes place in a classroom, educational goals (i.e. “getting it right”) often override communicative goals in interaction, and learners are also cognitively attuned to the language form (because that is what they will be ultimately tested on). Also, learners in ELT classrooms typically share an L1 and/or cultural background, which contributes to the fact that comprehensibility in interaction in L2 does not need to be top priority for learners as they can always fall back on their shared linguistic and cultural knowledge in case of possible communicative breakdowns in L2. In outside-classroom ELF/SLU situations, in contrast, the speakers do not share an L1 and may know very little about each other’s cultures. Thus, in SLU, guaranteeing mutual comprehensibility in L2 becomes of heightened importance to all participants – and because lingua franca speakers orient cognitively to contents over form (e.g. Mauranen 2012), it is quite acceptable to rely on whatever seems to work in interaction, whether this means diverging from standard language or, for example, mixing languages. This way natural, spontaneous norms arise to safeguard mutual intelligibility in SLU (Mauranen 2012: 6–8). Further, the cognitive load in ELF/SLU situations is bound to be far heavier than that in classroom settings. As the multitude of speakers using English for lingua franca communication around the world constantly increases and diversifies, it means that speakers have to be able to juggle simultaneously many more cultural practices, accents and proficiency levels than they would in a typical EFL class, where learners quickly get used to each others’ ways of speaking due to regular contact (Mauranen 2012: 7). The same speakers can, of course, assume the role of either a language user or a learner at different times, and in each role and context one thing remains, of course, the same: in both cases we are looking at people speaking English as their second or non-native language, and therefore, as pointed out by Mauranen (2011, 2012), the cognitive, bilingual processes affecting especially lexicogrammar in these speakers’ speech are bound to be the same, independent of the context. Therefore, we can also expect to find similar processes in operation in SLU as those postulated by SLA research. However, exercising due caution vis-à-vis some of the “taken-for-granted” explanations deriving from SLA is in order. In SLA, learners’ “deviating” forms have very often been ascribed to, for instance, transfer from the learners’ respective L1’s. This has happened regardless of the fact that the same kind of deviation may be present in the output of a number of learners coming from typologically versatile L1 backgrounds (cf. e.g. the transfer explanations in articles in Swan and Smith 2001). Another important observation is that we can also assume that L2 speakers’ second languages, especially language forms, are not as deeply “entrenched” (Mauranen 2012: 4) in their minds as their L1’s due to speakers having less exposure to L2 during their lifetime. This might show in things like ease and speed of retrieval of linguistic items from the memory. For instance Birdsong (2004: 85) also notes that L1 and L2 grammars are different by nature in their end-state realization. According to him, the L2 “steady-state grammar” actually seems “unsteady”, because it “admits more variability in surface realizations and more uncertainty of intuitions”. However, it is quite obvious that not all dysfluencies found in L2 245
Elina Ranta
speakers’ speech are due to “less deep” entrenchment because, for example, reformulations, hesitations and pauses are just normal features of speech for any language user. In addition to the circumstances of SLA and SLU, it is crucial to see that the ways SLA and ELF research approach their data also differ in fundamental terms. Mainstream SLA has traditionally looked at learners from a “deficit” point of view trying to find explanations for second-language speakers falling short of mastering an L2 (see especially Jenkins 2006). The explanations have typically been found in first-language negative transfer, specific communication strategies employed by L2 speakers to compensate for (what SLA sees as) their lacking language skills, and/or other extra-linguistic sources (such as perceptions about lack of motivation). Moreover, the reference point for L2 production has typically been standard language, i.e. the written code, even when judging learners’ spoken language skills – not authentic (spoken) L1 production. This has, naturally, skewed the results at the second-language speakers’ disadvantage. Also, the emphasis in SLA studies has been on the differences between L1 and L2 production, not their similarities. The user perspective of ELF, on the other hand, departs from the deficit view and looks at L2 output from the same perspective as any other natural language. This means, first of all, that if, for instance, spoken ELF is compared to native English speaker production, the point of comparison has to be, of course, naturally occurring L1 speech, not a written standard found in reference grammars. This avenue has remained virtually unexplored in L2 studies. However, even in some descriptive ELF studies carried out so far a common drawback has been their failure to use any kind of baseline data to support claims for “ELF-specific” uses (see the discussion below), or alternatively, comparisons of spoken ELF with standard (written) language. Second, setting ELF on a par with native-speaker English means that also similarities between L1 and L2 use become relevant and interesting objects of study. It is only through this kind of approach that we can really discover what is particular to ELF communication and what is perhaps shared in “all” English, whether L1 or L2 based. Thus, the shift in the research perspective, from that of a learner to user, can open up new views on the linguistic output observed. Finally, on a macrosocial note, research on syntactic features of ELF is of heightened importance from the perspective of possible language change in English. The sheer volume of ELF in the world is bound to have an effect on the English language at large, and a recent account of ELF by Laitinen (2016) already places ELF on a diachronic continuum with other varieties of English in this respect. Thus, studying ELF grammar can, at best, mean studying nascent or already ongoing syntactic changes in English.
What can we expect from grammar in ELF? Before we can answer the question above, we must define ELF linguistically in order to know where and what to look for when talking about “ELF grammar”. Space does not allow for an in-depth discussion, but put briefly, ELF is obviously not a fixed code spoken by a uniform community the whole world over (see e.g. Jenkins 2000; Seidlhofer 2011; and Mauranen 2012), and therefore there cannot be a uniform entity called “ELF grammar”, either.2 In contrast, ELF is whatever it is in a situation where two (or more) speakers need to communicate through a lingua franca. Thus, ELF ranges from fleeting tourist contacts to daily interactions between business partners or married couples who share English as their (only) common language, and anything in between. The proficiency levels of speakers, understood in the SLA sense, are bound to vary tremendously – even of the interlocutors 246
Grammar in ELF
in the same communicative situation – but that is what ELF is, and this reality has to be accepted as a fact also in ELF research if we want to stay true to the phenomenon at hand. Rather than a code, then, we can perhaps depict ELF as a series of more or less demanding communicative situations where speakers come with whatever their language skills to tackle the communicative tasks at hand. Harnessing this kind of huge entity for scientific scrutiny is, of course, challenging, and can be done only by studying various kinds of functional varieties of ELF (such as academic ELF, business ELF, etc.) one at a time, and seeing if the accumulating data brings forth recurrent phenomena and developments. It is precisely the larger scale processes that should be of interest to ELF grammar researchers, not so much the individual features. On the other hand, ELF is also linguistically a contact language. Mauranen (2012: ch. 2) describes ELF more precisely as a hybrid language or “second-order contact between similects” (2012: 29). By a “similect” Mauranen refers to a “variety” of English (or lect) that arises from contact between English and another language such as Finnish or Swedish, producing what, in lay terms, is known as, for instance, “Finglish” or “Swinglish” respectively. These lects display features of the L1 (e.g. Finnish or Swedish) of their speakers but are still understandable to speakers from other L1 backgrounds. In this sense they resemble regional dialects of a language, but as opposed to dialects, they never develop or undergo linguistic changes because they are not used for communication between the speakers of the same L1 (for example, Finnish speakers have no need to speak to each other in English among themselves). As Mauranen (2012: 29) puts it: these L1-based lects “remain forever first-generation hybrids: each generation’s, each speaker’s idiolect is a new hybrid” and thus they arise “in parallel, not in mutual interaction” (hence the term “similect”). But what makes ELF a complex matter is that in ELF communication, large numbers of these similects come into contact with each other rendering ELF a contact between hybrids – or “second-order language contact” as Mauranen (2012: 29) calls it. Even if ELF cannot be considered a uniform code, there are certain things we can expect from its grammar due to its nature as a contact language and due to the fact that it is mainly spoken by L2 speakers. First, from previous research into contact linguistics we know that processes such as simplification (especially in grammar and phonology) and leveling (i.e. convergence of grammatical systems in contact) typically take place when dialects or languages come into contact with each other, and thus we can predict that this is also likely to happen in ELF. Locally and temporarily, this may even happen during one conversation as interlocutors converge on a grammatical form or pronunciation that diverges from a standard – albeit hardly leading to any lasting change in the language. Examples of simplification in grammar include replacing bound morphology with periphrastic (or analytic) means to gain more transparency in production, and isomorphism (i.e. the principle of assigning one form to one meaning), which are used in an attempt to systematize language data but also to achieve ease of perception and production (see e.g. Winford 2003: 217–218) by eliminating opacity and/or redundancy in grammar. In addition to simplification, language-internal innovations may sometimes be used to serve the same purposes, as when derivational affixes are used in creative ways, yielding, for instance, unpossible instead of impossible. As Winford (2003: 220) points out, all these strategies and innovations are not necessarily manifestations of “incomplete mastery” of L2 but actually evince the learners’ command of the language. Also, they seem to testify for “the need to achieve maximum regularity and transparency in the grammar” as speakers “seek optimality in structure as far as possible” (Winford 2003: 220). Second, we know that in contact language situations, language universals often start to emerge. In a lingua franca situation, in particular, as speakers try to safeguard communication 247
Elina Ranta
in a very complex and heterogeneous linguistic setting by seeking common denominators, it seems a sound strategy to rely on forms and features that can be assumed to be widespread in languages in general – rather than relying on, for instance, transfer from one’s L1. This way, ELF use could possibly tend towards what is universal in language (Mauranen 2012: 32). In fact, ELF provides an excellent testing ground for hypotheses of language universals as it manifests a contact between virtually all (major) languages in the world, that is, contact between typologically very versatile languages. The above-mentioned simplification/leveling and language universals are actually connected as these processes have been attributed to loss of marked forms in language, and thus steering the language towards “naturalness”. Language universals are best visible in unedited speech, which has not undergone deliberate modification – unlike (standard) written language – and that is why a “language universal” becomes a near synonym of a “spoken language universal”. Also a more restricted, language-specific term “angloversals” has started to gain popularity among English linguists (see e.g. Szmrecsanyi and Kortmann 2009). This term (originally launched by Mair (2003: 83–84) in reference to common tendencies found in the outer-circle Englishes) limits the scope of the search for universals to possible English-internal (spoken language) “universals”, for which ELF seems like an ideal testing ground (see Ranta 2013 for a more detailed discussion). What seems to be lying behind the universal tendencies found in contact-language situations are actually the general cognitive or processing constraints common to all speakers (whether L1 or L2) such as short-term memory limitations or time constraints in interaction. The processing principles that speakers resort to in these situations actually also help to impose order on the incoming language data, and according to Winford (2003: 226), such processing principles seem to override the influence of L1 on L2 and other kinds of creative innovations in L2. Third, because ELF is mostly spoken by L2 speakers, we can also expect to find similar processes in operation as those postulated by SLA research. However, as SLA is in actual fact only a particular instance of language contact, these processes are very much akin to the ones already mentioned (such as simplification and leveling). Another factor following from the L2 speaker status was also already noted above: L2 speakers’ grammars are likely to be “unsteady” or less well entrenched than L1 grammars are. This leads, among other things, to a phenomenon that Mauranen (2012: 41) calls “approximation”. As the less deeply entrenched language forms require more effort in retrieving and processing in L2 speech, L2 users may start resorting to processing shortcuts and thus approximating the ENL forms. As memory for sense in language is stronger than memory for form, the approximations usually retain the meaning of the ENL expression but may use a different wording (such as building stones for building blocks) (Mauranen 2012: 42). The approximations, however, give the interlocutors enough information to go on and other speakers may even adopt these approximations for use as well – thus they become mutually understood and shared items in conversation. This may happen with grammatical items just as well as with the lexicon, so such approximations are also to be expected in ELF grammar.
What do we know about ELF grammar so far? As pointed out in the introduction, most references to ELF grammar thus far have been in the fashion of “feature spotting”, i.e. listings of individual non-standard features spotted in different datasets – frequently without statistical information on their occurrence or no further investigation of their syntactic context. These “ELF features” first started to draw researchers’ attention around the turn of the millennium, and one of the first lists 248
Grammar in ELF
to appear was given in Seidlhofer (2004). The list has gained vast popularity as a set of “known” grammatical features of ELF although Seidlhofer notes that the features have mainly emerged in small-scale seminar projects carried out on the VOICE data and are only provided so as to generate hypotheses for further research. (Among the features Seidlhofer gives are, for instance, “dropping” the third-person -s, “confusing” the use of the relative pronouns who and which, invariable tag questions and non-standard use of articles and prepositions.) Indeed, for instance, Breiteneder (2005) in her study on the zero marking of the “third-person -s” in VOICE data concludes that this feature is not particularly salient in ELF, contrary to what the list in Seidlhofer (2004) gives us to understand. Other early remarks on grammatical features of ELF are made, for instance, in Erling and Bartlett (2006) who note the non-standard use of articles, prepositions and adverbs in ELF as well as fluctuation in time, tense and aspect markers (including extended use of the progressive), and the extended use of would in conditional if-clauses. Dewey (2007), on the other hand, reports on the following recurring features in his data: 3rd person singular zero, omitting the object/complement of a transitive verb, variable use of prepositions and articles, non-standard collocation patterns with high-frequency verbs, non-standard adverbial positions, and non-standard use of relative pronouns (especially who and which). And Björkman (2010), again, gives an extensive list of non-standard forms found in her data on noun and verb phrase levels, clause level, and morphology, which include, for instance, not marking the plural on the noun, non-standard article usage, double comparatives and superlatives, non-standard formulations of the passive voice and miscellaneous tense, aspect and word order issues (including the non-standard use of the progressive and indirect questions). Based on the ACE corpus, Kirkpatrick (2013) mentions non-standard features such as omission of articles and of plural “s”, omission of “be”, and base form of the verb for past tense as features spotted in the corpus data. Also Mauranen (2012) touches upon the non-standard use of prepositions and determiners in ELF but does not analyse them in further syntactic context. While mere spotting of features without proper quantification and in-depth syntactic analysis does not really help us to describe ELF further, the accumulating lists do bring forth one observation. Non-standardness in ELF seems to have a direction as many studies point to similar kinds of structural findings, and is not just a collection of random, idiosyncratic errors – as has been put forth by ELF critics (see e.g. Mollin 2006). A fairly popular approach to non-standard features in ELF grammar research has been to try to establish “ELF-specific” functional motivation for the non-standard (and sometimes also standard) uses (see e.g. Dorn 2011 on the use of the progressive in ELF, and Dewey 2007 on processes that he finds underlying the non-standard uses listed above). But often the drawback in such studies has been their non-use of baseline data to corroborate the findings. Without a doubt, some non-standard forms may well be motivated by functional criteria but whether the functions are ELF-specific or more general kinds of “functions” in natural, spoken language is a question that remains unanswered without reference data. Thus, at least for grammar, the general claims that in ELF “form follows function” (Cogo 2008: 60; see also Cogo and Dewey 2006; Seidlhofer 2009, 2011) seem somewhat premature. However, processes found in other linguistic domains of ELF research (cf. pragmatics, discourse and phonology) such as accommodation, enhanced explicitness and enhanced cooperativeness seem to find support in grammatical ELF studies. For instance, Dewey (2007; see also Cogo and Dewey 2012), Björkman (2010), and Ranta (2006, 2013) all point to the fact that nonstandard grammatical forms in ELF could, in various ways, serve the purpose of making what the speaker has to say more explicit e.g. by added prominence or by making the construction “heavier” than necessary and thus perceptually more salient. 249
Elina Ranta
Enhanced explicitness and cooperativeness also shows in the fact that non-standard features in ELF do not, as a rule, cause misunderstandings in communication. For instance, Meierkord (2004) found in her data of 22 hours of informal student conversations between non-native English speakers in Germany and the UK that misunderstandings were extremely rare and suggests this is due to the speakers in her data employing strategies that “modify their utterances in a way which seems to render discourse easier to process” (p. 125). Björkman (2010; see also 2013) studied a corpus of approximately 500,000 words of lectures and student group-work discussions in an international engineering degree program at a Swedish university to see whether the found non-standard constructions caused communicative breakdowns and concluded that only the non-standard word order in direct questions (accompanied by flat intonation) “resulted in overt disturbance in communication” (2010: 85). Ranta’s (2013) study on four non-standard verb-syntactic constructions in the ELFA corpus (the progressive, embedded inversions, existential there-constructions and would in hypothetical if-clauses; see below) supports these findings, as no misunderstandings due to non-standard use were detectable in the features. On the whole, it is also notable that contrary to common beliefs, non-standardness in grammar in ELF actually seems to be fairly infrequent. For instance, Meierkord (2004) found that of the 2,063 utterances she analysed, only some 9 per cent diverged from Standard English. The same low trend is attested also in Breiteneder (2005) for the third-person singular zero, in Ranta (2006) and Dorn (2011) on the non-standard progressives, and in Björkman (2010) and Ranta (2013) on a number of different constructions. However, comparing ELF and L1 speakers, Ranta (2013) did find that overall, non-standard uses were more pronounced among ELF speakers – which is only to be expected on the basis of the above-mentioned less deep entrenchment of grammatical patterns in L2 users’ repertoire. Yet, it is noteworthy that in the case of existential there constructions in her study, it was actually the L1 speakers whose use evinced a much higher degree of non-standardness, so it is not necessarily always the ELF speakers whose use “deviates” most from the standard. Breiteneder (2005), Björkman (2010) and Ranta (2013) also note the qualitative similarities between the attested non-standard features in ELF and in other varieties of English in the world. As discussed in the previous section, such similarities would seem to point to language universals rather than ELF-specific uses. Ranta (2013) is the first ELF grammar study to explore the possibility of language universals (or “angloversals”) in ELF data, and also the first in-depth syntactic analysis of non-standard features. The study is based on a subset of ca. 760,000 words of the ELFA corpus with the findings compared to naturally-occurring L1 spoken data in a 1.7 million word reference corpus MICASE (The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English). As noted above, the non-standard features she investigated were the inverted word order in indirect questions or “embedded inversions” (as in I don’t know have they left yet / They asked how old is she), the extended use of the progressive (e.g. with stative verbs or general truths), the use of would in hypothetical if-clauses (as in I would leave immediately if she would come or I would have left immediately if she would have come), and the preference for singular agreement in existential there-constructions even with plural notional subjects (as in There’s still a lot of unanswered questions). The selection of the features was purely data-driven, as the attempt was to find reoccurring features in ELFA that diverged from the standard use but had no link to any particular L1 background. All the features are kinds of simplification (see Ranta 2013) and have been cited as features of many other L1- and L2-based Englishes around the world as well, which gives further impetus to the universality hypothesis.
250
Grammar in ELF
The results indicated that qualitative similarities are, indeed, to be found in the nonstandard uses of the structures between spoken ELF and spoken L1 English. The similarities were not equally strong with all the four features but as a whole, nevertheless, compel us to reconsider at least the transfer explanation given to them in SLA literature, and also make questionable the “ELF-specificity” of the features. Most striking the similarities were in embedded inversions where the syntactic conditioning for the occurrence of non-standard use in speech appeared to be virtually identical for both L1 and ELF speakers. On the other hand, non-standard second conditionals (I would leave immediately if she would come) was the only feature of the ones studied that appeared to be clearly ELF/L2-specific as no common linguistic denominators for its appearance could be found in the L1 and ELF data. As the qualitative tendencies in the other features are in many respects the same, it seems reasonable to ascribe the occurring non-standardness in both datasets to a common source: most likely the general constraints of on-line, real-time speech production and processing that are the same for all speakers, whether from an L1 or L2 background, and that are often cited as sources of language universals. In other words, the results suggest that ELF speech is just “as normal” or natural as L1 speech in terms of grammar because ELF speakers seem to exploit the same affordances of the English language as native speakers to streamline their spoken production, thus actually demonstrating their competence in the language, rather than purported incompetence. This study challenges the views found in, for example, Dewey (2007) that regard nonstandard grammatical features in ELF as “innovations” by ELF speakers. Rather than being purely innovative use, it seems that many of the non-standard constructions in ELF resemble the use in other varieties of English. Further, it is likely that some of the found non-standard features are due to L2 speakers approximating the ENL forms (as discussed above) rather than having a communicative function in themselves. However, as the studies above indicate, the approximations “work” and serve the purpose of conveying the speakers’ propositions in ELF, as misunderstandings due to grammatical form are extremely rare. As seen from the above, practically all studies on ELF grammar to date have been carried out on spoken language – probably because this is the unedited mode of language where possible unique features and/or new developments of language will most readily be discernible, but also because of the lack of written ELF databases so far. This is likely to change with the advent of the first written ELF database, the WrELFA corpus (Written Academic ELF) by Anna Mauranen and her team (see www.helsinki.fi/elfa/wrelfa.html), but already, two pioneering case studies of grammatical constructions in written ELF exist. Laitinen and Levin (2016) look at subjective progressives (as in she’s always talking too much) in their own written ELF corpus and compare the uses to American English and to learner essays in the ICLE corpus. Most importantly their results show that ELF data and learner data clearly differ from each other both qualitatively and quantitatively in the usage of this particular construction. Laitinen (2016), on the other hand, delves into the ongoing changes in the use of modals in written and spoken American English, British English and ELF, i.e. the increase in the use of so-called emergent modals (e.g. BE going to, HAVE to, and WANT to) and a corresponding decrease in the use of core modals (e.g. can, may, will etc.). His results indicate that while ELF does not lead the change (AmE does), the same change is visible in ELF, too, and actually more pronounced than in BrE. Also, ELF seems to be polarizing the recent frequency changes (both the increase and the decrease) and thus assumably accelerating the diffusion of the ongoing change. These are fascinating preliminary findings that we will hopefully see more of in the near future as results from written ELF accumulate.
251
Elina Ranta
Conclusion On the basis of the results discussed above, we can conclude in summary that ELF grammar does seem to manifest some simplification in structure but to a relatively low degree as non-standardness in (spoken) ELF is, overall, fairly infrequent. Further, the features found point to non-standardness in ELF having a direction, because many studies attest similar kinds of non-standard uses (that are also similar in L1 production). Non-standard structures do not generally appear to cause problems in ELF communication – which would, indeed, be unlikely at least with the constructions that seem to be English-internal universals (used to smoothen the communication through streamlining either the production or processing of language data). The fact that some non-standard uses clearly manifest universal tendencies in (spoken) English indicates that ELF is in many respects as natural language use as other (focused) varieties of English, including ENL – and not just a “learner distortion”. Indeed, the first tentative results from written ELF seem to further corroborate the distinction between SLA and ELF also in terms of grammar, and demonstrate how ELF does participate in and accelerate on-going grammatical changes in English. The latter-mentioned, fascinating results are gained through comparisons of ELF to other (focused) varieties of English. This is the kind of research we need more in ELF grammar to discover what actually is specific to ELF interaction and what perhaps general tendencies (cf. universals) in “all” (spoken) English. Obviously, studying ELF in a linguistic “void” without baseline data does not really further this kind of knowledge, although it is understandable that along with the new ELF research paradigm, researchers have wanted to take “a fresh look” at their data without reference to, for instance, L1 English. But whether ELF speakers use particular constructions in truly innovative ways for functions of their own still seems to be a moot point that would need to be verified against reference data. We also need more research on the differences and similarities between grammar in spoken and written modes of ELF – both within ELF and in relation to established varieties of English. This knowledge is sure to start to accumulate with the new written ELF databases in the near future. On the whole, however, we can say that the theoretical and methodological distinction between SLA and SLU/ELF has already provided new insights into (spoken) English L2 grammar that have very much gone unnoticed thus far. As reported above, recent evidence also suggests that the distinction is not only theoretical but also linguistically motivated. Thus, the fascinating journey into the grammar of ELF has only just begun – and will most likely also provide its researchers with a first-hand view of any grammatical changes in the English language at large.
Notes 1 The term “second language” or “L2” is used in this chapter as a shorthand to refer to a person’s use of English as an additional language regardless of how many other languages (besides his/her mother tongue(s)) the person knows or the order in which s/he has acquired them. 2 This is also why English language teaching at school has to rely grammar-wise still on Standard English in the absence of endonormative models, at least in the expanding circle. However, the target of learning – i.e. what students are expected to produce themselves (see Melchers and Shaw 2003: 191 for a distinction between exposure, model and target in language learning) – could start to be informed by research results on ELF grammar thus shifting the expected “ultimate attainment” from that of “native-speaker competence” to “a proficient ELF speaker” (see Ranta 2013 for a more detailed discussion).
252
Grammar in ELF
Related chapters in this handbook 1 Mauranen, Conceptualising ELF 11 Kirkpatrick, The development of English as a lingua franca in ASEAN 21 Björkman, Morphosyntactic variation in spoken English as a lingua franca interactions: revisiting linguistic variety
Further reading Björkman, B. (2013). English as an Academic Lingua Franca: An Investigation of Form and Communicative Effectiveness. New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ranta, E. (2013). Universals in a Universal Language? – Exploring Verb-Syntactic Features in English as a Lingua Franca. PhD Thesis. University of Tampere. Available online at: http://urn.fi/ URN:ISBN:978-951-44-9299-0
References Birdsong, D. (2004). “Second Language Acquisition and Ultimate Attainment” in Davies, A. and Elder, C. (eds) The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 82–105. Björkman, B. (2010). Spoken Lingua Franca English at a Swedish Technical University: An Investigation of Form and Communicative Effectiveness. Unpublished PhD thesis. Stockholm University. Björkman, B. (2013). English as an Academic Lingua Franca. An Investigation of Form and Communicative Effectiveness. New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Breiteneder, A. (2005). “The Naturalness of English as a European Lingua Franca: The Case of the ‘Third Person -s’”, Vienna English Working Papers, 14 (2), pp. 3–26. Cogo, A. (2008). “English as a Lingua Franca: Form Follows Function”, English Today 24 (3), pp. 58–61. Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2006) “Efficiency in ELF Communication: From Pragmatic Motives to Lexicogrammatical Innovation”, The Nordic Journal of English Studies 5 (2), pp. 59–93. Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2012) Analysing English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-Driven Investigation. London: Continuum. Dewey, M. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca: An Empirical Study of Innovation in Lexis and Grammar. Unpublished PhD thesis. King’s College London. Dorn, N. (2011). Exploring -ing: The Progressive in English as a Lingua Franca. Saarbrücken: VDM-Verlag Müller. Erling, E.J. and Bartlett, T. (2006). “Making English Their Own: The Use of ELF among Students of English at the FUB”, Nordic Journal of English Studies 5 (2), pp. 9–40. Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2006). “Points of View and Blind Spots: ELF and SLA”, International Journal of Applied Linguistics 16 (2), pp. 137–162. Kirkpatrick, A. (2013). “The Asian Corpus of English: Motivation and Aims”, Learner Corpus Studies in Asia and the World 1, pp. 17–30. Laitinen, M. (2016). “Ongoing Changes in English Modals: On the Developments in ELF”, in Timofeeva, O., Chevalier, S., Gardner, A. and Honkapohja, A. (eds) New Approaches in English Linguistics: Building Bridges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 175–196. Laitinen, M. and Levin, M. (2016). “On the Globalization of English: Observations of Subjective Progressives in Present-Day Englishes”, in Seoane, E. and Suárez-Gómez, C. (eds) World Englishes: New Theoretical and Methodological Considerations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 229–252.
253
Elina Ranta
Mair, C. (2003). “Kreolismen und verbales Identitätsmanagement im geschriebenen jamaikanischen Englisch”, in Vogel, E., Napp, A. and Lutterer, W. (eds) Zwischen Ausgrenzung und Hybridisierung: Zur Konstruktion von Identitäten aus kulturwissenschaftlicher Perspektive. Identitäten und Alteritäten 14. Würzburg: Ergon, pp. 79–96. Mauranen, A. (2011). “Learners and Users: Who Do We Want Corpus Data from?”, in Meunier, F., De Cock, S., Gilquin, G. and Paquot, M. (eds) A Taste of Corpora: In Honour of Sylviane Granger. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 155–171. Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meierkord, C. (2004). “Syntactic Variation in Interactions across International Englishes”, English World-Wide 25 (1), pp. 109–131. Melchers, G. and Shaw, P. (2003). World Englishes: An Introduction. London: Edward Arnold. Mollin, S. (2006). Euro-English: Assessing Variety Status. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Ranta, E. (2006). “The ‘Attractive’ Progressive. Why Use the -ing Form in English as a Lingua Franca?”, Nordic Journal of English Studies 5 (2), pp. 95–116. Ranta, E. (2013). Universals in a Universal Language? – Exploring Verb-Syntactic Features in English as a Lingua Franca. PhD Thesis. University of Tampere. Available at: http://urn.fi/ URN:ISBN:978-951-44-9299-0 (accessed November 5, 2016). Seidlhofer, B. (2004). “Research Perspectives on Teaching English as a Lingua Franca”, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics vol. 24, pp. 209–239. Seidlhofer, B. (2009). “Orientations in ELF Research: Form and Function”, in Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds) English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 37–59. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swan, M. and Smith, B. (eds) (2001). Learner English: A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Szmrecsanyi, B. and Kortmann, B. (2009). “Vernacular Universals and Angloversals in a Typological Perspective”, in Filppula, M., Klemola, J. and Paulasto, H. (eds) Vernacular Universals and Language Contacts: Evidence from Varieties of English and Beyond. London: Routledge, pp. 33–53. Winford, D. (2003). An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
254
21 Morphosyntactic variation in spoken English as a lingua franca interactions Revisiting linguistic variety Beyza Björkman
Introduction It is now well known that in ELF settings, we have complex language contact situations with high linguistic heterogeneity. The linguistic diversity present in ELF settings naturally reflects itself in several areas, including variation in morphosyntactic use. While the conventional wisdom has been that non-standardness is associated with a speaker’s L1, ELF research has shown repeatedly that this variation cannot be fully explained by speakers’ L1 backgrounds (see e.g. Björkman, 2013a; Ranta, 2013), and that there are too many non-standard forms shared by a wide spectrum of L1 backgrounds, which in turn can be considered as candidates for commonalities. ELF research has revealed several trends in ELF syntax, such as reducing redundancy (e.g. Björkman, 2010; Ranta 2013) (e.g. ‘not marking the plural on the noun’), and creating extra explicitness (e.g. ‘unraised negation’, ‘double comparative and superlatives’). When it comes to morphology, similar trends have been observed (Björkman, 2010), namely non-standard word forms with semantic transparency (e.g. discriminization, levelize), analytic comparatives (e.g. more narrow, more cheap), and finally non-standard plural forms (e.g. how many energy, how much litres). As many chapters in this handbook document in different ways, English is the most predominant lingua franca in the world today, used as a vehicular language in a number of critical domains, often for very high-stakes purposes. While the need for a common language is not a new phenomenon in any way (see Mortensen’s discussion on the need for a common language; Mortensen 2013), one language achieving such a dominant lingua franca status globally is unprecedented. In many international domains, English is often the only vehicular language available to the speakers. Settings where English is used as a lingua franca (ELF) are by nature diverse in terms of individuals’ sociocultural, conceptual and linguistic backgrounds (Mauranen 2010). In ELF settings, speakers from different levels of proficiency, first-language backgrounds, and educational systems rely predominantly on one language for different communicative purposes. These different types of diversities lead to a high degree of morphosyntactic variability in ELF interactions. 255
Beyza Björkman
While the review in the present chapter recognizes the fluidity of ELF as a resource employed primarily by multilingual speakers who perform in “transient multilingual communities” (Mortensen 2013: 37), it focuses predominantly on the well-documented morphosyntactic commonalities that emerge in ELF interactions as well as the processes behind them. It reviews the now well-known features reported from empirical ELF studies (e.g. Björkman 2010, 2013a, 2013b; Ranta 2009) along with a review of the features of different varieties of English covered in the World Englishes paradigm, showing a considerable degree of overlap. Its contribution in particular will be a discussion of this overlap, highlighting the need to problematize the theoretical construct ‘variety’ on empirical grounds. ELF research may have moved far away from earlier discussions of whether ELF is a variety or not; nevertheless, some leading researchers have suggested that the types of ‘innovation’ observed in ELF usage may as well spread (Mauranen 2013) and that it “may lead to stabilization of [such] usage habits in the course of time [in reasonably stable contact environments]” (Schneider 2012: 60). Taking into account the overlap of features from varieties covered in World Englishes, and what has been suggested previously in literature about stabilization and spreading (as mentioned above), a problematization of variation and variety does not seem irrelevant. This chapter will have as its primary focus morphosyntactic variation and will take into account morphosyntactic features only when problematizing the notion of variety. Any political or ideological discussions are beyond the scope of this chapter.
Background In the early days of ELF research when the aim was to understand the phenomenon, research started with descriptive studies, investigating (any) commonalities of morphosyntactic usage from ELF settings. Seidlhofer, based on her following observations from the VOICE corpus data, called researchers to work on whether similar features would be found in ELF interactions in other datasets from different settings: ‘Dropping’ the third person -s (e.g., He say); The interchangeable use of the relative pronouns which and who (e.g. The man which was here yesterday … ); The non-standard usage of articles in general; Invariable tag questions, for example, isn’t it? No?; ‘Redundant’ prepositions, for example, study about; High frequency of some verbs of ‘high semantic generality’, for example, do, have, make; Using that clauses instead of infinitive clauses, for example, I want that … ; Increased explicitness, for example, black color. (Seidlhofer 2004: 220) The call made by Seidlhofer in 2004 paved the way to a number of empirical studies investigating (morpho)syntactic variation in different ELF settings in different geographical regions, some focusing on a selection of features (e.g. Breiteneder 2005 on the third-person singular -s, Ranta 2009 on the progressive -ing form) while others focused on larger pieces of spoken discourse (e.g. Björkman 2010, 2013a, 2013b; Cogo and Dewey 2006, 2012; see a thorough review in Jenkins et al. 2011: 288–290). While there were some striking 256
Morphosyntactic variation in spoken ELF
differences in the findings of these studies in terms of the frequency of the features found,1 it is remarkable that similar tendencies were observed in ELF interactions, such as reducing redundancy (when the grammatical ‘standard’ form is not necessary for understanding, e.g. dropping the third-person singular present tense -s, Breiteneder 2005) and increasing explicitness (duplicating certain grammatical forms for increased semantic transparency, e.g. black color instead of black in Seidlhofer’s list above, 2004). I documented the following features elsewhere earlier (Björkman 2010, 2013a, 2013b), using 69 hours of naturally occurring data from a Swedish higher education setting where engineering lecturers and students from 19 different first-language backgrounds relied on English as their lingua franca:2 Not marking the plural on the noun in the presence of a quantifier, e.g. two system, five reactor; Non-standard article usage (absence or overuse of articles), e.g. Anyone can define the renewability?; Double comparative/superlatives, e.g. much more higher (seems to be triggered with the use of ‘much’); Non-standard analytic comparative, e.g. more big; Subject-verb agreement, e.g. A reactor have … ; Tense and aspect issues, using the continuous -ing form instead of Simple Present tense, e.g. In these systems, air is traveling through … ; Non-standard passive voice, e.g. It can be happened that… ; Non-standard question formulation (missing auxiliary), e.g. How many pages we have now?; What means endothermic? Word order issues, e.g. Salinity affects what kind of material you can use; Negation (not preceding what needs to be negated), e.g. This looks not sophisticated. The features found above show the tendencies observed in earlier work and observations (e.g. Seidlhofer 2004), namely that explicitness seems to be increased by devices that increase comprehensibility (e.g. the unraised negative) and redundancy seems to be reduced successfully (e.g. not marking the plural on the noun). The strict set of criteria used for the reporting of the features signaled further that these features could not have been caused simply by first-language (L1) transfer. Another interesting aspect of the research project at hand was the ratio of standard usage versus non-standard usage, where the non-standard features were found to have low frequency in the total number occurrences throughout for all features, standard usage making up at least 69 per cent of student talk and 89 per cent of lecturer talk (see Björkman 2013a and 2013b for a longer discussion of this ratio). This highlighted further that the proficiency in the setting investigated was quite high, as it can be expected of a higher education context where there are language proficiency-related admission requirements. What is perhaps even more interesting is a comparison of these features with features in varieties of English covered in the World Englishes (henceforth WE) paradigm. As stated by Jenkins et al. (2011: 284), “considering its [ELF] similarities to and differences from the well-established World Englishes paradigm” is crucial3 when trying to define and understand ELF as a phenomenon. I have reported elsewhere on a certain degree of overlap of these features and features found in the varieties covered in the WE paradigm, taking the review of features reported in Mesthrie and Bhatt (2008) as a point of comparison. The preliminary finding that 11 of the 257
Beyza Björkman
13 features documented in Björkman (2010 and 2013b) were actually found in documented WE varieties showed that this overlap was worth investigating, which will be undertaken in the present chapter. The immediately following section therefore aims to provide a more thorough review of the overlap of features reported in the author’s earlier work (2010, 2012 and 2013a) and varieties of English organized into the following geographical regions “relevant for the discussion of varieties of English” (Kortmann and Schneider, cited in Kortmann et al. 2004: 3): the British isles, the Americas and the Caribbean, the Pacific and Australasia, and finally, Africa and South and Southeast Asia, in the comprehensive four-volume World Englishes (WE) textbook edited by Kortmann et al. (2004). It should be noted that the present review will only focus on the presence or absence of the features reported rather than their frequency, also following the “qualitative rather than quantitative” approach adopted in the volumes mentioned above (Kortmann and Schneider, cited in Kortmann et al. 2004: 4).
Morphosyntactic features of varieties of Englishes: looking at the World Englishes paradigm The purpose of this section is to provide a general systematic review of the types of morphosyntactic usage reported in ELF interactions against features of different varieties in World Englishes. The present review is by no means exhaustive, including all morphosyntactic features in all recognized varieties of WE. Also, the review relies on one source (Kortmann et al. 2004) and is therefore dependent on the inclusion criteria made in this particular source. The source (Kortmann et al. (2004)) is a comprehensive four-volume handbook of World Englishes, which offers a thorough review of all 59 different varieties, covered in four main geographical areas. Kortmann lists the morphosyntactic features of WE varieties to serve as a reference point for all the four volumes (Kortman et al. 2004: xxv–xxix). The features listed amount to 76 items (numbered) under 11 main linguistic categories. A check of these features of WE reveal some overlap with morphosyntactic usage reported in ELF interactions: six of the linguistic categories listed by Kortmann and Schneider (cited in Kortman et al. 2004) actually include features that have been observed in ELF usage earlier, as shown in Table 21.1. The features in the right column in Table 21.1 have all been previously reported in ELF usage (see e.g. Breiteneder 2005; Cogo and Dewey 2006, 2012; Ranta 2009, and the brief review in the ‘Background’ section above). The corresponding feature numbers have been kept the same as listed in Kortmann’s list (Kortman et al. 2004: xxv–xxix). The picture in Table 21.1 Feature overlap reported in WE varieties and in ELF usage in general linguistic categories, drawing on Kortmann et al. (2004) Linguistic category
Feature overlap (reported in WE varieties and in ELF usage)
Noun phrase
17 Irregular use of articles 19 Double comparatives and superlatives 21 Wider uses of the progressive 52 Invariant tags 54 Invariant present tense forms 69 Inverted word order 73 Lack of inversion in Wh- questions
Verb phrase: tense and aspect Negation Agreement Complementation Discourse organization and word order
258
Morphosyntactic variation in spoken ELF
Table 21.1 provides us with a general overlap of features between ELF usage and features of WE varieties. For a clearer and more elaborate picture however, it is necessary to look at each of the 59 varieties covered in WE and check their features against the morphosyntactic features reported from ELF usage. A systematic review undertaken here of the varieties covered in the handbook4 by Kortmann et al. (2004) provide us with the following features, as summarized in Table 21.2. For reasons of space, the overlap is shown in terms of the broader geographical region (e.g. the British Isles), and the names of varieties are mentioned only when a particular variety shows a significant difference from the other varieties in the region. The four columns of Table 21.2 represent the broader geographical regions applied in Kortmann et al. (2004) while the rows include usage reported on ELF research earlier, in the author’s previous work (2010, 2013a and 2013b). The review summarized in Table 21.2 shows a significant overlap with features covered in ELF usage. If we look at the invariant present tense forms and concord in general, we see that they occur frequently in the British Isles (Kortmann et al. 2004: 482) and in the Americas and the Caribbean (Schneider, cited in Kortmann et al. 2004: 767). Another feature that is very much present in ELF interactions is the invariant question tag isn’t it, which
Table 21.2 Feature overlap between ELF usage and usage reported in 59 WE varieties, drawing on Kortmann et al. (2004) The British Isles
The Americas and the Caribbean
The Pacific and Australasia
Africa, South and Southeast Asia
Invariant present tense forms Invariant concord tags e.g. isn’t it? Progressive ‘used with a wider range of uses’ (especially northern dialects, Irish English, the Orkney and Shetland Isles) Absence of plural marking
Variability in concord in general –
–
–
Invariant tag questions –
Invariant tag questions –
Lack of plural marking after numerals and nouns of measure (common in north America and the Caribbean) Absence or overuse of articles
–
–
Absence of articles (e.g. in Aboriginal English)
Absence of articles
Word order issues
Rising intonation used in questions (e.g. in Australian and New Zealand English) Word order –
Lack of auxiliary inversion in questions
Irregular use of articles (e.g. in Orkney, Shetland, the North and in the Celtic Englishes) Lack of inversion and auxiliaries in Wh- questions
–
–
–
Double comparatives
259
Beyza Björkman
is common in parts of the British Isles (Kortmann et al. 2004: 484) in its variants. This usage is found in the varieties in the Pacific and Australasia as well (Burridge, cited in Kortmann et al. 2004: 599). The progressive has been reported to be ‘overused’ and used for different purposes in ELF interactions (see e.g. Ranta 2009; Björkman 2010). We see that it has a number of uses in the varieties in the British Isles, “display(ing) a wider range of uses” (Kortmann et al. 2004: 479). Kortmann refers to Gachelin (1997, cited in Kortmann et al. 2004: 34–36) who suggests that the progressive may even be in the process of turning into a general imperfective. An interesting feature found in my earlier work (e.g. Björkman 2010) was the absence of plural marking on the noun in the presence of a quantifier, e.g. ‘two reactor’. This particular feature to date has not been reported on in other ELF studies, including the work that has the ELFA corpus as their data source. It is clear from the review that absence of plural marking is common after numerals and in units of measure in the Americas and the Caribbean (Schneider, cited in Kortmann et al. 2004: 771), constituting yet another syntactic form that is in common between WE and usage observed in ELF interactions. Two other (sets of) features in common are irregular use of articles, lack of inversion and auxiliaries (and word order) in questions, observed in all four geographical regions (see Table 21.2). Finally, double comparatives, again reported in ELF usage is common in Africa, South and Southeast Asia (Mesthrie, cited in Kortmann et al. 2004: 631). So what can be said in light of the above review with regard to the overlap observed between the morphosyntactic features in varieties covered in the World Englishes paradigm and the features observed in ELF interactions? First of all, it is noteworthy that so many varieties covered in WE share these features despite their very different sociolinguistic realities. Mesthrie draws the reader’s attention to these “similarities” noticed in the WE varieties (cited in Kortmann et al. 2004: 631): The large number of similarities across L2 Englishes needs to be explained more carefully than in the past, where the default assumption has often been the interference from the substrates. It is prima facie implausible, areal linguistics notwithstanding, that over a thousand languages should induce the very same (or very similar) influences. What Mesthrie says above gives support to what has been suggested in the ELF paradigm, namely that the morphosyntactic non-standardnesses found are not simply random ‘nonstandardnesses’ but actually successful reductions of redundancy and increased explicitness (e.g. Seidlhofer 2004; Björkman 2010). It is beyond the scope of the present chapter to investigate the underlying principles and the psycholinguistic and cognitive processes behind these tendencies, and they are to be left for psycholinguists and cognitive linguists (but see Cogo and Dewey 2012 and Mauranen 2012 for underlying principles). It is, however, certainly interesting that the same tendencies are found in ‘legitimate’ WE varieties. As Mesthrie maintains (above), it is impossible that more than a thousand languages should display similar tendencies, leaving the ‘substrate influence’ claim out of the question. Similarly, in ELF interactions where there is usage shared by a large number of first languages from different language families (Björkman 2010), the conventional wisdom that this is all caused by L1 transfer simply falls short. The fact that ELF usage, which is ‘contact use’, has so many features in common with features from varieties covered in WE, i.e. not contact features, signals some important cognitive processes that must be behind such usage (see Hall, Chapter 6 this volume). 260
Morphosyntactic variation in spoken ELF
Kortmann and Schneider (cited in Kortman et al. 2004: 3–4) report that a large portion of the features are not unique to these (sets of) varieties. This is true both morphology and syntax and for phonology. As a matter of fact, quite a number of morphosyntactic features described as salient properties of individual varieties may strike the reader as typical of other varieties, too. This brings to the fore another question that descriptive ELF research on morphosyntax has had to answer, namely whether the observed features are unique to ELF usage. Researchers have seen and known all along that the features observed in ELF usage are not sui generis (e.g. Firth 2009), and they have been saying all along that they do not need to be sui generis. The features are simply the findings of empirical work describing ELF usage. Let us now turn to the implications of the above observations and overlap for the established construct of ‘variety’.
Problematizing variety Henry Widdowson reminds us of the need to revisit established ‘convenient’ constructs, questioning “how far they remain convenient” (2012: 5). We can only make sense of the world by imposing our own order on it by devising abstract constructs so as to bring it under conceptual control. This is true of linguistics and language pedagogy as of everything else: both of them necessarily disconnect the continuum of actual experience to make simplifying distinctions so as to come to terms with reality distinctions between language and varieties […] Making abstract distinctions of one kind or another is a necessary convenience and cannot be avoided, […] but we also need to consider how they are related and how far they remain convenient. The question we will tackle here is to what extent, if at all, the construct variety is useful and reliable, and ‘convenient’ as Widdowson puts it for ELF usage. It may come as a surprise to ELF researchers that the present chapter re-opens the ‘variety’ discussion. Scholars have said in relatively recent publications repeatedly that ELF is not a variety; it cannot be a variety, because it simply lacks stability and a stable speech community (see e.g. Jenkins et al. 2011: 296). As will hopefully be clear in this section, the aim here is not to go into discussions of ELF usage and whether or not it has or can reach variety status. It is instead an attempt to show that the issue is much more complicated than achieving, having or lacking variety status, as the two prerequisites of the construct variety, i.e. stability (vs variation and variability), and speech community, are not unproblematic. As noted earlier here, the present chapter is certainly not the first one to discuss the relevance of the theoretical construct ‘variety’ with reference to ELF usage (see e.g. Ferguson 2009; Firth 2009; Seidlhofer 2009; Widdowson 2012). However, the overlap reported in the previous section between ELF usage and varieties in WE calls for further discussion. First, there is the question of how much variation is allowed in a variety, bringing into question its usefulness and reliability as a construct. If we take into consideration the fact that there is a considerable degree of variation in the varieties covered in WE, even in the inner-circle varieties in the Kachruvian model (Kachru 1992) (as shown in the previous section), one can easily question what degree of the stability suffices for a variety to qualify 261
Beyza Björkman
as such. What the grammarians Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik said in their discussion ‘Varieties within a variety’ already in the early 1970s still seems to hold true, especially in the presence of globalization we are experiencing today: All societies are constantly changing their languages with the result that there are always co-existent forms, the one relatively new, the other relatively old; and some members of a society will be temperamentally disposed to use the new (perhaps by their youth) while others are comparably inclined to the old (perhaps by their age). But many of us will not be consistent either in our choice or in our temperamental disposition. Perhaps English may give rise to such fluctuation more than some other languages because of its patently mixed nature. (Quirk et al., 1972: 31) Quirk et al. (1972: 31) go on to discuss “variation in terms of the relationships”, where they acknowledge that there is a continuum for any given variety of English to be anywhere from “relatively uniform” to “relatively diverse”, allowing room for variation both in individuals’ and communities’ use. Variability has been reported to be largely present in ELF usage. As Canagarajah (2007) maintains, the form of ELF is context-bound, as it is determined and negotiated by the speakers for that particular setting, making variability inherent in ELF interactions. Variability has even been described as a characteristic of ELF (e.g. Firth 2009). As Firth puts it speakers within the same social setting, while engaged in interaction with the same co-interactants, have demonstrated variability of linguistic form – not as a result of ‘unstable learning’ – but, arguably at least, as a result of the need to adapt to locally unfolding interactional exigencies and demands. (Firth 2009: 163) How can one then reliably distinguish varieties from each other, with different types of variation present, and with so many features in common between them (see previous section). Widdowson, in his discussion of the “inconvenience of established concepts”, refers to Trudgill (1999), who described the classification of varieties from linguistic variation as being “linguistically arbitrary” (Trudgill 1999: 122, cited in Widdowson 2012: 9) (see also Seidlhofer (2006: 46) on the division between languages and varieties being arbitrary). Widdowson (2012: 10) continues on the hardships to define or “establish varieties on empirical grounds”, as they are “essentially abstractions, convenient fictions”. If these categorizations used as bases for general fields of studies such as WE and sociolinguistics are described as arbitrary, and if there is considerable variation and variability in the varieties of English, how are we to understand ELF usage? The problematicity of the construct variety has not stopped researchers from debating whether ELF has or can achieve variety status. On one hand, scholars have argued that it is impossible to say with certainty that ELF cannot develop into a type of variety after the first stage of high variability, followed in sociolinguistics by the stages of levelling, simplification and regularization, described by Trudgill (1986: 98, cited in Ferguson 2009: 123). On the other hand, scholars have also said that the variability in ELF usage is different since this particular type of variability “goes beyond the traditional understanding of variation as deriving from a common core of grammar and language norms” and that “variation is at the heart of this system, not secondary to a more primary common system of uniform norms” (Firth 2009: 163). 262
Morphosyntactic variation in spoken ELF
What variation and variability will mean for the future of ELF usage is not by any means an easy question to answer. As Ferguson (2009) says, we cannot claim that the features observed in ELF usage by different first-language backgrounds cannot possibly stabilize. This is further supported by Mauranen (2013) and Schneider (2012), who have discussed the possibility of spread and stabilization of innovation and usage habits (see also the ‘Introduction’ above). At the same time, we know that all change (and stabilization) is preceded by variation but not all variation leads to change (stabilization) (Mesthrie et al. 2000). Another dimension the present chapter aims to enter into the equation is that of linguistic level. We are often able to make guesses as to where a speaker comes from and which variety s/he speaks, largely based on his/her accent features, more so than on lexis and pragmatics. When it comes to morphosyntax, however, things get complicated. Variety becomes a much less reliable notion when we focus on individuals’ morphosyntactic production. For example, a speaker from a variety in the British Isles (see Table 21.2) or a speaker in an ELF setting both could lack plural marking on the noun after quantifiers. I will suggest that the only area where the construct variety is most helpful is phonology, which is the linguistic level where ELF usage is highly variable. When phonology-related issues are left out, what we have left is morphosyntax (along with lexis and pragmatics), where variety as an organizational criterion falls (very) short. On this note, it can even be suggested with some degree of certainty that variety as a construct cannot really be applied to ELF usage. To sum up what I have said above then, the construct variety is not unproblematic for speech communities that are by nature transitory5 in varying degrees, but the construct presents challenges even for the varieties covered in WE since the “common core of grammar and language norms” (Firth, 2009: 163) used as a yardstick itself shows considerable variation even in the inner-circle varieties in the Kachruvian framework (Kachru 1992). The assumption that there is a standard, ‘legitimate’ type of English against which we can test features to be standard or non-standard is questionable, as discussed by leading scholars (Widdowson 2012: 10; Crowley 2003). The ‘standard language’ is not ‘uniform’, and this will continue creating difficulties for linguists (see Crowley 2003 for thorough discussions on the notion of Standard English6). As I have already mentioned, my aim in the brief discussion above has not been to discuss the variety status of ELF usage. The question is not whether ELF usage can constitute a type of variety or not. The issue is whether the construct is actually useful, or ‘convenient’ as Widdowson puts it (2012: 6), as a way of thinking about language use/usage in our times, with reference to the unprecedented impact English has had in the world. The term variety is becoming increasingly difficult to apply with the variation and variability observed in the use of English throughout the world with speech communities that are by nature ‘unstable’. The construct variety does not seem relevant for ELF usage where what we are able to document as candidates for commonalities are in the level of morphosyntax, which is where variety becomes a much less helpful notion.
Conclusion My aim in this chapter has been to draw attention to the overlap of morphosyntactic features observed in ELF interactions and the features documented in varieties of English in the WE paradigm, previously documented by the author elsewhere in a more general fashion (Björkman 2010). The review of the features of the 59 varieties of English covered in the WE paradigm (Kortmann et al. 2004) and ELF usage has made it necessary to (re-)visit the construct variety, established in linguistics. I am suggesting here that, on top of being highly 263
Beyza Björkman
problematic in general, the construct variety is not a reliable organizational criterion for ELF usage, as it applies mostly to phonology and much less to morphosyntax. This in turn suggests that discussions on the potential of ELF to reach variety status or not is not immediately relevant for the ELF paradigm.
Acknowledgments The author is grateful to Professor Philip Shaw for very useful discussions on English as a lingua franca and World Englishes on the topic of variety. The author is also indebted to the editor Martin Dewey for his patience and help along the way.
Notes 1 I have found in my previous work that subject-verb agreement was standard in more than 90 per cent of all the cases documented (Björkman 2010 and 2013a and 2013b), Breiteneder reports the -s variant to be 83 per cent (Breiteneder 2005) (also see Mortensen 2013: 32 for a discussion of these percentages). 2 Some of these examples can be found in my earlier publications (see Björkman 2010, 2012 and 2013a and 2013b). 3 Jenkins et al. (2011) say in their article that a discussion of similarities and differences between ELF usage and World Englishes is necessary to be able to define ELF. The aim in the present review article is not to provide a definition of ELF; however, a comparison of the features documented in ELF interactions and the features of varieties covered in the World Englishes paradigm reveal interesting morphosyntactic processes. 4 Which consistent of 11 in the British Isles, 18 in the Americas and the Caribbean, 12 in the Pacific and Australasia and 18 in Africa, South and Southeast Asia. 5 Relevant to the discussion above is the construct ‘speech community’, which is equally complicated. It is certainly true that ELF interactions take place most often in “transient multilingual communities” (Mortensen 2012: 37) unlike in more stable speech communities. What complicates matters though is the fact that these transient multilingual communities make up a substantial portion of the world’s population; an increasing number of communities in important domains are by nature ‘transient’. So with so many ‘transient’ communities globally, it must be fair to ask whether we should instead talk about “global discourse communities” in the Swalesian sense (1990). 6 Crowley’s conclusion is that there is no identifiable Standard English. The Oxford Dictionary of English has a section on Standard Englishes in its introduction where it defines the concept as “(word or senses) being in normal use in both speech and writing everywhere in the world, at many different levels of formality, ranging from official documents to casual conversation” (Ayto 2010: xv). This definition is largely vague and presupposes a high level of homogeneity not observed in any variety of English.
Related chapters in this handbook 6 Hall, Cognitive perspectives on English as a lingua franca 7 Seidlhofer, Standard English and the dynamics of ELF variation 20 Ranta, Grammar in ELF
Further reading Ferguson, G. 2009. Issues in researching English as a lingua franca: a conceptual enquiry. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 117–135. Widdowson, H.G. 2012. ELF and the inconvenience of established concepts. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), 5–26.
264
Morphosyntactic variation in spoken ELF
References Ayto, J. (2010). Oxford dictionary of English idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Björkman, B. (2010). Spoken lingua franca English at a Swedish technical university: An investigation of form and communicative effectiveness. Unpublished PhD thesis. Björkman, B. (2013a). English as an academic lingua franca: An investigation of form and communicative effectiveness (Vol. 3). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Björkman, B. (2013b). Grammar of English as a lingua franca. In Chapelle, C.A. (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1–9. Breiteneder, A. (2005). The naturalness of English as a European lingua franca: the case of the ‘third person -s’. Vienna: Vienna English Working Papers, 14(2), pp. 3–26. Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), pp. 923–939. Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2006). Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic motives to lexicogrammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), pp. 59–93. Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a lingua franca: A corpus-driven investigation. London: Bloomsbury. Crowley, T. (2003). Standard English and the politics of language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ELFA corpus. www.uta.fi/laitokset/kielet/engf/research/elfa (accessed 5 June 2015). Ferguson, G. (2009). Issues in researching English as a lingua franca: a conceptual enquiry. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(2), pp. 117–135. Firth, A. (2009). The lingua franca factor. Intercultural pragmatics, 6(2), pp.147–170. Gachelin, J.M. (1997). The progressive and habitual aspects in non-standard Englishes. In Gachelin, J.M. Englishes around the world. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 33–46. Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey, M., (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44(3), pp. 281–315. Kachru, B.B. (1992). Models for non-native Englishes. The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, 2, pp. 48–74. Kortmann, B., Schneider, E.W., Burridge, K., Mesthrie, R. and Upton, C. (2004). A handbook of varieties of English: a multimedia reference tool. 4 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Mauranen, A. (2010). English as a lingua franca: issues for research and practice. Higher linguistics seminar, Department of English, Stockholm University. Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mauranen, A. (2013). Lingua franca discourse in academic contexts: Shaped by complexity. Discourse in context: Contemporary applied linguistics, 3, pp. 225–245. Mesthrie, R., Swann, J., Deumert, A. and Leap, William, L. (2000). Introducing sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Mesthrie, R. and Bhatt, R.M., (2008). World Englishes: The study of new linguistic varieties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mortensen, J. (2013). Notes on English used as a lingua franca as an object of study. Journal of English as a lingua franca, 2(1), pp. 25–46. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language (Vol. 397). London: Longman. Ranta, E. (2009). Syntactic features in spoken ELF-Learner language or spoken grammar. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 84–106. Ranta, E. (2013). Universals in a universal language?-Exploring verb-syntactic features in English as a lingua franca. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Helsinki. Schneider, E.W. (2012). Exploring the interface between World Englishes and second language acquisition and implications for English as a lingua franca. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(1), pp. 57–91. Seidlhofer, B., (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, pp. 209–239. Seidlhofer, B. (2006). English as a lingua franca in the expanding circle: what it isn’t. In Rubdy, R. and Saraceni, M. (eds) English in the world: Global rules, global roles. Continuum: New York, p. 40.
265
Beyza Björkman
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trudgill, P. (1999). Standard English: What it isn’t. In Bex, T. and Watts, R.J (eds) Standard English: The widening debate. London: Routledge, pp. 117–128. VOICE. (2013). The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version 2.0 XML). Widdowson, H.G. (2012). ELF and the inconvenience of established concepts. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(1), pp. 5–26.
266
22 Language norms in ELF1 Niina Hynninen and Anna Solin
Introduction The question of language norms and normativity is central to studies on English as a lingua franca (ELF). It is relevant from the perspective of descriptions of ELF (what norms do ELF users draw on?), speaker orientations to norms (what counts as “good English” for different ELF users?) and the perspective of pedagogical applications (which norms, and to what extent, are relevant for English teaching?). In this chapter, we provide an overview of the concept of language norms, review recent research on normativity in ELF and discuss how the notion of language regulation can be used to analyse ELF settings. Much of the descriptive research on ELF has been concerned with the ways in which ELF communication differs from English used as a native language (ENL). The use of ENL as a point of comparison is necessary “in order to discern variation and innovation in ELF” (Mauranen 2005: 275). Indeed, ELF research has shown that non-conformity to ENL may be functionally motivated and even enhance mutual understanding (e.g. Björkman 2013; Cogo 2009), and in this sense, ELF research can be seen to “document ELF users’ degree of independence of ENL norms” (Seidlhofer 2009: 242). However, approaching ELF use in terms of how it diverges from ENL may be problematic if the analysis is mainly interested in mapping non-conformity and not the whole variety of normative orientations that participants in an ELF interaction might adopt, including moments when codified norms are made relevant (or imposed). On the whole, more attention has been directed at the creativity of individual ELF users than the processes through which norms are negotiated between individuals in particular interactions. We start from the assumption that ELF research also needs to consider the ways in which speakers construe what is “acceptable”, “functional”, or “correct” for them in specific ELF settings, which might also include a role for ENL norms. Within the ELF paradigm, there is relatively little conceptual discussion about language norms. In fact, Blommaert (2006: 520) claims that the notion of norms is “often invoked but rarely theorised” in (socio)linguistics in general (see also Piippo 2012). Thus, there is a need for a more in-depth discussion of language norms not only within ELF research, but also beyond. There is also a need for conceptual clarity: as Mauranen (2012) points out, a
267
Niina Hynninen and Anna Solin
term such as “native-speaker norms” can be used to refer both to prescriptive norms and to a corpus-based understanding of native-like usage, the latter of which is much more accommodating of variety. In this chapter, we discuss a number of different ways of conceptualising language norms, especially in terms of what they can give to the analysis of ELF. We also illustrate how language norms can be studied using the notion of language regulation. We approach both language norms and ELF from a social perspective. In line with, for example, Mauranen (2012) and Seidlhofer (2011), we define lingua franca use from a situation-based perspective, not in terms of shared features: English used as a lingua franca is a “vehicular language used by speakers who do not share a first language” (Mauranen 2012: 8). That is, we understand ELF as context-bound, functionally driven language use, not as a stable variety (see Jenkins 2015 for a discussion on defining ELF). In the following, we first outline three possible meanings of the term “language norms”, after which we move on to suggest a focus on language regulation as a means to empirically investigate how norms are created, maintained and negotiated. We then illustrate our approach with examples from ELF data from academic contexts. Our discussion mainly concerns spoken language, but it will also briefly touch on issues related to writing. While we will not consider ELF and English language teaching in any detail in this chapter, the discussion has relevance for pedagogical debates as well (on ELF and language norms in ELT, see Dewey 2012).
The concept of language norms There are a number of typologically oriented characterisations of language norms, distinguishing between different types of norms (see e.g. Andersen 2009 on declarative vs. deontic norms; Bamgboṣe 1998 on code norm, feature norm vs. behavioural norm; for a review, see Hynninen 2016). For the purposes of a discussion of language norms in ELF we argue that the following three understandings of the concept are most important. Norms describe what is common in a particular setting In this meaning, language norms refer to how members of a particular community habitually behave linguistically. Norms can be identified by analysing usage, on the basis of recurring instances of behaviour. Evidence on recurrence and sharedness can be gained for example through corpora. Such norms are not understood as being upheld through codification or sanctions, but through repeated usage and the gradual achievement of acceptance in a given community. Corpus evidence can be used to gain access to what kinds of regularities there are in lingua franca interactions, what is typical and recurrent when English is used as a shared language by second language (L2) speakers (see e.g. Mauranen 2012; Ranta 2013). Thus, corpora allow us to make judgments about usage-based norms for ELF. Importantly, corpora are also used to show that ELF interactions are not non-normative (“anything goes”): there is regularity in ELF usage. Many ELF communities are relatively transient and short-lived and it may therefore be difficult to think of them in terms of typification or sharedness. It can be assumed, however, that speakers who frequently participate in interactions where English is used in such a way develop “habits” and recurring practices for dealing with possible challenges (see e.g. Pietikäinen 2016 on permanence in ELF usage). This recurrence can be seen to 268
Language norms in ELF
create normative pressure, or a sense of “oughtness” (Piippo 2012) for speakers to act in certain ways. It is important to note, though, that what actually is common and what speakers experience as common may differ.2 Norms are what is expected/accepted in a particular setting In this conceptualisation, the term “norm” describes expectations and beliefs held in a particular community with respect to what kind of linguistic behaviour is acceptable. These expectations and beliefs are not made explicit in the form of written codes (cf. the next section), which means that they may remain relatively implicit from the point of view of discourse participants. The notion of “language ideology” is particularly useful in conceptualising such beliefs. Language ideologies are not interesting simply because they are often relatively ingrained/entrenched and thus have some permanence, but because they are likely to have an impact on language practices; witness, for example, the influence of “standard language ideology” on language education policy (on language ideologies, see e.g. Milroy 2001; Woolard 1998). Normative beliefs can be studied by analysing metalanguage, or “language about language”, as expressed for example in interview data. As Irvine (2002: 25) points out, participant accounts of sociolinguistic norms are necessarily partial and interested, offered from an individual’s specific social position. Interview data on beliefs should therefore be treated as a socially situated representation rather than a straightforward description of community norms. A number of ELF studies (e.g. Hynninen 2016; Kalocsai 2013) have used interviews in this way to analyse speaker beliefs, particularly how ELF users talk about what kinds of Englishes are functional in the speech events they have participated in. In addition to normative beliefs, it is important to analyse what language users treat as acceptable in their interactions with others. That is, normative beliefs need not be understood as static, as stable sets of beliefs that ELF users bring to all the interactions they engage in. Instead, we can assume that speakers vary in their normative orientations, depending on their interlocutors, the setting and what kind of speech event they are participating in. We have found Andersen’s (2009) concept of “living norms” useful in analysing acceptability and appropriateness as an emerging phenomenon, as a focus of collective negotiation within groups of speakers. One way of accessing such negotiation is to study interactional data. Such an approach is taken by Hynninen (2016) where interactions between ELF speakers are studied, for example, by looking at what kinds of English uses speakers intervene in and how they do it (e.g. by correcting another speaker or by commenting on a language feature). The findings suggest that it is important to go beyond standard native Englishes when analysing the normative expectations and beliefs construed in ELF settings. This observation is supported by earlier research on ELF: for example, Hülmbauer (2009) shows that seemingly “incorrect” forms may be treated as “correct” by speakers in particular interactional situations; and Ehrenreich (2009), Kalocsai (2013) and Smit (2010), with focus on three different communities of practice, report on ELF speakers establishing relatively permanent norms relevant for their communities of practice, norms that partly deviate from codified standards. Norms are what is codified in or for a particular setting This is perhaps the most prototypical lay understanding of norms: norms are what some authority lays out as correct, acceptable or preferable for a given situation, text or interaction. 269
Niina Hynninen and Anna Solin
Such norms typically emanate from written codes such as grammars, usage handbooks and language policies or language authorities such as language teachers, editors and language revisers. Codified norms have relative permanence and (apparent) stability and may have broad scope across a variety of settings. Power relations are in operation relating to one party (e.g. speakers of a high-prestige native variety) having more symbolic resources (language competence) than another (e.g. L2 users). It may appear that this third type of conceptualisation is least relevant to ELF as ELF research typically emphasises users’ non-conformity to or divergence from codified norms. However, we believe that an understanding of language norms as an imposed, ratified “code” is relevant in the analysis of ELF use, for a variety of reasons: •• •• ••
Divergence is typically described in ELF studies in relation to a construct such as “ENL norms” or the like, which typically draws on the “norms as what is codified” meaning. Codes and standards may have an impact on ELF usage even where “Standard English” is not the main normative order that participants orient to (see discussion below). There is much discussion in the research field on the implications of ELF for teaching and testing. This raises the question of whether competence in ELF can be described/ evaluated without drawing on the meaning of norms as imposed code.
Overall, we believe that it is fruitful for ELF research to be clear about what is meant by the concept of language norm and also to go beyond the dualistic model whereby codified, imposed norms are contrasted with situated, emergent norms that may have no bearing beyond a particular interactional situation. We argue that is important to consider the complex interplay of codified and emergent norms in ELF communities. Recent studies on ELF data show that the analysis of normative expectations and what participants treat as acceptable linguistic behaviour in interaction helps us to gain valuable insights into participants’ understandings, and complements corpus approaches to the description of ELF interactions. An additional issue of much interest for ELF research is whether we conceptualise norms as stable or dynamic. From the point of view of “norms as code”, norms may appear fixed and non-negotiable, while an exploration of “norms as what is common”, for example through corpora, usually provides a view into much greater variability. Similarly, speakers’ normative expectations and what they treat as acceptable in interaction have been shown to be variable and context dependent. Thus, the conceptualisation of language norms an analyst chooses to draw on has implications for how stable language norms appear to be.
Norms and language regulation On the whole, we find it important to approach norms from a social perspective, given the focus in ELF research on analysing communities and interactions that vary in their stability. This means that we analyse norms as socially negotiated, socially ratified and socially resisted. We will now turn to a theme that emphasises the social nature of norm negotiation, but that ELF research rarely engages with: language regulation. We understand language regulation as practices through which language users monitor, intervene in and manage their own and others’ language use (Hynninen 2016). The concept comprises both regulatory practices as they manifest in interaction (e.g. a speaker “correcting” his or her interlocutor’s language use) and also those that represent more organised forms of regulation (e.g. institutional language policies). The value of the notion for ELF is that it focuses our attention 270
Language norms in ELF
on the ways in which norms are created, maintained and resisted, and the processes through which normative expectations and beliefs are expressed. In the literature on ELF (e.g. Seidlhofer 2011), it is typical that two types of norms are referred to: “native-like English”/ “ENL norms” and situated norms emerging in ELF interactions. The focus of analysis is how speakers use their varying linguistic resources creatively and intelligibly while not fully conforming to norms of native-like usage. As noted above, ELF usage is typically described with reference to how it diverges from ENL. Norms are often analysed in terms of how they are negotiated during interaction (rather than imposed), and speakers as orienting to the demands of the situation rather than preexisting standards. A good example of such discourse in the ELF literature is the following: “norms are tacitly understood to be established during the interaction, within the current possibilities . . . they are primarily regulated by interactional exigencies rather than what native speakers would say, or would find correct, or ‘normal’, or appropriate” (Seidlhofer 2011: 18). We find this view overly generic: while it may describe language use in everyday non-institutional interaction, in many institutional settings the situation is likely to be more complex. Participants may be obliged to orient both to norms that are transient and situation specific and to those that have more permanence and scope beyond the particular interactional situation, including codified norms. In any case, this is a question that needs to be empirically investigated rather than assumed. Moreover, it is not a generic feature of ELF interactions that participants are free agents who can just choose what works for them locally. There are many contexts where speakers face sanctions if they fail to orient to norms relevant to the situation, and such norms may include codified norms. In order to understand ELF scenarios, we cannot focus solely on individual creativity. The notion of language regulation is helpful specifically in mapping the ways in which language users are constrained, whether it is through top-down language policies or more ad hoc practices of intervening in language in everyday situations. We suggest that especially when studying institutional interactions, analysts need to look at what relatively stable practices of regulation are in place in the setting they are studying. Such constraints include, for example, how access to a given setting is regulated (see e.g. Jenkins 2014). There may be formal language competence requirements before a person is allowed entry to ELF-using institutional contexts (e.g. English-medium higher education, business meetings, EU press conferences). Regulation also includes practices whereby participants’ language use is monitored and intervened in. Such practices also need mapping since they vary across different settings and genres. For example, while English-language research articles by L2 users are typically objects of language revision prior to publication, this kind of regulation is usually not directed at research blogs (see Mauranen 2013). The presence of relatively permanent practices of regulating language use means that participants may orient to codified norms in some ways and at specific moments even in settings where English is not regularly policed with regard to correctness norms. We can assume that the more institutionalised the setting is, the more regulation we will encounter. We will now move on to discuss some data examples that illustrate practices of language regulation. The examples relate both to normative expectations and codified norms. When we analyse the regulation of “norms as what is expected/accepted”, a key focus of interest is speaker beliefs about language use (for example, how speakers construe “correct” English). Another focus is speaker expectations about language use (e.g. to what extent this “correct” English is seen to matter in a particular setting). To see what participants actually treat as acceptable, focus should also be laid on language regulation as it is manifested in interaction (for example, when and how speakers “correct” each other). 271
Niina Hynninen and Anna Solin
An analysis of the role of codified norms in language regulation involves, for example, exploring documents with a language regulatory intent (e.g. guidelines and manuals) as they are made relevant in a specific setting, including the processes through which such documents are created, disseminated and managed. It is also necessary to investigate participant understandings of the relevance of such documents and the ways in which they come to be used (or not used) as instruments of regulation.
Examples of different forms of regulation Below we exemplify different forms of language regulation in academic contexts. Issues such as language choice (which languages can and should be used in specific settings) are typically regulated through institutional language policies, but language “quality” also often becomes an object of regulation. For instance, many forms of published research writing are heavily regulated through mechanisms which impose obligatory language revision prior to publication. Moreover, most institutions have formally established language competence requirements for applicants into English-medium programmes. Both types of regulation draw on “norms as code”, that is, standard English is the main reference point in evaluating language use. In the following we illustrate the regulation of “norms as what is expected/accepted” in academic speech events. The data presented in the examples (and analysed in more detail in Hynninen 2016; see also Hynninen 2012) come from English-medium instructional contexts at a multidisciplinary university in Finland (transcription conventions are located in the appendix to this chapter (p. 275)).3 The first example illustrates negotiation of acceptability in the form of language commenting. The example is from a seminar session in forestry, where a student (S8, L1 Arabic) has just given a presentation based on a written research report, and the participants are discussing the presentation/report. T2 (L1s Finland Swedish and Finnish), one of the seminar teachers, takes up language as a topic. Example 1 T2: er er correctly used the the th- th- the name of the country as the sudan remember that this is the the name of the country the sudan like the gambia there are a few country names where you have the although the modern usage is (to omit it) the only thing you have to be con- consequent either you always say the sudan the sudan or then without the but there are this is one of the few country names where where it is BS2: [so why (is it why is it)] T2: [er and th- the] government uses it’s the republic of the sudan that’s (the) official name of the country T2: ((...)) but it’s also correct to say without the [nowadays] [mhm-hm] especially in scientific contexts As the example illustrates, T2 takes on the role of language regulator by commenting on the use of the form “the Sudan” in a student’s presentation/report. The teacher first suggests that it is correct to refer to the name of the country using the definite article “the”. He evaluates 272
Language norms in ELF
the students’ use of the article as correct, by referring to the official name of the country, as well as to a rule according to which some country names include “the”. What is interesting in this example, though, is that the teacher suggests that despite this, “the modern usage is (to omit it)” and that “especially in scientific contexts” it is “correct” to also talk about “Sudan”, that is, to refer to the name of the country without the definite article. What we see here, then, are alternative sources for norm construction. The teacher accepts a form that he regards as correct in scientific contexts, even if the form, according to the teacher, is not correct ENL usage. Example 1 thus illustrates the way the relevance of codified norms may be negotiated in interaction. The example further shows that non-native speakers of English can and do act as language regulators in ELF interactions, also when native speakers of English are present. A number of studies have suggested that in academic ELF contexts, academic expertise may override native speaker status (see e.g. Mauranen 2014; Hynninen 2016). The second example, from a tutored group work meeting in biology, similarly illustrates language commenting as a form of language regulation, but in this case, correctness is construed simply in relation to native speakers of English. Example 2 S3: and for example if you check(ed) the language it (would) be easier to, speak (right) mhm-hm like @right@ right way In Example 2, a student (S3, L1 Finnish) turns to another student (NS5, L1 Canadian English) for language support in proposing that the native speaker of English check the language of the group’s presentation slides that they were preparing together. The native speaker of English is construed as a language authority, who has the means to judge what is the “right way” of using the language. This suggests reliance on ENL as an/the accepted form of English and a willingness to defer to the presumed expertise of the native speaker. NS5 also commented in an interview that it was a typical practice among the students to assign her as a proofreader for collaborative writing tasks simply because of her status as a native speaker of English. It is clear, then, that speakers also orient to expectations concerning language use outside particular interactions. To exemplify analysis of speaker beliefs and expectations, we now turn to research interview data to see what it is that speakers bring with them to the interactions. The data also come from Hynninen (2016), from interviews conducted with the students and teachers participating in the interactions analysed. Example 3 is from a research interview with a student (L1 Brazilian Portuguese) and illustrates how talk about language can reveal both speaker beliefs about language use and speaker expectations of language use in particular situations. Example 34 ((...)) because here it’s not an english er country everybody speaks a more or less correct english and because everyone understand each other you don’t pay attention that you are sometimes making some mistakes especially pronunciation or or some grammar mistakes but everyone is understanding you but when i had the chance to talk to somebody from america or from some other english-speaking country then i realise that i have bad english if i have to pronounce (ev-) everything correctly and try to make me er to to m- to make the other understand me well @@ 273
Niina Hynninen and Anna Solin
In the account, the interviewee separates two different types of interactions, talking to non-native speakers as opposed to native speakers of English. The need to orient to (codified) ENL norms is construed as relevant when talking to native speakers, whereas “mistakes” are not construed as a problem in ELF interactions. This suggests that speakers’ beliefs about language use (e.g. what is correct English) and their expectations about language use in specific settings (e.g. how English is used in ELF encounters) may not coincide. The account further illustrates how speakers may expect different norms to be relevant in different settings or with different people, and also how they may evaluate their own language use differently in relation to the contexts or positions from which they are talking. This also raises the issue of perceived social advantage of particular forms of English and how such perceptions may influence speakers’ regulatory practices (see Wang 2013). The three examples together illustrate a certain discrepancy between speakers’ notions of correctness and what is expected and accepted in ELF interaction (see also Hynninen 2016). Even if ELF users have been found to often attach correctness to (codified) ENL, analysis of interview talk suggests that such correctness is not always construed as relevant for ELF interaction (as suggested by Example 3). Analysis of ELF interaction suggests that such correctness may not necessarily be oriented to in interaction either (as illustrated in Example 1). As discussed in relation to Example 2, though, irrespective of whether such correctness is treated as relevant in a particular interaction or not, it may of course be construed as a relevant norm outside the particular interaction. It also seems that the mode of communication is an important factor. Hynninen (2016) found that more variability was accepted for speech than for writing in the context of English-medium instruction, and that the participants were more concerned with correctness in relation to writing than speech (however, cf. Example 2 where correcting the written English on slides is seen as an aid to speaking correctly). Another form of institutionally organised language regulation in many universities is provided by staff training courses intended as support for lecturers teaching in English. To exemplify regulation in one such course, let us look at Example 4.5 In the example, one of the course instructors (T1, L1 Finnish) comments on the English used by one of the participating lecturers (S2, L1 Finnish). The lecturer has just given a short practice lecture that is now discussed in class. Example 4 T1: ((...)) but a few things that i know erm are i often hear, in in finland so (you meet that in) other international contexts too that erm strictly speaking are a bit strange when you know if if we want(ed) to use some kind of erm proper english if if something like that exists er and on- one of these things is erm, (i believe) said you said something can be found in net netissä in finnish mhm what would be the you know strictly speaking what what do you know if we want to be a bit more correct everyone understands in net, but that’s not the the phrase that would be used among let’s say canadian english speakers The example shows that the instructor pays attention to the use of a particular preposition in the participating lecturer’s talk when the preposition diverges from (codified)
274
Language norms in ELF
ENL norms (see the reference to Canadian English speakers). What is notable, though, is the extensive hedging in the instructor’s turn: “strictly speaking” the usage could be “a bit more correct”, “if something like that [i.e. proper English] exists”. The primary aim of the course was to encourage lecturers to teach in English and allow them to practice lecturing in a supportive environment. Thus, we may assume that in terms of regulation, the instructor did not wish to establish rigorous top-down correctness norms for English-medium instruction, but to generate awareness and negotiation of what kind of English is functional in EMI settings, for example in terms of values such as intelligibility (“everyone understands in net”). We have selected these four examples to illustrate the negotiability of language norms in ELF settings. All the examples suggest that norm negotiation is a feature of ELF interactions and that even in a language teaching setting, the instructor is careful not to impose specific norms on academic speech events. The challenge is to understand when regulation remains situational, and when it has a more long-term bearing on language use and gains some degree of permanence. What is clear, though, is that without focusing on language regulation as a social practice and as experienced by speakers, we cannot understand the range of different norms speakers may need to orient to.
Conclusion We have argued in this chapter for an approach to language norms that emphasises the process (how norms develop situationally through practices of language regulation), rather than the product (what “the norms” are). In this approach, norms are understood as socially based, rather than as something natural, pre-given or stable, and as ideologically invested and necessarily subject to negotiation and struggle. This means that norms need to be analysed in terms of what contexts they arise in, and how and by whom they are promoted, maintained and resisted. The assumption that norms are context-bound and situated also means that a fair amount of variability in what participants treat or ratify as acceptable is to be expected. For example, there may be variation in the degree to which speakers intervene in the use of a particular feature. To approach norms in this way is particularly relevant for researching complex language contact situations such as ELF interactions, where we can expect some negotiation of norms, simply because of speakers’ different linguistic backgrounds. However, focusing on the ways in which language is regulated situationally may very well reveal new insights concerning the formation of norms also in other, more homogenous and stable settings.
Appendix: Transcription conventions Speaker codes S#
Student (non-native speaker of English)
NS# Student (native speaker of English) BS# Student (bilingual speaker with English as one of the L1s) T# Teacher/instructor
275
Niina Hynninen and Anna Solin
Transcription symbols ,
Brief pause 2–3 sec.
.
Pause 3–4 sec.
te-
Unfinished utterances
[text 1] [text 2] Overlapping speech (approximate, shown to the nearest word, words not split by overlap tags) (text)
Uncertain transcription
@@ Laughter @text@
Spoken laughter
text Back channelling when marked within another speaker’s turn
Names of participants in the same speech event
Descriptions and comments between tags
((…))
Text omitted from transcription
bold
Portion of transcript emphasised by authors
Notes 1 This article has been written in the “Language regulation in academia: the shifting norms of English use” project (see www.helsinki.fi/project/lara), funded by the Kone Foundation. 2 We are here drawing on Andersen’s (2009) distinction between “descriptive” and “experiential” norms. 3 The data were collected for the “Studying in English as a Lingua Franca” (SELF) project directed by Professor Anna Mauranen at the University of Helsinki. The project received funding from the University of Helsinki Research Funds for the three-year period of 2008–2010. For more information, see www.helsinki.fi/elfa/self (accessed 29 March 2016). 4 Note that interviewer back channelling has been removed from the transcript. 5 These data were also collected as part of the SELF research project, see note 3.
Related chapters in this handbook 3 Ehrenreich, Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca 7 Seidlhofer, Standard English and the dynamics of ELF variation 9 Sherman, ELF and the EU/wider Europe 24 Canagarajah and Kumura, Translingual practice and ELF
Further reading Andersen, H. (2009). “Living norms”, In Lunde, I. and Paulsen, M. (eds), Poets to Padonk:. Linguistic authority and norm negotiation in modern Russian culture (Bergen Series in Linguistics 9), pp. 17–33. Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen. Hynninen, N. (2016). Language regulation in English as a lingua franca: Focus on spoken academic discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 276
Language norms in ELF
Nekvapil, J. and Sherman, T. (eds) (2015). “Special issue: The language management approach: Perspectives on the interplay of bottom-up and top-down”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 232. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
References Andersen, H. (2009). “Living norms”, In Lunde, I. and Paulsen, M. (eds), Poets to Padonki. Linguistic authority and norm negotiation in modern Russian culture. (Bergen Series in Linguistics 9), pp. 17–33. Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen. Bamgboṣe, A. (1998). “Torn between the norms: Innovations in World Englishes”, World Englishes, 17 (1), pp. 1–14. Blommaert, J. (2006). “Language ideology”, in Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier. pp. 510–522. Björkman, B. (2013) English as an academic lingua franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Cogo, A (2009). “Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A study of pragmatic strategies”, In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 254–273. Dewey, M. (2012). “Towards a post-normative approach: Learning the pedagogy of ELF”, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1 (1), pp. 141–170. Ehrenreich, S. (2009). “English as a lingua franca in multinational corporations: Exploring business communities of practice”, in Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 126–151. Hülmbauer, C. (2009) “’We don’t take the right way. We just take the way we think you will understand’: The shifting relationship between correctness and effectiveness in ELF”. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 323–347 Hynninen, N. (2012). “ICL at the micro level: L2 speakers taking on the role of language experts”. Special issue: Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education at Mainland European Universities, eds U. Smit and E. Dafouz Milne. AILA Review, 25, pp. 13–29. Hynninen, N. (2016). Language regulation in English as a lingua franca: Focus on spoken academic discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Irvine, J. (2002). “‘Style’ as distinctiveness: the culture and ideology of linguistic differentiation”. In Eckert, P. and Rickford, J.R. (eds), Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21–43. Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a lingua franca in the international university: The politics of academic English language policy. Abingdon: Routledge. Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca, Englishes in Practice, 2 (3), pp. 49–85. Kalocsai, K (2013). Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca: A study of students in a Central European context. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Mauranen, A. (2005). “English as lingua franca: An unknown language?’, In Cortese, G. and Duszak, A. (eds), Identity, community, discourse: English in intercultural settings. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 269–293. Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mauranen, A. (2013). “Hybridism, edutainment, and doubt: Science blogging finding its feet”, Nordic Journal of English Studies, 12 (1), pp. 7–36. Mauranen, A. (2014). “Lingua franca discourse in academic contexts: Shaped by complexity”, in J. Flowerdew (ed.), Discourse in context. Bloomsbury, London. pp. 225–245. Milroy, J. (2001). “Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization”, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5, (4), pp. 530–555. Pietikäinen, K.S. (2016). “Misunderstandings and ensuring understanding in private ELF talk”, Applied Linguistics. doi:10.1093/applin/amw005. Piippo, I. (2012) Viewing norms dialogically: An action-oriented approach to sociolinguistic metatheory. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Helsinki. 277
Niina Hynninen and Anna Solin
Ranta, E. (2013). Universals in a universal language? Exploring verb-syntactic features in English as a lingua franca, Doctoral dissertation, University of Tampere, Tampere, accessed 23 March 2016, http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-44-9299-0. Seidlhofer, B. (2009). “Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and English as a lingua franca”, World Englishes, 28 (2), pp. 236–245. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Smit, U. (2010). English as a lingua franca in higher education. A longitudinal study of classroom discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Wang, Y. (2013). “Non-conformity to ENL norms: A perspective from Chinese English users”, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2 (2), pp. 255–282. Woolard, K. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In Schieffelin, B., Woolard, K. and Kroskrity, P. (eds), Language ideologies: Practice and theory. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–47.
278
23 Uncooperative lingua franca encounters Christopher Jenks
Introduction The global spread of English has shaped, and continues to shape, how scholars approach the study of languages. Notions of what a speaker of English looks and sounds like, and what nations and ethnicities are associated with the language, are being challenged. New communicative contexts have emerged that require, or are mediated through, English; individuals from distinct, and often geographically dispersed, speech communities are communicating in English more now than ever before. Such issues and phenomena complicate previously held assumptions and theoretical constructs within sociolinguistic scholarship, including global and English as a lingua franca (ELF) research. A number of advancements have been made within this body of work (for criticisms, see Swan 2012). Researchers have examined the cultural and intercultural dimensions of ELF (e.g. Holmes and Dervin 2016), the pedagogical implications of the global spread of English (e.g. Seidlhofer 2004; McNamara 2012), and the language ideologies of multilingual speakers (e.g. Jenks and Lee, in press). Scholarship has also investigated the phonology of global Englishes (e.g. Jenkins 2000), the theoretical and practical issues related to English varieties that do not conform to so-called native speaker models (e.g. Kachru 2005), the politics of linguistic imperialism (e.g. Phillipson 2008), and the communicative and pragmatic conventions of interacting in lingua franca encounters (e.g. Matsumoto 2011). For this latter body of work, a key finding of early pragmatic research is the observation that ELF speakers are overtly mutually supportive and consensus oriented (e.g. House 1999, p. 75; Seidlhofer 2001, p. 143; Kordon 2006; p. 78). Many of the aforementioned studies observe that speakers follow the “let-it-pass” principle, which entails letting an “unknown or unclear action, word or utterance ‘pass’ on the (common-sense) assumption that it will either become clear or redundant as talk progresses” (Firth 1996, p. 243). The let-it-pass principle, as well as the observation that speakers of global Englishes are overtly mutually supportive and consensus oriented, have been highly influential in shaping how scholars view lingua franca encounters. Indeed, such findings shed light on the professional and institutional contexts in which the let-it-pass principle and related lingua franca observations are
279
Christopher Jenks
largely based. Despite the contributions made by this line of work, scholarship has not fully explored non-institutional settings and the extent to which the let-it-pass principle is applicable in “casual” or less formal interactions. This gap in the literature has created a number of empirical questions, including the possibility that, in some contexts, ELF speakers are pragmatically uncooperative and unruly. In a recent study of lingua franca interaction, Jenks (2012) examines precisely this issue; his study of online chat rooms shows how lingua franca speakers interact in a mutually unsupportive way and do not seek to build consensus. The study demonstrates that interactants in lingua franca encounters highlight problems or troubles in communication through laughter, joking, and ridicule. These findings expand the current ELF literature by demonstrating that interactants in non-institutional settings deviate from the pragmatic norms observed in business and academic encounters. In this chapter, I expand on Jenks’ (2012) examination of reprehensive talk in online chat rooms by reporting on the ways in which lingua franca speakers are disagreeable, objectionable, confrontational, and generally unpleasant. To this end, the analysis explores how interactants are demonstrably uncooperative interactionally, pragmatically, and socially, and what this form of interaction means for ELF research. I examine a range of communicative situations and interactional contexts, including online chat rooms, conversations in a shared kitchen space, and project group work at an international university. Furthermore, I investigate how uncooperative talk is organized interactionally, and identify the pragmatic and social actions and practices involved in being mutually unsupportive.
Uncooperative interaction Grice’s (1975, p. 45) seminal work on the “cooperative principle,” though conceptually vague and methodologically clumsy (see, for example, Thomas 1995, p. 87), provides an appropriate starting point for a discussion of uncooperative interaction. In setting up his discussion of the cooperative principle, Grice (1975, p. 45) states this of conversational norms: Our talk exchanges do not normally consist of a succession of disconnected remarks, and would not be rational if they did. They are characteristically, to some degree at least, cooperative efforts; and each participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a common purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted direction. This characterization of talk is used to identify four conversational maxims (i.e. quantity, quality, relation, and manner), which will not be discussed in this chapter, that entail what and how to say and do things in social interaction. The quote above is useful in making sense of pragmatic research in ELF scholarship, as Grice’s (1975) discussion of the cooperative principle recognizes that the bulk of what interactants do in most social encounters is mutually supportive and consensus oriented. Societies, communities, businesses, industries, and the like would simply not be able to maintain order and social progression otherwise. The main theoretical aim of the cooperative principle is to provide a way of understanding how social encounters are managed (cf. four conversational maxims; see also the politeness maxims by Leech 1983), but one of the underlying messages is that people do not typically go about their daily lives being rude, recalcitrant, and/or reprehensive. This observation does not suggest that impolite or uncooperative behavior is absent in social interaction. Numerous opportunities and situations present, or lead to, such acts and behavior 280
Uncooperative lingua franca encounters
(e.g. Arendholz 2013). The notion that social interaction is inherently cooperative does, however, suggest that deviations from Gricean norms (see also Brown and Levinson 1987), which may include being rude, recalcitrant, or reprehensive, are noteworthy empirically and socially given the marked nature of such talk. Arendholz (2013, p. 89), in her book-length study of inappropriate behavior in online message boards, shares a similar view when discussing scholars’ propensity to investigate cooperative and polite interaction to the detriment of understanding unruly or uncooperative talk (see also House 2010). This sustained lack of interest for impoliteness is also astonishing considering the fact that negatively marked behavior was always assumed to be easier to detect than behavior which conforms to politeness norms … As impoliteness was hastily dismissed as a by-product of or a deviation from politeness, unworthy of being treated as an autonomous field of research, scientific approaches inadequately tried to explain impoliteness in terms of politeness, either by making use of models and methods which were originally designed for a completely different phenomenon or by deriving models for the description of impoliteness from politeness models. If communication is inherently cooperative, then what is the empirical value in investigating such behavior or by making claims that a particular speech community is mutually accommodating? Put differently, the characterization that individuals are interactionally supportive merely establishes what is already known about human interaction. What then is there to be gleaned from investigating such interactions or by characterizing speech communities as inherently cooperative? This question is partly addressed by scholars working in the larger area of study concerned with pragmatic issues (e.g. Levinson 1983; Barron, Gu and Steen 2017). The work of Brown and Levinson (1987), for example, identifies the social “tools” that are used by participants to engage in social interaction, which are the same resources employed by researchers examining such encounters (see also, for example, Hutchby and Wooffitt 2008). These theorists add to pragmatics scholarship by providing the methodological tools to examine and understand social interaction. While similar methodological contributions have been made by lingua franca researchers, the impact of such work is comparatively small (for a discussion of theory and methodology in ELF research, see Seidlhofer 2011). That is, ELF research has yet to develop methodological tools or theoretical constructs that have been used in any significant way by social interaction researchers working in other disciplines. Rather, existing methodological tools, such as conversation analysis, are used to investigate linguistic and interactional patterns in lingua franca contexts. While this is not a criticism, the somewhat theoretically insular nature of ELF scholarship means that, in order to make contributions to other disciplines, researchers must demonstrate the extent to which their observations are different than other English-speaking contexts. For example, research that characterizes lingua franca encounters as being mutually supportive and consensus oriented must demonstrate how such observations add to the larger body of work devoted to pragmatic issues. Are there reasons to believe that lingua franca speakers are inherently uncooperative? Do lingua franca contexts make it difficult for interactants to be mutually supportive? In other words, what is interesting and/or revelatory about the observation that lingua franca speakers are consensus oriented and mutually supportive? I am not suggesting here that such observations have little empirical value, nor is the discussion above an attempt to argue that stating the obvious or reporting on pragmatic 281
Christopher Jenks
“givens” amounts to shoddy research. What I am arguing, however, is that if ELF scholars want to make a contribution to the larger body of work that deals with pragmatic issues, then such researchers must discuss the extent to which their research participants (and/or contexts under investigation) are pragmatically different (or similar) than other situations where (1) English is used as the primary mode of communication and/or (2) multiple languages are being used. For example, my 2012 research cited above that examines lingua franca encounters in an online setting could have discussed more fully the extent to which the interactions are similar to other chat rooms hosted and participated by “non-ELF” interlocutors. I can imagine, for instance, a pragmatics scholar working on French as a lingua franca in online settings asking of my research whether my findings are simply a reflection of technological affordances and constraints. Put differently, the onus is on lingua franca researchers to demonstrate that situations where English is spoken by individuals that do not share a common primary language are different than contexts where English is spoken among speakers that all possess the same linguistic background. This would seem to be a sensible requirement for any body of work attempting to create a distinct empirical identity. Furthermore, in order for lingua franca researchers to make empirical contributions to the larger body of work devoted to pragmatic issues, as well as beyond such disciplinary boundaries, they must demonstrate what is interesting about, for example, being mutually supportive and consensus oriented. To this end, I do not make the claim that the lingua franca contexts investigated in this chapter are somehow different than other English-speaking situations. Apart from not sharing the same primary language as their fellow interlocutors, the interactants examined in the present study are no different than speakers of English communicating in monolingual contexts. Therefore, what makes this study unique and/or interesting is not the fact that the speakers are communicating in lingua franca contexts. Rather, this chapter contributes to the larger body of work devoted to pragmatic issues by uncovering some of the ways uncooperative interaction is organized in different lingua franca contexts. Put differently, a study of uncooperative interaction contributes to both ELF research and pragmatics scholarship. The chapter adds to the body of ELF scholarship by demonstrating how speakers deviate from the prototypical consensus oriented talk reported widely in the literature (for a critique of such findings, see Jenks 2012). Furthermore, the chapter adds to the body of work devoted to pragmatic issues by uncovering the social and interactional features of uncooperative communication; again, this is an empirical issue that has not received a great deal of attention in the literature. Uncooperative interaction is defined here as communication that does not attempt to create a harmonious encounter between interactants. Culpepper (1996, p. 350) uses the term “social disruption,” but is largely concerned with “strategies oriented towards attacking face, an emotionally sensitive concept of the self.” Although face and self are potentially interesting and important factors in understanding uncooperative interaction, much of the work in this area is based on theoretical frameworks designed to understand politeness norms. The extent to which such frameworks can adequately address disharmonious or social disruption interaction remains unclear. The social discord that is experienced in and through uncooperative interaction may stem from a single utterance within a larger conversation or can manifest as a series of actions and/or utterances. In other words, uncooperative interaction is not bound to a particular time frame or spate of talk. Creating discord between interactants can be accomplished by disrupting norms that are established either a priori (in the case of a chat room with official rules or in situ (as with an impromptu meeting between two unacquainted interlocutors). 282
Uncooperative lingua franca encounters
Examples of uncooperative interaction may include violating turn-taking norms, ridiculing or making fun of co-interlocutors, impeding progress when the interactional goal is to reach consensus, excluding speakers from participation, and withholding information when it is requested, to name a few. Uncooperative interaction may result from unintentional acts or individuals may strategically create a disharmonious social encounter. Uncooperative interaction should not be confused with impoliteness or rudeness (cf. House 2010), as these two latter terms may mean nothing for the interactants communicating in such contexts. That is to say, the degree to which a social encounter is impolite or rude is an issue that is jointly determined by speakers as talk unfolds. Furthermore, an uncooperative exchange does not necessarily mean that speakers are being impolite or rude (for definitions of impolite communication, see Bousfield and Locher 2008, pp. 3–4). The methodological challenge in identifying and analyzing uncooperative interaction is that it requires analysts to not only demonstrate how the interactants themselves create discord within a social encounter, but also possess an awareness of the communicative norms and expectations that shape the context under investigation. This is because not all exchanges deemed uncooperative (or impolite, for that matter) by the analyst are treated as such by the interactants under investigation. In the analysis that follows, several data extracts that exhibit uncooperative interaction are investigated. The analysis adopts applied conversation analysis, which can be interpreted in several ways (e.g. Antaki 2011). In this chapter, applied refers to the adoption of next-turn proof procedure, a core conversation analytic principle that privileges how utterances are responded or oriented to, with a detailed treatment of the cultural and social aspects of the people and interaction under investigation. In analytic terms, this means balancing emic observations of interaction with macro, and often critical, descriptions of communicative contexts. The analysis, in other words, reflects the understanding that conversation analytic principles can assist in uncovering the mechanics and dynamics of interaction, but also recognizes that the degree to which an exchange is uncooperative is based on a complex set of pragmatic norms and expectations that require a treatment of context that extends beyond a turn-taking system. That is to say, examining uncooperative interaction requires the analyst to identify, or at least know, what norm is being broken. Again, norms are sometimes established a priori, but interactants have resources to negotiate them during a communicative encounter. In many cases, interlocutors themselves reveal when a norm is being broken in and through interaction. In many other situations, however, an uncooperative act or practice may not be explicitly attended to during a communicative encounter.
Uncooperative lingua franca encounters An oft-cited definition of a lingua franca encounter states that such contexts comprise the communication of English between speakers that do not share a common primary language (Jenkins 2007). A small group of academics from different Asian countries discussing research in English at a conference represents a prototypical example of a lingua franca encounter. While this definition may cover a range of lingua franca contexts, this study also includes encounters where English is spoken by at least one monolingual speaker or an interactant that grew up speaking the language. For instance, a monolingual speaker from England interacting in English with a Korean is considered a lingua franca encounter. The five data extracts examined below represent a range of communicative contexts and include a number of different uncooperative acts. The first two data extracts are taken from a 283
Christopher Jenks
voice-enabled chat room used for interactants wanting to practice English. The third extract is an exchange in a shared kitchen space for international students living in England. The last two data extracts are from studies conducted by different scholars: the first encounter is a US soldier interacting with several Iraqi boys at an undisclosed location in Iraq and the second is an exchange during group work at an international university in Denmark (Bysouth, Ikeda, and Jeloos-Hagi 2015; Day and Kjærbeck 2011, respectively). These last two extracts are included in this study to demonstrate the range of lingua franca contexts in which uncooperative interaction takes place. Furthermore, the goal in examining the five extracts below is to establish that because lingua franca encounters take place in a plethora of settings, they also consist of varied participatory structures (e.g. asymmetries in power and the distribution of interactional privileges, such as turn-taking rights); the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of the speakers that engage in ELF communication additionally varies from context to context. The first data extract is a greeting exchange taken from the beginning of a longer recording of a chat room used by speakers from different countries to converse in English. S5 has not participated in the chat room leading up to the beginning of this extract (transcription conventions are located in the appendix to this chapter (p. 289)). Data extract 1 1 S4: so, can you introduce yourself 2 (1.6) 3 S5: eh? (0.4) me 4 (0.9) 5 S4: ye↓ah↑ 6 (0.8) 7 S5: .hhhhhhh 8 (1.6) 9 S5: uhm (0.5) hi. (0.3) >hehe> .hhhh (1.1) eh- (0.2) 10 uh::[m 11 S4: [yeah↓ (0.3) yeah don’t be (shy) yeah like (* * *) 12 (0.5) let’s↑ talk. let’s open your mouth S4 begins the exchange by nominating S5 to speak by asking her to “introduce yourself.” This question either surprises, and/or does not provide enough information for, S5, as she responds by requesting clarification; the first request for clarification “eh” does not specifically identify what or where the trouble is in the previous turn and the second clarification “me” seeks to confirm whether she is being nominated. After S4 confirms that S5 is to whom he is speaking, S5 begins her self-introduction in line 7 with a deep audible inhalation. After a relatively long pause for this communicative setting (cf. Jenks 2014), which contributes to an already slow beginning of a turn, S5 continues with six disjointed constructions: “uhm,” “hi,” “hehe,” audible inhalation, “eh,” and “uhm.” The slow and stilted turn could be responded to in a polite or cooperative situation with words of encouragement, by providing more time to respond, or any other utterance that does not threaten the face of the speaker. In this uncooperative situation, however, S4 promptly commands S5, as indicated by the latching of turns in line 11, to “talk” and “open your mouth.” In so doing, S4 uses a moment of disfluency, and possibly embarrassment (as indicated by S5’s laughter tokens), to provide a scolding response. The exchange between both interactants continues to unfold beyond this data extract in an uncooperative manner. 284
Uncooperative lingua franca encounters
The speaker in the next data extract also treats a moment of disfluency as an opportunity to be uncooperative. Below S7 is engaging in his first meaningful exchange in this data extract. Data extract 2 1 S7: 2 3 4 S6: 5
=where y- f- f- f- uh:: (.) g- uh:: (.) go to (.) where f- (.) go to (1.5) I go to shit (2.5) ∙hh.hhh∙hhh (.) hhhh he.hh∙ (.) oh you mean where are we from? (0.4) I am from India
The extract begins with S7 attempting to get acquainted with S6. S7’s turn, however, is made up of several disfluent features, including abrupt stops, the elongation of utterances, pauses, and restarts. Although it appears that S7 is attempting to construct the phrase “where are you from,” a prototypical utterance in a getting-to-know-you exchange (Jenks 2009), what he actually utters is “where you go to.” A recipient in this situation responding in a cooperative manner could respond by answering the question that S7 presumably attending to utter (i.e. “where are you from”). In so doing, the recipient ignores the disfluency in the previous turn and mitigates a potential face-threatening situation for S7. In perhaps a less face-saving act, yet still polite and cooperative, the recipient could request S7 to repeat the previous question or seek clarification. In so doing, the recipient does not ignore the disfluency, but nonetheless demonstrates an interest in answering the question. In this uncooperative exchange, however, S6 decides to overlook the pragmatic conventions of getting acquainted by not answering what is likely a question seeking where he resides. S6 does, in fact, demonstrate this awareness at the end of line 5 by correcting the previous disfluent turn and providing his current place of residence. By answering the question that is uttered (and not intended), S6 treats the moment of disfluency as an opportunity to provide a joke at the expense of S7 (“I go to shit”). Like the first data extract, linguistic disfluency is used as a resource to engage in uncooperative interaction. This finding is noteworthy, as it establishes that interactants may have no predisposed interactional or institutional reason (e.g. engaging in an argument during court mediation or closing a business deal) to engage in uncooperative interaction. The next data extract is between acquainted speakers. The interlocutors in this example all use a shared kitchen space for international students. In the data extract below, Shine and Wendy are preparing a food dish. Pete is in the kitchen, but is not participating in the actual food preparation event. Data extract 3 1 Shine: tomato? 2 Wendy: m:: just cut it into half and then just drop it 3 there 4 (3.5) 5 Shine: ((looks at Wendy)) 6 can I use all↑ 7 (1.0) 8 Wendy: too much. 9 Shine: half 285
Christopher Jenks
10 (0.6) 11 Pete: yeah. [only half 12 Wendy: [mmm only half 13 (0.5) 14 Pete: yeah. 15 Shine: ((points to Pete)) 16 hehe DO YOU KNOW THAT you seem like you cook you 17 know (0.3) but can’t cook (0.4) but Wendy cook The data extract begins with Shine asking what to do with the tomato and Wendy telling her what to do with it. In line 9, Shine asks Wendy whether half the tomato is to be used. However, Wendy does not provide an immediate answer; instead, Pete confirms that half is the correct quantity. After the “yeah” confirmation, Wendy and Pete in overlap state that only half is needed. Pete provides an additional acknowledgement token in line 14. In so doing, Pete positions himself as a participant capable of assisting in the food preparation activity. In this situation, Shine could acknowledge Pete’s attempt to position himself as a knowledgeable participant, thereby creating a polite, cooperative, and otherwise harmonious encounter. She could, for example, allow Pete to take part in the food preparation activity or even thank him for his assistance. Shine, however, chooses to threaten Pete’s face by explicitly treating him as an illegitimate participant. This face-threatening act is accomplished in several ways: Shine points to Pete, laughs at him, questions and ridicules his knowledge, and reconfirms her orientation to Wendy as the expert in this food preparation activity. Unlike the first two data extracts, the students in the shared kitchen space engage in uncooperative interaction while managing a task that is of mutual benefit to all participants (i.e. preparing and eating food). The intimacy shared by these students allows them to situate their uncooperative interactions within the boundaries of their friendship. It can be said, in other words, that uncooperative interaction is one of many resources that these students deploy while engaging in communication in a shared kitchen space. The data extract below is an exchange between a US soldier and several Iraqi boys. The interaction takes place at a checkpoint in Iraq. The entire exchange is centered on a soldier making fun of the boy. Data extract 4 1 2 3 4 Soldier 1: 5 6 Soldier 1: 7 8 Boy 1: 9 10 Boy 2: 11 Boy 3: 12 Soldier 1: 13 Boys: 286
((camera pans down towards three young boys below the checkpoint position)) (2.0) DO YOU LIKE POOP? (2.0) DO YOU LIKE POOP? ((camera zooms in on Boy 1)) (1.0) WHAT? (.) [WHAT? [WHAT? [DO YOU LIKE POOP? WHAT WHAT=
Uncooperative lingua franca encounters
14 Boy 1: =YE::S 15 Soldier 1: YOU LIKE POOP? 16 Boy 1: ((nods)) Yeah. 17 Soldier 1: DO YOU WANT ME TO THROW YOU 18 SOME POOP 19 (2.0) 20 Soldier 1: IT’S LIKE CHOCOLATA, 21 (2.0) 22 Soldier 1: EXCEPT THERE’S CO(h)RN IN IT! 23 ((camera shakes up and down))
(from Bysouth et al. 2015)
The uncooperative exchange begins with the soldier asking the boys “do you like poop.” As reported in Bysouth et al. (2015), the boys ostensibly possess a limited understanding of English and do not appear to understand the target tease word. This is most demonstrably evidenced in line 16, when one of the boys nods and utters “yeah.” The soldier responds to this affirmation token by continuing with the tease. This final tease sequence is constructed in two parts: a question (“do you want me to throw you some poop”) and a declaration (“it’s like chocolata . . . except there’s corn in it”). After this data extract, the tease is met with laughter by the soldier and his nearby colleague. In this dehumanizing encounter, there are no cooperative alternative approaches to dealing with a tease like this. A cooperative (or polite) encounter would simply not exhibit such behavior. Conversely, the exchange between the soldier and boys possesses several distinct uncooperative features. The soldier exploits the interactional function of requests. That is, the soldier conceals his tease by giving the boys the impression that he is offering them something nice. The solider thus abuses the boys’ limited understanding of English in order to dehumanize them. The boys’ presence and participation in this encounter is simply used for the enjoyment of others. More troubling and problematic, the soldier exploits the boys’ desire, and possibly need, to receive a nice gift or food. While this data extract provides an extreme case of uncooperative interaction, the exchange above nonetheless demonstrates that such behavior is potentially bound to power imbalances between interactants and a demonstrable disdain for, or hostility towards, a co-interlocutor (see also the first two data extracts). The final data extract is an exchange between students at an international university in Demark. PET, who is from the US and Denmark, and ERN, a German student, are discussing when to meet for the next group project discussion. Data extract 5 1 PET: when do you wanna meet wednesday= 2 ERN: =you’re you’re really really fast I’m (xx) I’d 3 say 4 PET: well that’s because like we’ve been doing this 5 (.) for a little while now [hehh hh hhh ] 6 ERN: [yeah but that’s] 7 because you didn’t wait until something else was 8 ↑done so you’ve got to repeat it (from Day and Kjærbeck 2011) 287
Christopher Jenks
The data extract begins with PET suggesting a meeting time. Rather than provide an assessment of the proposed time, which would demonstrate an attempt to be cooperative even if Wednesday is not ideal, ERN immediately (as indicated in the latching of turns) evaluates, and thus complains about, PET’s approach to group work (“you’re really really fast”). PET also does not respond in a cooperative manner; he could, for example, mitigate the already face-threatening sequence by asking ERN to suggest an alternative time. However, PET defends his proposed time by being critical of the time it takes to do group work. In so doing, PET provides a veiled criticism of ERN (“we’ve been doing this . . .”). ERN treats the previous assessment as an opportunity to explicitly criticize PET (“you didn’t wait . . .”), and thus continues the uncooperative exchange. This final data extract establishes that historical issues may shape, and be the impetus for, uncooperative interaction. PET and ERN possess a history of conflict and disagreement, as reported in Day and Kjærbeck (2011). This shared history can manifest in many ways. In the exchange above, the different approaches to group project work adopted by PET and ERN lead to both interactants deviating from the immediate task of establishing a meeting time.
Conclusion This chapter contributes to the body of work devoted to pragmatics by analyzing how uncooperative interaction unfolds in a number of contexts. The examples analyzed above demonstrate that it does not matter whether a speaker is intentional in performing an uncooperative act (cf. Terkourafi 2008), but rather what is significant is the interactional repercussions of such behavior. Furthermore, the findings add to lingua franca scholarship that is concerned specifically with uncooperative interaction (e.g. Guido 2012; Jenks 2012); by providing additional examples of the ways in which speakers from different language backgrounds engage in uncooperative talk, this study provides a more nuanced understanding of, for instance, teasing and mocking in lingua franca encounters. The findings established that uncooperative interaction can potentially occur in a number of contexts and be accomplished in many ways. In this study, uncooperative interaction occurred between both unacquainted and acquainted speakers. Interactants can be uncooperative in institutional settings, such as the project group work exchange, and informal encounters, as in the case of the shared kitchen space example. Speakers engage in uncooperative interaction because of some inherent hostility towards a co-interlocutor or such behavior is a characteristic of interacting in a convivial setting. Uncooperative interaction can occur capriciously and suddenly for no immediate reason or may be the result of a shared history of conflict. The range of contexts in which uncooperative interaction takes place demonstrates that such behavior is a rich and complex area of study that deserves more attention than what has been given hitherto. Although this chapter aimed to understand how English is used in contexts where speakers do not share a common primary language, this analytic focus should not be interpreted as an attempt to refute existing lingua franca research (namely, the let-it-pass principle), nor is the analysis above an effort to establish an “ELF feature.” In other words, uncooperative interaction is not a communicative feature unique to lingua franca encounters. The observation that uncooperative interaction is not unique to lingua franca encounters does not mean, however, that such contexts are devoid of contextual features that may lead to teasing, mocking, and ridicule. For example, lingua franca encounters present opportunities for interactants to exploit differences in proficiency levels. Although there are many
288
Uncooperative lingua franca encounters
reasons why such exploitation occurs (e.g. achieving an institutional goal or taking advantage of a service encounter transaction), the data extracts above showed that speakers use differences in proficiency levels to tease, mock, and ridicule co-interlocutors (a theoretical lens that may assist in understanding why this occurs, but requires space that is not available in this chapter, is Bourdieu’s 1984 cultural capital). In other situations, speakers use their familiarity of, and friendships with, co-interlocutors to be uncooperative. In the most extreme case of uncooperative interaction, speakers may exploit differences in proficiency levels to dehumanize co-interlocutors. In many of the situations examined above, uncooperative interaction takes place at the expense of a speaker’s participation in a lingua franca encounter. That is to say, speakers engage in uncooperative interaction because they simply want to tease, mock, or engage in other similar rude behavior. The absence of an underlying institutional purpose or role in engaging in uncooperative interaction establishes that such behavior is a mundane resource that can be deployed at any time and for a number of communicative goals.
Appendix: Transcription conventions (modified from Atkinson and Heritage 1984) []
Overlapping utterances
=
Contiguous utterances (or continuation of the same turn)
(0.4)
Represents the tenths of a second between utterances
(.)
Represents a micro-pause (one-tenth of a second or less)
:
Elongation (more colons demonstrate longer stretches of sound)
.
Fall in pitch at the end of an utterance
,
Slight rise in pitch at the end of an utterance
?
Rising in pitch at utterance end (not necessarily a question)
-
An abrupt stop in articulation
CAPITAL Loud/forte speech __
Underline letters/words indicate accentuation
↑↓
Marked upstep/downstep in intonation
°°
Surrounds talk that is quieter
hhh
Exhalations
.hhh
Inhalations
he or ha
Laugh particle
(hhh)
Laughter within a word (can also represent audible aspirations)
(( ))
Analyst notes
()
Approximations of what is heard
289
Christopher Jenks
Related chapters in this handbook 1 Mauranen, Conceptualising ELF 2 Baker, English as a lingua franca and intercultural communication 17 Cogo and House, The pragmatics of ELF 22 Hynninen and Solin, Language norms in ELF
Further reading Bousfield, D. and Locher, M.A. (Eds.) 2008, Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Firth, A. 1996, “The discursive accomplishment of normality: On conversation analysis and ‘lingua franca’ English,” Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 26, pp. 237–259. Holmes, P. and Dervin, F. (Eds.) 2016, The cultural and intercultural dimensions of English as a lingua franca, Multilingual Matters, Bristol.
References Antaki, C. (Ed.) 2011, Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk, Palgrave, London. Arendholz, J. 2013, (In)appropriate online behavior: A pragmatic analysis of message board relations, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Atkinson, J.M. and Heritage, J. (Eds.) 1984, Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Barron, A., Gu, Y., and Steen, G. (Eds.) 2017, The Routledge handbook of pragmatics, Routledge, London. Bourdieu, P. 1984, Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Bousfield, D. and Locher, M.A. (Eds.) 2008, Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. 1987, Politeness: Some universals in language usage, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bysouth, D., Ikeda, K., and Jeloos-Haghi, S. 2015, “Collateral damage: An investigation of non-combatant teasing by American service personnel in occupied Iraq and Afghanistan,” Pragmatics and Society, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 338–366. Culpepper, J. 1996, “Towards an anatomy of impoliteness,” Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 25, pp. 349–367. Day, D. and Kjærbeck, S. 2011. “Educational practices in the international university: Language as a resource for intercultural distinction in a project group meeting,” in Language and learning in the international university: From English uniformity to diversity and hybridity, Eds. B. Preisler, I. Klitgård, and A. Fabricius, Multilingual Matters, Bristol, pp. 99–121. Firth, A. 1996, “The discursive accomplishment of normality: On conversation analysis and ‘lingua franca’ English,” Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 26, pp. 237–259. Grice, H.P. 1975, “Logic and conversation,” in Syntax and semantics, Eds. P. Cole and J. Morgan, Academic Press, New York, pp. 41–58. Guido, M.G. 2012, “ELF authentication and accommodation strategies in crosscultural immigration encounters,” Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 219–240. Holmes, P. and Dervin, F. (Eds.) 2016, The cultural and intercultural dimensions of English as a lingua franca, Multilingual Matters, Bristol. House, J. 1999, “Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in English as a lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility,” in Teaching and learning English as a global language: Native and non-native perspectives, Ed. C. Gnutzmann, Stauffenburg, Tübingen, pp. 73–93. House, J. 2010, “Impoliteness in Germany: Intercultural encounters in everyday and institutional talk,” Intercultural Pragmatics, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 561–595. Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. 2008, Conversation analysis, Polity, Cambridge. 290
Uncooperative lingua franca encounters
Jenkins, J. 2000, The phonology of English as an international language, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Jenkins, J. 2007, English as a lingua franca, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Jenks, C.J. 2009, “Getting acquainted in Skypecasts: Aspects of social organization in online chat rooms,” International Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 26–46. Jenks, C.J. 2012, “Doing being reprehensive: Some interactional features of English as a lingua franca in a chat room,” Applied Linguistics, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 386–405. Jenks, C.J. 2014, Social interaction in second language chat rooms, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Jenks, C.J. and Lee, J.W. 2016, “Heteroglossic ideologies in world Englishes: An examination of the Hong Kong context,” International Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 384–402. Kachru, B.B. 2005, Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon, Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong. Kordon, K. 2006, “‘You are very good’: Establishing rapport in English as a lingua franca: The case of agreement tokens,” Vienna English Working Papers, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 58–82. Leech, G.N. 1983, The principles of pragmatics, Longman, London and New York. Levinson, S.C. 1983, Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. McNamara, T. 2012, “English as a lingua franca: The challenge for language testing,” Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 199–202. Phillipson, R. 2008, Linguistic imperialism of neoliberal empire,” Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–43. Matsumoto, Y. 2011, “Successful ELF communications and implications for ELT: Sequential analysis of ELF pronunciation negotiation strategies,” The Modern Language Journal, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 97–114. Seidlhofer, B. 2001, “Closing the conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca,” International Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 133–58. Seidlhofer, B. 2004, “Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca,” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 24, pp. 209–239. Seidlhofer, B. 2011, Understanding English as a lingua franca, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Swan, M. 2012, “ELF and EFL: are they really different?,” Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, vol. 1 no. 2, pp. 379–389. Terkourafi, M. 2008, “Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness” in Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice, Eds., D. Bousfield and M.A. Locher, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 45–74. Thomas, J. 1995, The study of pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
291
Part lV
Contemporary domains and functions
24 Translingual practice and ELF Daisuke Kimura and Suresh Canagarajah
Introduction In this chapter, we trace the theoretical and research developments in both translingual practice and ELF to show their evolving convergence and remaining distinctions. Though ELF was initially focused on identifying the core linguistic features shared among multilingual speakers of English (e.g., Jenkins, 2000, 2002; Seidlhofer, 2001, 2004), it has adopted the position that ELF involves situated practices of constructing intersubjective norms that are always changing according to participants and contexts (Jenkins, Cogo, and Dewey, 2011; Hülmbaner and Seidlhofer 2013; Seidlhofer 2011). Translingual practice has similarly evolved from its focus on code-meshing in a product-oriented manner (Canagarajah, 2006) to consider the situated practices that lead to meaning making (Canagarajah, 2007). However, there are still some minor differences in theory and research focus between the two approaches. The understanding of community, the relationship between sharedness and diversity, the place of grammar in communication, and the connection between language and other multimodal resources suggest some differences. We discuss the strengths of both approaches in hopes that scholars of the two schools might learn from each other. ELF researchers have conducted empirical studies adopting analytical tools from conversation analysis (CA) and corpus research, which reveal the ways multilinguals negotiate English in their interactions. Translingual practice has focused more on issues of literacy, pragmatics, and pedagogy. These strengths can prove to be complementary as both approaches continue to research and theorize the diversity of English in a globalized and multilingual world.
Translingual orientation to communication Moving beyond the notion of multilingualism as a collection of discrete language systems, the translingual orientation offers a more integrated and nuanced way of understanding how people communicate. Without assuming the need for shared norms for communicative success, the translingual orientation attends to negotiation practices and diverse semiotic resources. One way to explain the term translingual is to consider its prefix—trans—because it highlights the two central premises of the term. First, the prefix acknowledges the fact that 295
Daisuke Kimura and Suresh Canagarajah
communication transcends individual languages. Since modernity, societies have had a long tradition of labeling languages and varieties within them, such as English, Japanese, and African American Vernacular English. However, partly because of the postmodern social conditions, featuring the increasingly immense mobility of people across geographical and digital spaces, scholars (e.g., Blommaert, 2010; Canagarajah, 2007, 2013b; Pennycook, 2012) are now compelled to view communication as involving mobile semiotic resources that can be put together for particular contexts, audiences, and purposes. In recognition of this social backdrop, Blommaert (2010), for instance, has proposed a shift from sociolinguistics of community to sociolinguistics of mobility: “a sociolinguistics of speech, of actual language resources deployed in real sociocultural, historical, and political contexts” (p. 5). Aligned with this practice-oriented perspective, translingual practice regards linguistic boundaries not as empirically attestable objects, but as ideological constructs. By the same token, the binary relationship between native speakers and nonnative speakers is also abandoned in the translingual perspective. Second, the prefix also enables us to attend holistically to diverse semiotic resources beyond words. Though often unconscious, people always juxtapose various modalities (e.g., oral and gestural) and make use of ecological resources (e.g., physical objects) in creating meanings for their communicative purposes. For this reason, focusing solely on words is not reflective of everyday communication practices. In short, translingual practice allows us to move beyond the “lingual bias” (Block, 2014) of language as bounded and communication as involving only words and provides a more complex means of viewing language use that aligns closely with people’s everyday practices. Though translingualism is a newer theoretical perspective in linguistics, it is important to stress that translingual practices are neither a new phenomenon nor a unique tradition of certain areas of the world (see Canagarajah, 2013b, ch. 3). Rather, it has always existed everywhere for many centuries. This becomes apparent if we break away from the traditional notion of communities as bounded, static, and homogenous. More than two decades ago, Mary Louise Pratt (1991) proposed an alternative model to conceptualize communities— i.e., contact zones—which she defined as “social spaces where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power, such as colonialism, slavery, or other aftermaths as they are lived out in many parts of the world today” (p. 34). Contrary to the traditional notion of community, contact zone foregrounds the interplay between diverse languages and cultures. Importantly, contact zone is not a secondary, liminal space between more primary communities; rather, all communities are contact zones by definition. As such, even so-called monolingual native speakers are engaging in translingual practice to negotiate different registers, semiotic resources, and cultures on a daily basis, even if they feel that their communities and languages are homogenous. Given that shared norms can hardly be assumed in contact zone interactions, the type of competence translinguals possess cannot be defined solely in terms of some pre-existing grammatical knowledge. Thus, the translingual orientation requires us to redefine the notion of competence to accommodate the possibilities for achieving shared understandings out of linguacultural diversity. From this perspective, rather than predefined grammatical knowledge, it is the ability to respond strategically to unexpected norms and to collaboratively generate meanings out of diverse resources that constitutes competence. In other words, the type of competence translinguals have is a performative one, which does not exist independently of communication. Enabling this performative competence are their cooperative dispositions. Developed through socialization and practice, the dispositions provide them with the readiness to deal with unpredictable contact zone interactions. By focusing on 296
Translingual practice and ELF
meaning-making practices, rather than fixed norms, the translingual orientation allows us to stay open to further diversification of seemingly stable norms. García and Li Wei (2014) theorize that the prefix in translingual refers to transformation of existing norms. Crucially, negotiation of diverse codes for successful communication need not imply that all communicators in all situations have equal rights, nor does translingual practice assume there are no established norms. In fact, through the process of sedimentation (Pennycook, 2010), a set of linguistic resources can acquire the appearance of stability, which in turn may become symbolic of power (e.g., Received Pronunciation). Partly because of this process, contact zone interactions are always influenced by power differentials among interactants. Ignoring the powerful can lead to negative consequences. For instance, when completing a writing section of a standardized test, like TOEFL, the test taker is expected to closely observe the conventions of English academic writing, or he/she will not receive a good grade. Thus, however arbitrary they may be, linguistic conventions must not be disregarded because communicative success involves gaining the desired uptake from one’s intended audience. Importantly, however, the translingual orientation views power as contextdependent and negotiable. Through careful attention to contextual expectations and use of negotiation strategies, such as code-meshing (Canagarajah, 2006), one can interweave his/her identity and voice even in seemingly rigid genres. The academic writings of sociolinguist Geneva Smitherman (1999) demonstrates how she includes different varieties of Black English for rhetorical effect in texts mainly constructed in standard written English. The translingual orientation is most extensively applied in literacy studies (Canagarajah, 2013a; Horner, Lu, Royster, and Trimbur, 2011). Holistically entertaining the production, circulation, and reception of texts, the translingual orientation moves our understanding of literacy beyond the existing frameworks that are either exceedingly product oriented (i.e., autonomous literacy) or local-practice oriented (i.e., new literacy). Breaking away from these traditional approaches, the translingual orientation views language as one type of semiotic resources that can be packaged together for particular contexts, audiences, and purposes. Rather than relying on linguistic norms to account for communicative success, the translingual approach considers the ways in which linguistic differences and multimodality might contribute to meaning making endeavors. Put differently, this approach does not treat linguistic differences as problems in and of themselves, but as resources for producing meanings. To date, a great deal of research has been conducted from this perspective, attesting to the fact that the translingual approach is in close alignment with the everyday language practices in various domains, e.g., classroom (Canagarajah, 2013b), scientific writing (Poe, 2013), and everyday business landscapes (Ayash, 2013).
Translingual orientation and the global use of English The contemporary use of English on the global level can be conceived as a form of translingual practice. Sharing the translingual orientation to language and communication,1 a number of studies in various contexts have explored diverse communicative practices involving English (Blackledge and Creese, 2017; Canagarajah, 2016; Han, 2013; Pennycook and Otsuji, 2015). Research shows that while it is a matter of fact that English is the most widely used resource for international communication (Crystal, 2008), the ways in which English is used are not always restricted by the ideological boundaries of languages. To understand the kind of competence needed for translocal professional work, Canagarajah (2016) examines the interview narratives of 65 highly skilled African migrants in universities in the US, the UK, Australia, and South Africa. His analysis reveals that multiple 297
Daisuke Kimura and Suresh Canagarajah
norms co-exist within translocal workplaces and that they are open to interpretation and negotiation. While showing vigilance to linguistic norms and power, Canagarajah’s participants exhibit the ability to foreground their profession, class, and education to (re)frame interactions in advantageous manners. By contrast, Han (2013) and Blackledge and Creese (2017) study relatively unskilled migrants. In her ethnographic study of Africa Town in China, Han argues that one’s multilingual repertoire reflects and to a certain extent determines his/her life trajectory in line with Blommaert and Backus (2011). Hailing from low socioeconomic and educational backgrounds, her participants are unable to fulfill the requirements of elite multilingualism, and as a consequence, their global mobility is immensely compromised. Nevertheless, within the local space of Africa Town, their incomplete linguistic repertoires, or grassroots multilingualism, enable them to successfully perform their work. Furthermore, they keep expanding their multilingual repertoires through everyday interaction. Similarly, Blackledge and Creese’s (2017) work on Chinese butchers in a market in the UK underscores the interplay between translingual practice, life trajectories, and learning. One notable difference between the two studies is that Blackledge and Creese construe learning as encompassing both linguistic resources and voices, adopting a Bakhtinian approach. In other words, individuals continue to become what they are by adopting and adapting words of the other. Demonstrating this type of learning, Blackledge and Creese’s analysis of an interaction at the butcher shop shows the ways in which the Chinese shop owner takes and appropriates his customer’s words. Focused specifically on urban contexts, Pennycook and Otsuji (2015) examine interactions at two international restaurants in Tokyo and Sydney to underscore the socially dependent nature of communicative competence. That is, since one has to simultaneously deal with multiple tasks and people through an array of linguistic and ecological resources, one’s ability to participate in social activities cannot be reduced to the linguistic resources at his/her disposal. From this perspective, the authors advance the notion of spatial repertoire: “the available and sedimented resources that derive from the repeated language practices of the people involved in the sets of activities related to particular places” (Pennycook and Otsuji, 2015, p. 166). Spatial repertoire is not individually owned. Rather, it is tied to a particular social space and its associated activities and materiality. In this sense, it offers a middle ground between the individual and the social; particular social purposes call for the use of certain resources, and the use of such resources construct the social space into existence. To sum up, the studies reviewed in this section consistently point to the fluidity of linguistic norms and boundaries, though they examine dissimilar groups of participants and contexts. Even without advanced proficiency in an established variety of English, one can adopt negotiation strategies to orchestrate the resources at his/her disposal to collaboratively achieve intersubjective understanding. Again, it is important to underscore that global contact zone interactions are not free of norms and conventions. In situations where there is a sedimented variety that is associated with power (e.g., Standard American English), a person without such knowledge may be at a disadvantage. Conversely, a native speaker of English who does not have the ability and/or willingness to negotiate linguistic differences may experience communication breakdowns in global contact zone encounters. Each contact situation features a unique mix of speakers and resources, giving rise to different constraints and affordances. Thus, rather than the knowledge of established varieties per se, it is the sensitivity to contextual expectations and the ability to deploy appropriate resources that constitute competences needed for mobile users of English in contact zones today. 298
Translingual practice and ELF
Changing orientations of ELF research A vibrant field of research, ELF has developed at a rapid pace over the past two decades. A cursory look at some key publications reveals the extent to which their research orientations have evolved in this relatively short period of time, particularly with regard to the definition of ELF as a topic of inquiry and the objective of ELF as a research field. While early research focused on showing how multilinguals shared norms that differed from native speakers of English, more recent research on ELF has largely abandoned the distinctions between native speakers and nonnative speakers in recognition that “communication via ELF frequently happens in and across all three of Kachru’s circles (Seidlhofer, 2009, p. 236). Nowadays, ELF is typically conceptualized in more inclusive terms as “any use of English among speakers of different first languages for whom English is the communicative medium of choice, and often the only option” (Seidlhofer, 2011, p. 7, emphasis in original). Most researchers of ELF now align with this general view (e.g., Jenkins, 2006; Mortensen, 2013). Furthermore, Jenkins et al. (2011) even go on to qualify earlier studies (e.g., Firth, 1996; House, 1999) as not being “ELF studies ‘proper’” (p. 286, emphasis in original) in light of how ELF is understood today because these studies defined ELF speakers as somewhat deficient in relation to native speakers of English. In addition to the definitions, the objectives of ELF as a research field have also transformed to a considerable degree. In her pioneering article, “Closing the conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a lingua franca,” Seidlhofer (2001) proposed the objective of ELF research as follows: “to explore the possibility of a codification of ELF with a conceivable ultimate objective of making it a feasible, acceptable and respected alternative to ENL” (p. 150). During the field’s inception, Seidlhofer (2001, 2004), among other proponents, was clearly after the common linguistic features (e.g., phonology and lexicogrammar) of ELF “irrespective of speakers’ first languages and levels of L2 proficiency” (Seidlhofer, 2004, p. 219) for the sake of proving non-native English as rule-governed. For example, based on the findings of her classroom-based research, Jenkins (2002) proposed the lingua franca core that “consists of those phonological and phonetic features which [. . .] seem to be crucial as safeguards of mutual intelligibility in interlanguage talk” (p. 96). She further went on to argue that non-core features are not crucial for achieving phonological intelligibility in ELF interactions. Similarly, Seidlhofer’s earlier research primarily investigated the common lexicogrammatical characteristics of ELF. Drawing on her corpus, the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE), she identified a number of grammatical features shared among ELF speakers (Seidlhofer, 2001, 2004), such as the omission of third person singular -s. Though earlier scholarship in ELF was characterized by its pursuit of systematized linguistic features, the field has gradually come to recognize the precedence of practice over form (Jenkins et al., 2011). In their most recent rebuttal to critics of ELF, Baker and Jenkins (2015) elucidate that “attempts to delineate ELF as a variety of language are not part of contemporary ELF discourses” (p. 193). This shift was largely influenced by scholars who hold translingual orientations to language and communication, such as Pennycook and Canagarajah. Affirming this historical development, Jenkins et al. (2011), in the recent state-of-the-art article, favorably cite Pennycook (2007) and Canagarajah (2007) in recognition of the fluid and context-dependent nature of ELF interactions. While ELF has not completely abandoned its search for the core linguistic features, ELF scholars have moved the fluidity and hybridity toward the “centre stage” (Jenkins et al., 2011, p. 296) of their 299
Daisuke Kimura and Suresh Canagarajah
research agenda. Dewey (2009, p. 62) rightly summarizes this emerging perspective in his definition as follows: “ELF is [. . .] best understood as a dynamic, locally realized enactment of a global resource, best conceptualized not as a uniform set of norms or practices, but as a highly variably creative expressions of linguistic resources.” Placing the fluidity of form and the centrality of practice at the heart, recent research has examined a range of features, including morphology (Björkman, 2008, 2009), metaphorical uses of idiomatic language (Pitzl, 2009), and pragmatic strategies (Kaur, 2011). Furthermore, as with the translingual orientation theorized earlier, some researchers have moved beyond the social construct of the English language. This view is represented by Hülmbauer’s (2011) notion of all-languages-at-all-times (ALAAT), which recognizes that “ELF cannot be pinned down to certain features but has to be flexibly mobilized in everchanging contexts of linguistic diversity” (Hülmbauer and Seidlhofer, 2013, p. 391) and assumes that all linguistic resources “can potentially be exploited at all times” (Hülmbauer and Seidlhofer, 2013, p. 400). More recently, Jenkins (2015) has declared the third phase of ELF research (i.e., English as a multilingua franca), which recognizes that “multilingualism rather than English, is the ‘superordinate’” (p. 75, emphasis in original). In summary, ELF has undergone several major changes in the past two decades with regard to its definitions and objectives. First, while it initially excluded native speakers from research, owing largely to its goal of legitimatizing nonnative English uses, most researchers now agree that any use of English by people across different linguacultural backgrounds should constitute ELF. Second, ELF has mostly moved past its pursuit of shared grammatical features, given that linguistic forms are pragmatically motivated (Cogo and Dewey, 2006) and hence highly variable. This recognition has led to a number of recent studies that place emphasis on practice. Third, in the past few years, ELF scholars have also initiated a theoretical reorientation to consider ELF as variable manifestations of multilingualism, rather than a superordinate code. In short, these shifts in research orientation have rendered ELF largely similar to the translingual orientation we have articulated at the beginning of this chapter. However, there still remain several important differences in theory and research focus between the two approaches. In the following section, we identify these differences to explore the ways in which the two approaches may learn from each other.
Some differences between translingual practice and ELF Sharedness and diversity Though ELF scholars increasingly acknowledge the context-dependent nature of ELF forms (Jenkins, 2015), they have not completely abandoned their mission of identifying the core linguistic features, if not varieties. As Jenkins et al. (2011) maintains, ELF’s focus on preexisting forms “has not been dismissed out of hand” (p. 287). ELF research still reserves room for the shared linguistic features, arguing that these features will “enable’ ELF researchers to counter any claim that ELF is merely a deficient form of native English” (Jenkins 2011, p. 928). This statement makes sense in the context of ELF’s evolution as a scholarly field, which was characterized by the reaction against the native-speaker-centered paradigm of foreign language education. While an increasing number of researchers recognize ELF as pragmatically motivated and situated within multilingualism, some strands of research (e.g., corpus-driven research) still retain the original mission of revealing grammatical systematicity. 300
Translingual practice and ELF
Moreover, while grammatical sharedness is qualified by practice in contemporary ELF research, another form of sharedness—community identity—still appears to play a key role. In accounting for communicative success, a number of ELF scholars (House, 2003; Kalocsai, 2014; Seidlhofer, 2009, 2011) have resorted to the theoretical model of community of practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998). Criticizing the traditional notion of community as geographically bounded, homogeneous, and unchanging, Seidlhofer (2009) proposed to use CoP as an alternative: “a much more appropriate concept is that of communities of practice characterized by ‘mutual engagement’ in shared practices, taking part in some jointly negotiated ‘enterprise’, and making use of members’ ‘shared repertoire’” (Seidlhofer, 2009, p. 238, emphasis in original). Though CoP is a useful theoretical model, the way it has been applied in much of ELF research presents several limitations in light of the practice orientation. First, it appears to treat shared repertoire as pre-existing, rather than co-constructed in a moment-by-moment fashion in interactions. Second, treating all ELF users as belonging to one CoP is somewhat simplistic. The use of ELF is too broad geographically to consider a joint enterprise of a CoP that unites its members together in the strict sense of the theory. Third, as Baker (2015) points out, there has been little empirical research showing the value of CoP in better understanding interactions, with the exception of Kalocsai (2014) and Ehrenreich (2009). Kalocsai’s (2014) monograph critically engages with the concept of CoP in the context of mobile European students in Hungary and provides a longitudinal ethnographic account of the participants’ lives, within which ELF plays a bonding role but not more important than other non-linguistic practices. If ELF scholars are to continue using CoP to account for ELF communicative success and identity, more ethnographically oriented studies, similar to Kalocsai’s, are needed. The translingual approach takes a contrasting stance towards sharedness of grammar and community. Unlike much of ELF research, the translingual approach focuses more on the generative role of practice in accounting for communicative success. Shared understanding is seen as an interactional accomplishment, which is not by any means predicated on sharedness of grammar or community identity. Though it is possible that prolonged engagement can lead to sedimentation of certain resources and formation of a CoP, the translingual approach does not see these two processes as necessary conditions. In the context of globalization that features heightened mobility, these ideas could potentially limit the researcher’s understanding of how communicative success is achieved. Rather than sharedness, translingual practice assumes diversity as the norm, and hence the starting point of interactions. Even without a shared repertoire, competent translinguals can use negotiation strategies to achieve communicative success in contact zone interactions. Research methods and contexts Another difference between the two traditions lies in research focus, particularly as regards methods and contexts. Aimed initially at codifying ELF as a language variety, a great deal of research has employed corpus as the primary form of data (Kirkpatrick, 2010; Mauranen, 2003; Seidlhofer, 2001). Especially during the first decade of the twenty-first century, the corpus-based studies identified a number of core linguistic features shared among ELF speakers. More recently, scholars have also used corpus data to explore the innovative dimensions of ELF use, including Pitzl (2009) on metaphorical uses of idiomatic language, Klimpfinger (2009) on code-switching, and Mauranen (2009) on discourse markers. Conversation analysis (CA)2 is another major approach used in ELF research. CA studies have unraveled various interactional strategies, such as let-it-pass 301
Daisuke Kimura and Suresh Canagarajah
and make-it-normal (Firth, 1996), preemption of potential trouble sources through repetition (Cogo, 2009; Mauranen, 2006; Kaur, 2011), and pronunciation accommodation (Firth, 2009). Overwhelmingly, both corpus and CA studies have examined business and academic uses of ELF. Corresponding to the burgeoning scholarly interest in local practice, qualitative studies with situated ethnographic elements have gained more currency in recent years (e.g., Kalocsai, 2014). By contrast, the translingual approach tends to employ ethnography and discourse analysis that are contextually situated and longitudinal in focus. For instance, Blommaert (2013) offers an ethnographic account of the ever-changing linguistic landscapes of his own superdiverse neighborhood in Berchem, Belgium, over the course of two decades. In line with his earlier work on sociolinguistics of mobility (Blommaert, 2010), at the heart of Blommaert’s research are historicity and complexity. As he argues, longitudinal and close engagement with research sites is crucial in understanding meaning-making practices in the context of contemporary globalization. As previously discussed, scholars of translingual language use echo this perspective (Blackledge and Creese, 2017; Canagarajah, 2016; Han, 2013). Focused on global mobility, translingual research has primarily examined migrants’ communicative practices in a range of professional and everyday contexts, which comprises another difference from ELF research. Multilingual and multimodal resources As discussed in the introductory section, the translingual approach has always considered linguistic boundaries as fluid. For example, the notion of code-meshing (Canagarajah, 2006) embodies this perspective, replacing the more familiar notions of code-mixing and codeswitching. Similar to the translingual orientation, ELF research has recently expanded its scope to entertain the dynamic interplay of multilingual resources and English, as aptly represented by Dewey’s (2009) definition of ELF cited above. This is an empirically advantageous move because human interactions are not restricted by linguistic boundaries. Having moved past the myth of languages as bounded entities, recent ELF research has produced a number of fascinating studies that demonstrate the flexible uses of linguistic resources in international encounters (e.g., Hülmbauer and Seidlhofer, 2013; Jenkins, 2015). Nevertheless, there still remains an important difference between ELF and the translingual approach as regards multimodality. As with much of applied linguistics research, current ELF scholarship largely overlooks the place of nonverbal resources, such as gesture and objects. To our knowledge, only Matsumoto’s (2015) dissertation has focused explicitly on the place of gesture in ELF interactions. In contrast, the translingual approach views language as one of many semiotic affordances that can be juxtaposed alongside one another for effective communication. As scholars of gesture (Kendon, 2004), CA (Goodwin, 2000) as well as sociocognitive SLA (Atkinson et al., 2007) maintain, human communication involves diverse semiotic resources beyond just words, and thus overlooking the nonverbal will lead to an incomplete understanding of meaning-making processes. As such, ELF scholars might benefit from taking multimodality into consideration since it will likely afford a more holistic understanding of the dynamics of ELF interactions as they are beginning to do (see Sangiamchit, Chapter 28 this volume). Literacy studies Until recently, ELF research focused exclusively on oral, particularly face-to-face, communication. This has been noted by Jenkins et al. (2011) who identify written language as one 302
Translingual practice and ELF
of the two major gaps in ELF research, alongside testing. To date, the Journal of English as a Lingua Franca has published only a limited number of studies on writing (e.g., Carey, 2013). On one level, the scarcity of writing research is understandable because scholars tend to view writing (particularly for academic purposes) as involving a more controlled and stable mode of expression, which allows for less creativity and change (Seidlhofer, 2004: p. 215). Such a perspective is rooted in the traditional notion of autonomous literacy (Street, 1984), which views texts as representing unvarying meanings that can be conveniently decoded by the reader. Embodying this perspective, most English-medium academic journals require L2 English authors to have their manuscripts checked by a native speaker before submission, with the exception of some progressive ones, including the Journal of English a as Lingua Franca. However, given the rise of L2 English authors, the perceived neutrality of standard written English has become increasingly controversial. Furthermore, as scholars argue, no one is native to academic writing (Mauranen, 2012). Even so-called native speakers have to undertake substantial training to become prolific writers. To address the scarcity of ELF writing research, Anna Mauranen and her colleagues at the University of Helsinki have recently launched the Corpus of Written English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings (WrELFA, 2015). The corpus comprises high-stakes academic texts, including research papers, examiner reports, and academic blogs, that have not undergone professional proofreading or native speaker check. The inauguration of WrELFA marks an important milestone in ELF research since it fills the major gap in research. However, while providing rich and authentic samples of ELF academic writing, corpus data cannot provide insights into writing in progress or composing as a form of social practice. Since writing involves serial drafting, multiple revisions, and literacy sponsors, more process-oriented longitudinal approaches are still needed to yield a fuller understanding of ELF writing. Contrary to ELF, literacy research has always been at the heart of the translingual approach. In fact, writing scholars, like Horner et al. (2011), have called for a programmatic shift toward the translingual approach in composition studies and pedagogies. In recognition of the fact that languages are always in contact and in flux, Horner et al. (2011) have proposed that we construe linguistic differences as resources, rather than problems to overcome. In addition, other scholars have extended the notion to consider multimodal resources, such as space, font size, and image (Canagarajah, 2013a). From the translingual perspective, it is the capacity to orchestrate diverse resources “expressively, rhetorically, communicatively” (Horner et al., 2011, p. 303) for a particular audience that constitutes competence. Translingual writers can code-mesh to express their unique voices even in high-stakes academic publishing. As discussed at the beginning of the chapter, it is important to underscore that the translingual orientation does not disregard power in favor of code-meshing because after all successful texts are the ones that gain the desired uptake; however, if used with care, non-standard resources can create positive effects. Motivated by the consideration of power and uptake, translingual literacy research often incorporates ethnographic techniques, such as participant observation and interview, in order to arrive at a nuanced understanding of how texts are produced, circulated, and received across time and space (e.g., Canagarajah, 2013b; Poe, 2013). Pedagogy As discussed above, certain approaches to the translingual orientation emerged from the scholarship of literacy education. Taking diversity as the norm, the seminal paper by Horner et al. (2011) calls for a reappraisal of many of the traditional notions, such as 303
Daisuke Kimura and Suresh Canagarajah
error correction. While an error was characterized traditionally as a deviation from nativespeaker norms, the translingual approach advocates that linguistic differences can serve as resources to express one’s unique voices. That being said, the translingual perspective does not disregard linguistic conventions and established varieties. Rather than taking them for granted, translingual pedagogies aim to make students aware that linguistic norms are ideological constructs that are fluid and negotiable. Allowing students to creatively play with various resources is beneficial, as research shows that one can learn norms better when he/she deviates from them (García, 2009). Translingual pedagogies are particularly effective for mobile individuals who shuttle between and negotiate various norms. Because translingual competence is performative, rather than predetermined, pedagogies focus on cultivating students’ cooperative dispositions, which provide the readiness for negotiating diverse norms (Canagarajah, 2013b, 2014). In this regard, translingual pedagogies are also relevant to native speakers, given that a single norm is never enough to meet the demands of the global mobility. Regardless of one’s linguistic background, pedagogies should prepare students for new challenges of the increased global mobility and contact zone interactions. To date, translingual writing pedagogies have been widely implemented by L1 writing (Bizzell, 2014; Lu, 2009; Lu and Horner, 2013; Sohan, 2009) and TESOL (Amicucci and Lassiter, 2014; Canagarajah, 2015; Jain, 2014; Lee, 2014; Marshall and Moore, 2013; Sayer, 2013) teachers/scholars. During its early years, one of the goals of ELF research was to establish alternative pedagogical models based on corpus findings, independent of native speaker norms (Jenkins, 2002; Seidlhofer, 2001). The clearest manifestation of this orientation may be Jenkins’ (2002) lingua franca core, which was designed to offer “a phonological syllabus” (p. 96) for ELF learners. However, scholars soon became cautious about making explicit suggestions about how ELF research insights may be translated into pedagogical practices (Jenkins, 2006; Seidlhofer, 2004). In contrast, recent years have seen a proliferation of pedagogically oriented publications, most notably the special issue of the Journal of English as a Lingua Franca in 2015 and Bayyurt and Akcan’s (2015) edited volume. Unlike the earlier pursuit for the core linguistic features, recent studies tend to underscore the fluidity of linguacultural norms and the centrality of negotiation skills, showing convergence with the translingual approach (Baker, 2015; Dewey, 2012; Jenkins 2012; Seidlhofer 2011). In realizing this shift in focus, a number of scholars emphasize the importance of teacher education as the starting point (Bayyurt and Akcan, 2015; Jenkins, 2006; Seidlhofer, 2011). While the teacher-development approaches of ELF focus on awareness building, those of translingual schools focus on reflective practice (Canagarajah, 2006).
Conclusion This chapter has discussed the theoretical and research developments in ELF and translingual practice. Despite the initial differences, ELF and translingual practice now share important theoretical premises that enable scholars of both schools to learn from each other. Moving forward, we conclude by highlighting two particular questions of mutual interest that applied linguists and composition scholars have brought up recently. The first question concerns the place of ELF within the global linguistic ecology. In her interview-based study of Japanese companies operating in China, Kubota (2015) finds that the use of English is uncommon in interactions between Japanese and Chinese workers, contrary to the popular belief that English allows one to communicate across national boundaries and that international companies regularly require employees to have high English proficiency. Similarly, Amelina’s 304
Translingual practice and ELF
(2010) study of Russian workers in Germany points to the advantages proficiency in German offers to their career development. While these studies do not necessarily invalidate the unique role of English in the global economy, they do serve as useful reminders that ELF is situated within multilingualism, rather than replacing it. This view is beginning to be taken up by ELF scholars in recent years (Jenkins, 2015). The second question addresses the interplay between human agents, linguistic resources, and material ecologies. Jordan (2015) offers constructive criticisms to translingual scholars who tend to valorize unidirectional human agency in exploiting linguistic and material resources. Moving beyond this human-centric perspective, Jordan encourages researchers to regard humans as part of material ecologies and direct their attention to the ways in which linguistic and material ecologies “act[ed] with/ on/through humans” because a change in the nonhuman environment “reconfigures possible future events that are immanent” (p. 377). Casting new light on our understanding of mobility and communication in global contact zones, these emerging issues merit considerable attention from scholars of both ELF and translingual practice. Continued dialogue between the two schools is essential in this unfolding endeavor.
Notes 1 Scholars use various terminologies, such as metrolingual multitasking (Pennycook and Otsuji, 2015), grassroots multilingualism (Han, 2013), and truncated multilingualism (Blommaert, 2010). However, they by and large share the theoretical premises with the translingual orientation in that they focus on dynamic communicative practices transcending the ideological confines of autonomous languages. 2 Some scholars do not use the term CA, but their approaches are largely similar to CA in that their analyses focus on the sequential organization of ELF talk (e.g., Mauranen, 2006; Cogo, 2009).
Related chapters in this handbook 2 Baker, English as a lingua franca an ELF and intercultural communication 3 Ehrenreich, Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca 7 Seidlhofer, Standard English and the dynamics of ELF variation 16 Osimk-Teasdale, Analysing ELF variability 17 Cogo and House, The pragmatics of ELF 22 Hynninen and Solin, Language norms in ELF 29 Cogo, ELF and multilingualism 33 Horner, Written academic English as a lingua franca
Further reading Blommaert, J. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge University Press. Canagarajah, S. 2013. (Ed.). Literacy as translingual practice: between communities and classrooms. New York: Routledge. Canagarajah, S., 2013. Translingual practice: global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. Routledge. Horner, B., Lu, M.Z., Royster, J.J., and Trimbur, J., 2011. Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English 73(3), pp. 303–321. Pennycook, A., and Otsuji, E. (2015). Metrolingualism: language in the city. London: Routledge. 305
Daisuke Kimura and Suresh Canagarajah
References Amelina, M. 2010. Do other languages than English matter? International career development of highly qualified professionals. In E. Meyer and B. Apfelbaum (Eds.), Multilingualism at work: From policies to practices in public, medical and business settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 235–252 Amicucci, A., and Lassiter, T. 2014. Multimodal concept drawings: Engaging EAL learners in brainstorming about course terms. TESOL Journal 5(3), pp. 523–531. Atkinson, D., Churchill, E., Nishino, T., and Okada, H. 2007. Alignment and interaction in a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91(2), pp. 169–188. Ayash, N.B. 2013. Translingual practices from Lebanon and mainstream literacy education. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Literacy as translingual practice: Between communities and classrooms. New York: Routledge, pp. 96–103. Baker, W. 2015. Research into practice: Cultural and intercultural awareness. Language Teaching, 48(1), pp. 130–141. Baker, W., and Jenkins, J. 2015. Criticising ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(1), pp. 191–198. Bayyurt, Y., and Akcan, S. (Eds.). 2015. Current perspectives on pedagogy for English as a lingua franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Bizzell, P. 2014. Toward “transcultural literacy” at a Liberal Arts college. In B. Horner and K. Kopelson (Eds.), Reworking English in rhetoric and composition: Global interrogations, local interventions. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 131–149 Björkman, B. 2008. “So where we are?” Spoken lingua franca English at technical university in Sweden. English Today, 24(2), pp. 5–41. Björkman, B. 2009. From code to discourse in spoken ELF. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 225–251. Blackledge, A., and Creese, A. 2017. Translanguaging in mobility. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Routledge handbook of migration and language. London: Routledge, pp. 31–46. Block, D. 2014. Moving beyond “lingualism”: Multilingual embodiment and multimodality in SLA. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education. New York: Routledge, pp. 54–77. Blommaert, J. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blommaert, J. 2013. Ethnography, superdiversity and linguistic landscapes: Chronicles of complexity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Blommaert, J., and Backus, A. 2011. Repertoires revisited: “Knowing language” in superdiversity. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies, 67. London: King’s College. Canagarajah, S. 2006. The place of World Englishes in composition: Pluralization continued. College Composition and Communication, 57(4), pp. 586–619. Canagarajah, S. 2007. Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91, pp. 923–939. Canagarajah, S. 2013a. Literacy as translingual practice: Between communities and classrooms. New York: Routledge. Canagarajah, S. 2013b. Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. New York: Routledge. Canagarajah, S. 2014. Theorizing a competence for translingual practice at the contract zone. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education. New York; Routledge, pp. 78–102. Canagarajah, S. 2015. Clarifying the relationship between translingual practice and L2 writing: Addressing learner identities. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(4), pp. 415–440. Canagarajah, S. 2016. Shuttling between scales in the workplace: Reexamining policies and pedagogies for migrant professionals. Linguistics and Education, 34, pp. 47–57. Carey, R. 2013. On the other side: formulaic organizing chunks in spoken and written academic ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(2), pp. 207–228. Cogo, A. 2009. Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A study of pragmatic strategies. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 254–273. 306
Translingual practice and ELF
Cogo, A., and Dewey, M. 2006. Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic motives to lexicogrammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), pp. 59–94. Crystal, D. 2008. Two thousand million? English Today 24(1), pp. 3–6. Dewey, M. 2009. English as a lingua franca: Heightened variability and theoretical implications. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 60–83. Dewey, M. 2012. Towards a post-normative approach: Learning the pedagogy of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), pp. 141–170. Ehrenreich, S. 2009. English as a lingua franca in multinational corporations: Exploring business communities of practice. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 126–151. Firth, A. 1996. The discursive accomplishment of normality: On conversation analysis and “lingua franca” English. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, pp. 237–259. Firth, A. 2009. Doing not being a foreign language learner: English as a lingua franca in the workplace and (some) implications for SLA. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(1), pp. 127–156. García, O. 2009. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. García, O., and Wei, L. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Goodwin, C. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), pp. 1489–1522. Han, H. 2013. Individual grassroots multilingualism in Africa town in Guangzhou: The role of states in globalization. International Multilingual Research Journal, 7(1), pp. 83–97. Horner, B., Lu, M., Royster, J.J., and Trimbur, J. 2011. Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English, pp. 303–321. House, J. 1999. Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in English as a lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility. In C. Gnutzmann (Ed.), Teaching and learning English as a global language. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 73–89. House, J. 2003. English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), pp. 556–578. Hülmbauer, C., 2011. Old friends? Cognates in ELF communication. In A. Archibald, A. Cogo, and J. Jenkins (Eds.), New trends in ELF research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press, pp. 139–161. Hülmbauer, C., and Seidlhofer, B. 2013. English as a lingua franca in European multilingualism. In A.C. Berthoud, F. Grin, and G. Lüdi (Eds.), Exploring the dynamics of multilingualism: The DYLAN project. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 387–406. Jain, R. 2014. Global Englishes, translinguistic identities, and translingual practices in a community college ESL classroom: A practitioner researcher reports. TESOL Journal, 5(3), pp. 490–522. Jenkins, J. 2000. The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new norms, new goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. 2002. A Sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), pp. 83–103. Jenkins, J. 2006. Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), pp. 157–181. Jenkins, J. 2011. Accommodating (to) ELF in the international university. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), pp. 926–936. Jenkins, J. 2012. English as a lingua franca from the classroom to the classroom. ELT Journal, 66(4), pp. 486–494. Jenkins, J. 2015. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice, 2(3), pp. 49–85. Jenkins, J., Cogo, A., and Dewey, M. 2011. Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44(3), pp. 281–315. Jordan, J. 2015. Material translingual ecologies. College English, 77(4), pp. 364–382. Kalocsai, K. 2014. Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca: A study of students in a central European context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kaur, J. 2011. Raising explicitness through self-repair in English as a lingua franca. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), pp. 2704–2715. 307
Daisuke Kimura and Suresh Canagarajah
Kendon, A. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kirkpatrick, A. 2010. Researching English as a lingua franca in Asia: The Asian Corpus of English (ACE) project. Asian Englishes 31(1), pp. 4–18. Klimpfinger, T. 2009. She’s mixing the two languages together: Forms and functions of code-switching in English as a lingua franca. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 348–371 Kubota, R. 2015. “Language is only a tool”: Japanese expatriates working in China and implications for language teaching. In K. Murata (Ed.) Exploring ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts: Conceptualisation, research and pedagogic implications. New York: Routledge, pp. 156–179. Lee, M.E. 2014. Shifting to the World Englishes paradigm by way of the translingual approach: Codemeshing as a necessary means of transforming composition pedagogy. TESOL Journal, 5(2), pp. 312–329. Lu, M. 2009. Metaphors matter: Transcultural literacy. Journal of Advanced Composition 29, pp. 285–294. Lu, M., and Horner. B. 2013. Translingual literacy, language difference, and matters ofagency. College English 75(6), pp. 582–607. Marshall, S., and Moore, D. 2013. 2B or not 2B plurilingual? Navigating languages, literacies, and plurilingual competence in postsecondary education in Canada. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), pp. 472–499. Matsumoto, Y. 2015. Multimodal communicative strategies for resolving miscommunication in multilingual writing classrooms. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation: The Pennsylvania State University. Mauranen, A. 2003. The corpus of English as a lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), pp. 513–527. Mauranen, A. 2006. Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177, pp. 123–150. Mauranen, A. 2009. Chunking in ELF: Expressions for managing interaction. Journal of Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), pp. 217–233. Mauranen, A. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Mortensen, J. 2013. Notes on English used as a lingua franca as an object of study. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(1), pp. 25–46. Pennycook, A. 2007. Global Englishes and transcultural flows. New York: Routledge. Pennycook, A. 2010. Language as a local practice. New York: Routledge. Pennycook, A. 2012. Language and mobility: Unexpected places. Bristol; Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Pennycook, A., and Otsuji, E. 2015. Metrolingualism: Language in the city. London: Routledge. Pitzl, M.L. 2009. “We should not wake up any dogs”: Idiom and metaphor in ELF. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 298–322. Poe, M. 2013. Research on multilingual writers in the disciplines: The case of biomedical engineering. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Literacy as translingual practice: Between communities and classrooms. New York: Routledge, pp. 170–181. Pratt, M.L. 1991. Arts of the contact zone. Profession, pp. 33–40. Sayer, P. 2013. Translanguaging, TexMex, and bilingual pedagogy: Emergent bilinguals learning through the vernacular. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), pp. 63–88. Seidlhofer, B. 2001. Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), pp. 133–158. Seidlhofer, B. 2004. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, pp. 209–239. Seidlhofer, B. 2009. Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. World Englishes, 28(2), pp. 236–245. Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smitherman, G. 1999. CCCC’s role in the struggle for language rights. College Composition and Communication, 50(3), pp. 349–76. Sohan, V.K. 2009. Working English(es) as rhetoric(s) of disruption. Journal of Advanced Composition 29(1–2), pp. 270–275. Street, B.V. 1984. Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. WrELFA. 2015. The corpus of written English as a lingua franca in academic settings. Retrieved from www.helsinki.fi/elfa/wrelfa.html (accessed August 5, 2015). 308
25 ELF in the domain of business—BELF What does the B stand for? Anne Kankaanranta and Leena Louhiala-Salminen
Introduction Since the introduction of the concept of BELF (English as a business lingua franca; Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005) it has inspired a number of researchers in applied and sociolinguistics, in business communication in particular, and recently also in the discipline of international management (e.g. Piekkari, Welch, & Welch, 2014). The concept of BELF was developed to grasp three imperative qualities that make it distinct within the ‘umbrella discipline’ of ELF (English as a lingua franca): its domain of use (international business), the role of its users (professionals), and the overall goal of the interactions (getting the job done and creating rapport). Interestingly, the concept of BELF has been acknowledged and accepted in (socio) linguistic and even international management research to such an extent that the epistemological grounds of the ‘B’ have not really been addressed. In addition to journal articles in various outlets such as English for Specific Purposes, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, (International) Journal of Business Communication, and Public Relations Review, BELF research has found its way into handbooks, review articles and books dealing with language issues in international management. For instance, Gerritsen and Nickerson (2009) address BELF as a specific approach and methodology in the Handbook of Business Discourse and argue for the need of systematic, empirical investigations into the causes of failure in BELF communication. Simultaneously, they are offering a future research agenda, which should focus on comprehensibility challenges, cultural differences, and stereotyped associations. Further, in their review of developments in research into ELF, Jenkins et al. (2011: 298) point out that “in the past few decades it has become widely accepted that the lingua franca of international business is English” and then continue on summarizing BELF research in the business domain. BELF has also found its way into the discipline of international management, which is inherently interested in the management of language in multinational companies, albeit “not on how ‘English’ is conceptualized, how it is used, or what the discourse is like” (Kankaanranta et al., 2015: 134). In their book on language in international management, Piekkari et al. (2014) address BELF from the point of view of global business expansion in general, and in particular discuss language management issues 309
Anne Kankaanranta and Leena Louhiala-Salminen
in various corporate functions such as human resource management, marketing, and foreign operations. For them, language is inherently present in various business operations. In yet another handbook focusing on economics and language, Holden (2016: 291) further argues that “none of the great empires of the Ancient World” involved in international business could have survived “without a fully functioning language of business” (emphasis added): a professional communication system (both written and spoken) with specific business terminology, sensitivity to context, and a variety of business partners. Although ELF and BELF share a number of characteristics, what makes BELF distinct is the B, ‘business.’ The three key contextual features of the domain of use, the role of its users and the overall goal of the interactions are closely intertwined with business knowledge, which, as Louhiala-Salminen and Kankaanranta (2011) argue, is the key component of professional communicative competence in the global business context. In their model of Global Communicative Competence, business knowledge forms the outermost layer, thus emphasizing its integral role in successful communication. The two other layers, BELF competence and multicultural competence, overlap with business knowledge (Louhiala-Salminen & Kankaanranta, 2011: 258). But, what exactly does that business knowledge entail? In this chapter, we elaborate on the notion of business knowledge among BELF speakers and present how business practitioners and scholars conceptualize such knowledge. After reviewing some relevant literature, we introduce our empirical study on the perceptions of both business practitioners and scholars on the ‘B’ of BELF. Finally, we conclude by discussing the question if and why we need the concept of BELF in the first place.
Literature review It comes as no surprise for an ELF researcher today that the dynamic notion of ‘ELF resource’ also questions such traditional fundamentals of sociolinguistics as variety, domain and location of use. In today’s globalized and technologized/digitalized environment, the notion of speech community seems outdated in view of the heterogeneous speakers of different mother tongues who use English—or rather ELF—all over the world. For instance, ELF researchers have used Wenger’s (1998) notion of community of practice to embrace the ELF resource and its users (see e.g. Seidlhofer, 2006; Dewey, 2010; Ehrenreich, 2010a; Cogo, 2016). However, the notion has recently met with criticism because the shared ELF repertoire does not typically exist a priori (Jenkins, 2015; also Dewey, 2010; Seidlhofer, 2011). Indeed, for example, Jenkins (2015) argues for Pratt’s (1991) notion of ‘contact zones’ as better capturing the transient and ad hoc nature of ELF groupings, while for the more established BELF communities Wenger’s (1998) notion finds a better fit. Interestingly, the concept of speech community has not been much used in (international) business communication research, where the use of English in cross-border contacts has been on the research agenda since the 1990s. With the acceleration of international mergers and acquisitions, business communication scholars started to examine questions related to the communication of individual employees and teams who used (non-native) English to do their work (e.g. Firth 1996; Louhiala-Salminen 1997, 2002; Nickerson, 2000; Poncini, 2003; Kankaanranta 2005; Louhiala-Salminen & Charles 2006; Du-Babcock 2009; Pullin Stark, 2009). Many of these studies were pedagogically motivated as the researchers set out to investigate the implications of the spreading use of English for the teaching of English or English Business Communication. For this strand of research, such theoretical constructs drawn from applied linguistics as ‘discourse community’ and ‘genre’ (e.g. Swales 1990) were
310
ELF in the domain of business – BELF
frequent tools for analyzing the usage of English for/in international business communication. In the 2000s, along with ever-advancing globalization and English turning into the most used corporate language the question of the impact of ELF on professional communicative competence is still very relevant (see e.g. Louhiala-Salminen & Kankaanranta 2011, 2012). The notion of BELF is frequently applied to refer to the current business context, where languages and cultures are intertwined and the main language for communication is English used as a lingua franca, in a dynamic interplay with other languages and linguistic resources (e.g. Evans, 2013; Pullin, 2010). To examine the significance of the ‘B’ for the concept of BELF, we chose to apply the notion of community of practice as our analytical tool. We will discuss it at a high level of abstraction and view it from the perspective of the domain of (international) business and the community of internationally operating business practitioners. While attempting to gain an overall understanding of the ‘B,’ we will—unavoidably—lose some depth and detail of such smaller CoPs as individual teams, corporations and industries Wenger’s (1998) key theoretical focus is learning as social participation but since we are interested in the ‘B,’ we modify Wenger’s (1998: 4) elaboration of participation to refer to the process of being active participants in the business practices of social (business) communities and constructing identities in relation to these communities. We will also refer to Ehrenreich’s (2010a) study of BELF usage among the business executives in a German multinational company. For our purposes, CoP with its three dimensions is particularly relevant in order to come to terms with the notion of ‘business knowledge,’ which is assumed to be shared among internationally operating business professionals of the domain. As Wenger (1998: 47) argues, practice connotes doing in a (historical and social) context, which gives structure and meaning to the doing. Practice thus involves that doing but it also involves knowing about the doing, both explicitly and implicitly—neither can exist alone. The explicit represents, for example, language, tools, regulations and codified procedures, whereas the implicit refers to underlying assumptions, shared worldviews and untold rules of thumb (see also e.g. Nonaka et al., 1996). Typically, implicit knowledge may never be verbalized, but it is still like the glue tying the members of the particular community together and is essential for its success. Understood in this way, practice is the source of coherence of a community through three dimensions of their relationship: mutual engagement, joint enterprise and a shared repertoire (Wenger, 1998: 72–73). First, mutual engagement refers to people being engaged in actions whose meanings they can negotiate with each other (Wenger, 1998 73). As Ehrenreich (2010a: 131) points out in her study of BELF usage in a German multinational company, the executives belonged to different CoPs simultaneously, and interacted in various ways both face-to-face and virtually. Although both Wenger (1998: 74) and Ehrenreich (2010a) argue that mutual engagement requires interactions, we could also see this dimension on a higher level of abstraction in the sense that the interaction could be—and is—possible because of shared knowledge of business fundamentals gained in education and/or in practice (linked to joined enterprise and shared repertoire) among business practitioners. Second, joint enterprise refers to “the participants’ negotiated response to their situation” (Wenger, 1998: 77). Although the participants may have a stated goal that they strive to achieve, they need to negotiate their way through by creating relations of mutual accountability. In other words, the members of the community negotiate a shared understanding of such key notions as “what matters and what does not, what is important and why it is important, what to talk about and what to leave unsaid” (Wenger, 1998: 81). While some
311
Anne Kankaanranta and Leena Louhiala-Salminen
aspects of accountability may be reified into explicit statements, those statements need to be interpreted and a practice evolves around this process of interpretation. “Being able to make distinctions between reified standards and competent engagement in practice is an important aspect of becoming an experienced member” (Wenger, 1998: 82). In her study, Ehrenreich (2010a) argues that the overall goal of a business CoP—such as the one she investigated in a German multinational—is profit making. Within this overall goal, the members of the community contribute by, for example, negotiating contracts and ensuring deliveries within a time frame. For an outsider the appropriateness or relevance of that work may not fully unfold and novices of the community learn from the more experienced members. Third, a shared repertoire involves the production of resources that are needed in the practice and in the negotiation of meaning within the community (Wenger, 1998: 83). Such resources may be activities, symbols, or artifacts including specific routines, words, tools, ways of doing things, genres, symbols, and concepts. Ehrenreich (2010a: 133) gives examples of the shared repertoire of the business executives of a German multinational including languages (e.g. German, English) and documents (e.g. drawings, charts, power point presentations). Wenger further emphasizes that the repertoire is shared in a dynamic and interactive way and it does not suggest shared beliefs are in any way essential for a shared practice.
Study: what does ‘B’ stand for? As the purpose of this study was to increase knowledge of the ‘business’ component of BELF, we made the assumption that finding out about ‘business knowledge’ from those actively engaged, first, in business practice and second, in business research would help us to elaborate on the specific character and significance of the ‘B’ and thus discuss BELF’s position within ELF research overall. Methods To achieve this aim, two kinds of data were used: (1) we revisited the data (683 open survey answers) that we had gathered for a major research project (see Louhiala-Salminen & Kankaanranta, 2011), which focused on the perceptions of internationally operating business professionals on communication; and (2) we conducted 15 email interviews among professor-level faculty of an international business school. The first set of data comes from an online questionnaire survey conducted in 2007–2008, which set out to identify features of successful communication in international business (for details, see Louhiala-Salminen & Kankaanranta, 2011; Kankaanranta & Planken, 2010). The 987 respondents of the survey worked for five globally operating companies (cargo handling, logistics, and consulting); they represented different organizational levels and 31 different native languages, although most of them came from Finland and other parts of Western Europe. The survey (response rate 52 percent) provided rich data through which it was possible to get a wide and reliable overview of how international business professionals perceive communicative success and its constraints. For the present study, we focused on the three open-ended questions of the survey, which addressed the respondents’ perceptions about the factors that (1) make communication succeed, (2) make communication fail, and (3) confirm that a communicative act succeeded in the global business environment. Through the answers to the questions we looked for the informants’ conceptualizations of ‘business knowledge’ and its components. Naturally, all 987 respondents did not answer 312
ELF in the domain of business – BELF
the open questions, but these responses amounted to 230 (question 1), 230 (question 2), and 223 (question 3), which means that over 20 percent of the respondents gave their views of potential success/failure of communication using their own words. The second set of data comes from email interviews (N = 15) that we conducted in February 2016 among the academic faculty of an international business school based in Finland. The informants represented different business disciplines, on the basis of which the following pseudonyms were drafted, i.e. finance (F), accounting (A1, A2), management (Mg), entrepreneurship (E), marketing (M1, M2), information and service management (ISM1, ISM2, ISM3), international business (IB1, IB2), sustainability (S), and organizational communication (OC1, OC2). Here, our aim was to explore and uncover the (at times hidden) views of business researchers of the ‘business fundamentals’ that belong to the shared knowledge base of business professionals. We posed two questions to our interviewees: From your perspective (as a business scholar), what elements are included in the concept of ‘business knowledge’? What are ‘the shared business fundamentals’ that a business professional would automatically know when working in the present-day business context? The questions were phrased as very open since we were looking for the personal views of the interviewees and their immediate reactions to the concept of ‘business knowledge,’ which was also emphasized in the cover message. To analyze the data sets we used qualitative content analysis (e.g. Krippendorf, 2004). As an author team with business degrees, with over 25 years of work experience in educating business students, and with regular collaboration with business practitioners, we carefully read through all the answers and categorized them on the basis of our interpretation of what they revealed about the informants’ conceptualization of ‘business knowledge.’ The analysis of the academic faculty’s responses was a fairly smooth exercise and produced four perspectives to business knowledge. In analyzing the practitioner answers, we decided to approach the data with a set of wh-questions as well to more thoroughly understand, how the respondents view the scene of international business: Who are the actors? What do they do? Why do they do this? How do they act? Although the categorization necessarily required some negotiation, we finally combined the two analyses and formed four categories that seemed significant and distinctive enough to explain the respondents’ conceptualization of ‘business knowledge.’ In addition to the four categories each displaying a characteristic that the respondents included in the concept, we identified three overall qualities that we interpreted as essential for business operations. Taken together, both the four perspectives drawn from the business-faculty informants and the categories identified from the business-practitioner informants were comprehensive in the sense that the answers could be interpreted to refer to at least one of them. Findings The first data set—the business-practitioner respondents’ reactions to the three open questions related to communicative success in international contexts—consisted of a number of brief answers, typically consisting of a phrase or a few words that more or less directly answered the question. For example, to the question “Think of your own experience and list the main reasons that make communication succeed in the globalized business environment,” the following short answers were given: have to define clearly what you want and what your aim is; be sure targets are understood; the must to succeed; and agreed upon results and actions. However, there were also longer answers such as this one: Competence 313
Anne Kankaanranta and Leena Louhiala-Salminen
in the business, to be open and dialog with your partners/customers, understand strategic issues and personal interests or conflicts. The overall qualities that emerged in the responses of the business-practitioner respondents were (1) ‘shared understanding,’ (2) ‘business mindset,’ and (3) the ‘win-win’ mentality. First, to be able to act in the business context it was important that the actor has a shared understanding with the other actors of the four fundamental characteristics listed below. The respondents referred to understanding, for example, ‘the business itself,’ ‘different terms,’ ‘objectives,’ ‘business processes,’ and of ‘what is necessary to get things done.’ Second, the significance of the ‘business mindset’ became conspicuous in the respondents’ descriptions on how things are/should be done. They highlighted such adverbs as quickly, smoothly, correctly, efficiently, on time, and repeatedly mentioned co-operation, trust, good relationships, willingness, and openness as essential elements for their communication. Finally, understanding the ‘win-win’ mentality emerged in many answers; in other words, your goals can only be reached if—at least in the long run—you simultaneously help the other party to reach theirs as well. The particular characteristics of ‘business knowledge’ consisted of the knowledge of (1) goal orientation, (2) significance of professional roles and related tasks and measures, (3) significance of interpersonal relationships, and (4) business processes and genres. Table 25.1 lists the four characteristics and displays examples of the exact words by the respondents, on the basis of which characteristics were identified. As can be seen in Table 25.1, the characteristics of ‘business knowledge’ that were formed on the basis of the open survey answers naturally emphasize the practitioner dimension. They stem from perceptions of international business professionals who were encouraged to think in very concrete terms of their daily situations at work, and give their answers from that point of view. The examples (verbatim quotes by the survey respondents) in Table 25.1 were chosen as representative of a large number of similar answers, where the particular characteristic could be drawn from. For example, in the answers ‘Goal orientation’ was described emphasizing the aims, objectives or goals, whose existence was assumed as shared knowledge among the participants. Similarly, the respondents highlighted the fact that they have to know both the organizational roles of their communication partners and the most frequently used measures for business success, e.g. such notions as KPI (key performance indicator) and EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes). The largest number of practitioner views fell into category 3, which can be seen to indicate the crucial significance of interpersonal relationships in business. The respondents explicitly mentioned the importance of the relationship as such, but also referred to overall flexibility, respect, and politeness as necessary elements enabling the relationship. Interestingly, ‘listening’ emerged in a large number of answers; without it, no relationship can be built. The examples that were categorized as referring to business processes and genres mainly described the methods, channels, or strategies that the practitioners use. Our second set of data, 15 written elaborations on the concept of ‘business knowledge’ by business scholars, was collected particularly for this paper, to validate—or question— the practitioner views described above. The informants here come from the academia and accordingly, look at ‘business knowledge’ from a different vantage point. They base their answers on their own research, projects, and teaching and analyze the concept ‘business knowledge’ within that framework. As the questions we posed were open and invited the respondent to discuss his or her perception, the answers naturally varied a great deal as to the perspective taken and the length of the text. The shortest answer amounted to 27 words and the longest to 582 words, with an average of 148 words. 314
ELF in the domain of business – BELF Table 25.1 Characteristics of business knowledge as perceived by practitioners Characteristic
Examples of answers (quoted verbatim) to survey questions about communicative success
1 Goal orientation
Have to define clearly what you want and what your aim is Be aware of the goals Both parties understand the objective of the discussion; both parties have the same goal Good understanding of the other person’s role in the company Depending on what the other persons role is, maybe involve a person that is a higher level in the company than myself Position matters Position in the organization (especially customers organization) Understanding of biz needs of customer Money/EBIT KPIs Establishing a relation (during several times of contact) with these persons makes it easier to get to the point and also understand the communication partners reality and values Politeness Personal relations and ability to attract your opponent is the base for business and that is done with communication in different ways Ability to listening to your opponent Cultural background and respects for values Mutual respect; willingness to be flexible and understand Willingness to listen; to try understand; to communicate; to be patient International communication is often remote communication (phone, emails) which has its own rules. Those must be understood Personal interaction whenever possible, face-to-face, or telephone conference Vocabulary; business know-how; K.I.S.S (keep it short and simple) Being brief and to the point Speed of communication
2 Significance of roles and related tasks and measures
3 Significance of interpersonal relationships
4 Business processes and genres
The perceptions of our respondents of the concept ‘business knowledge’ were categorized into the following four perspectives: 1 2 3 4
generic knowledge vs. specific knowledge; knowledge gained from education and research vs. experience and practice; elements of knowledge (= content, what?); knowledge of ways of doing (= behavior, how?).
Within the first perspective, the informants explicated the difference between generic business knowledge and specific, contextually defined knowledge. The former consists of ‘a business mindset’ and elements that are transferrable from one business context to another. Examples given of such knowledge referred to, for example, the basic tenets of accounting and finance practices, and such strategic constructs as Porter’s Five Forces Model and the Balanced Scorecard Framework. The latter type of knowledge is linked to a particular industry or even a particular company. This was explained by, for example, by the significance of the annual key figures in a particular industry, e.g. knowing if a 10 percent profit in this company at this point of time indicates a good performance or not. According to OC2, the specific part also “includes the labels used for speaking about the above, i.e. the company speak and industry slang.” 315
Anne Kankaanranta and Leena Louhiala-Salminen
The second perspective came out very clearly from our academic informants. They noted that, on the one hand, business knowledge is something that you gain through education and research and, on the other hand, something that is accumulated through work experience. Through education we aim at “understanding how markets work” and through research at “systematically increasing this understanding” (Informant A1). Informant M1 emphasized experience by noting that business knowledge is “tacit knowledge about how markets, organizations and business in general work, how decisions are made and how collaboration is constructed.” The third perspective refers to the content that the informants found essential in business knowledge. This category was divided into three subcategories as it included the largest number of quotations. First, the informants referred to knowledge in particular areas that make up business knowledge; e.g. “the basics of selling, marketing, production, purchasing, finance, annual accounts, and corporate communication” (Informant F). Also, the skills involved in management and leadership, strategy work, and projects and networks were mentioned, as well as “Core business concepts. Like benchmark, target group, documentation, volatility” (Informant ISM3). Second, overall understanding of how to run a business emerged as essential. This was explained in simple terms by Informant F: “how money comes in to a company and on what it is spent.” Here, profit orientation was mentioned and the goal-oriented mindset that the practitioners had highlighted was evident. It is important to understand the significance of the different business operations for the company and be able to “orchestrate these to serve the purposes of the organization as a whole” (Informant ISM2). Overall, business knowledge refers to an ability to “understand what is important and what is not” (Informant F). The third dimension within this perspective consisted of views that deal with positioning the business in its environment. In other words, it was considered important to understand the company–society interface, to know and follow the prevailing norms and regulations, to be able to recognize new business opportunities that emerge in the environment, and also to understand the rules of ‘fair play.’ Two of our informants discussed the role of values in business knowledge and to some extent questioned the prevailing understanding of (merely) profit driven business. Informant ISM3 noted: “I think that along with profit we should always talk about sustainability—always when a particular solution is evaluated, we should include a measure for sustainability.” The fourth perspective, knowledge of ways of doing (= behavior, how?), was close to what the practitioners meant by knowledge of “business processes and genres.” Here, business knowledge is knowing how to behave when something has been agreed upon, how to solve problems and how to treat your fellow professionals so that you show respect towards them and their time. The strategic, goal-oriented mindset is the basis of business procedures, on which the industry and company specific behavior patterns are built. In this perspective, we included such comments as “routines and familiar practices” (Informant Mg) and “different fields and industries, cultural environments and organizations (teams etc.) have their own legitimate ways of doing and communicating; learning these often takes a long time” (Informant IB1).
Conclusion In this chapter, we have examined and analyzed the notion of ‘business knowledge’ as an integral component of the concept of BELF and as the glue that ties the members of the business community of practice (CoP) together. Our aim was to investigate the significance of the ‘B’ in BELF through the perceptions of two related groups: over 200 members 316
ELF in the domain of business – BELF
of the community (of practice) of internationally operating business practitioners and 15 members of faculty of an international business school. We have elaborated on the notion of business knowledge as a mediating or moderating force at play in BELF communication and demonstrated how business practitioners and scholars conceptualize business knowledge, what they take for granted and consider as tacit knowledge. Our findings make evident the existence and the amount of a complex and multidimensional knowledge base that is embraced by the business community of practice. Since we operated on a fairly high level of abstraction to conceptualize business knowledge, we were able to tap into numerous experiences and interactions of the practitioners but unavoidably lost the rich detail and depth of individual cases, which could be addressed by other methodology such as interview and ethnographic methods, and discourse analysis. On the basis of our findings, we argue that business knowledge functions as a common frame of reference that eases—or, indeed, enables—communication in the CoP of (internationally operating) business professionals. Thus, the concept of BELF is needed to make sense of the communication of the community of business professionals with their mutual engagement, joint enterprise and shared repertoire of resources. In what follows, we discuss the question “What does the B stand for?” Table 25.2 combines Wenger’s three CoP dimensions with our findings among business practitioners and business scholars. As can be seen from Table 25.2, our findings based on both practitioners’ and scholars’ perceptions of business knowledge seem to comply with Wenger’s (1998) dimensions of community of practice. Indeed, international business would not be possible without mutual engagement among business practitioners on the general level (for more, see Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989; Holden, 2016). For example, companies could not spread around the globe via cross-border mergers, acquisitions and other business arrangements if they could not rely on being mutually engaged with practitioners with whom they have not had interactions before. Enabling engagement can thus be subtle, as Wenger (1998, p. 74) points out. Our findings indicate that this subtle engagement is enabled on the general level by the conspicuous goal orientation of the practitioners and their understanding of the generic and specific nature of required business knowledge, which has been gained through education and/or practice. Joint enterprise is manifested in the CoP members’ understanding of the significance of organizational roles, measures of success and interpersonal relationships. Through this
Table 25.2 CoP dimensions in relation to the characteristics of and perspectives to business knowledge Wenger’s dimensions
Business practitioners
Academic faculty
Mutual engagement
Goal orientation (1)
Joint enterprise
Significance of roles and related tasks and measures (2) Significance of interpersonal relationships (3)
Generic vs specific knowledge (1) Knowledge from education and research vs. experience and practice vs (2) Elements of knowledge (3)
Shared repertoire
Processes and genres (4)
•• In specific areas of business •• In overall business logic •• In business–society interface Knowledge of ways of doing (= behavior, how?) (4)
317
Anne Kankaanranta and Leena Louhiala-Salminen
understanding, and through the specific elements of knowledge discussed above, they are able to negotiate their response to varying situations in the community. They develop a shared understanding of the issues that enable them to become experienced members of the community who, according to the words of our Informant F, “understand what is important and what is not.” The findings also comply with a number of international business communication and BELF studies in terms of the importance of relationships, politeness, culturally intelligent behavior, listening skills (e.g., Nickerson, 2000; Poncini, 2003; Ehrenreich, 2010b; Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2010; Kankaanranta & Planken, 2010; Louhiala-Salminen & Kankaanranta 2011; Evans, 2013). Concretely, a shared repertoire ties CoP members together. Although teams, companies, and industries may have somewhat different routines, activities, documents, and specifications for accomplishing some particular practices, still the members of the overall business community would know the rationale and be able to negotiate their meaning. For example, business practitioners seem to share knowledge of the patterns on what, why, how, and when to communicate in a particular situation. International business communication scholars, in particular, have produced plenty of insights related to the repertoires of communication media and genres (e.g. Louhiala-Salminen, 1997, 2002; Nickerson, 2000; Kankaanranta, 2006; Louhiala-Salminen & Charles, 2006; Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2010). To conclude, although business dominates many spheres of life today and as consumers we are all automatically involved, it is only the insiders—business practitioners and business faculty—who are in the know. With this study, we have shown what the ‘B’ in BELF stands for, how multifaceted the needed business knowledge is, and why we need the concept of BELF in the first place.
Related chapters in this handbook 2 Baker, English as a Lingua Franca and intercultural communication 3 Ehrenreich, Communities of Practice and English as a lingua franca 29 Cogo, ELF and multilingualism 44 Morán Panero, Global languages and lingua franca communication
Further reading Angouri, J. (2013). The multilingual reality of the multinational workplace: Language policy and language use. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34(6), 564–581. Räisänen, T. (2016). Finnish engineers’ trajectories of socialisation into global working life: From language learners to BELF users and the emergence of a Finnish way of speaking English. In Holmes, P. & Dervin, F. (Eds.) The cultural and intercultural dimensions of English as a lingua franca. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 157–179.
References Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1999). Managing across borders: The transnational solution (Vol. 2). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Cogo, A. (2016). “They all take the risk and make the effort”: Intercultural accommodation and multilingualism in a BELF community of practice. In Lopriore, L. & Grazzi, E. (Eds.) Intercultural communication: New perspectives from ELF. Rome: Roma Tre Press, pp. 364–383. 318
ELF in the domain of business – BELF
Dewey, M. (2010). English as a lingua franca: Heightened variability and theoretical implications. In Mauranen, A. & Ranta, E. (Eds.) English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 60–83. Du-Babcock. B. (2009). English as a business lingua franca: A framework of integrative approach to future research in international business communication. In Louhiala-Salminen, L. & Kankaanranta, A. (Eds.). The ascent of international business communication, B-109, Helsinki: HSE Print, pp. 45–66. http://hsepubl.lib.hse.fi/FI/publ/hse/b109 Ehrenreich, S. (2010a). English as a lingua franca in multinational corporations: Exploring business communities of practice. In Mauranen, A. & Ranta, E. (Eds.) English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 126–151 Ehrenreich, S. (2010b). English as a business lingua franca in a German multinational corporation: meeting the challenge. Journal of Business Communication, 47(4), pp. 408–431. Evans, S. (2013). “Just wanna give you guys a bit of an update”: Insider perspectives on business presentations in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 32(4), pp. 195–207. Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: on “lingua franca” English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(2), pp. 237–259. Gerritsen, M., & Nickerson, C. (2009). BELF: Business English as a lingua franca. The handbook of business discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 180–192 Holden, N. (2016). Economic exchange and the business of language in the ancient world: An exploratory review. In Ginsburgh, V. & Weber, S. (Eds.) The Palgrave handbook of economics and language. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 290–311 Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice, 2(3), pp. 49–85. Jenkins, J., Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44(3), pp. 281–315. Kankaanranta, A. (2005). “Hej Seppo, could you pls comment on this!”—internal email communication in lingua franca English in a multinational company. PhD dissertation. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. http://ebooks.jyu.fi/solki/9513923207.pdf Kankaanranta, A. (2006). Focus on research: “Hej Seppo, could you pls comment on this!”—Internal email communication in lingua franca English in a multinational company. Business Communication Quarterly, 69, pp. 216–225. Kankaanranta, A., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2010). ”English?—Oh, it’s just work!”: A study of BELF users’ perceptions. English for Specific Purposes, 29, pp. 204–209. Kankaanranta, A., Louhiala-Salminen, L., & Karhunen, P. (2015). English in multinational companies: Implications for teaching “English” at an international business school. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(1), pp. 125–148. Kankaanranta, A., & Planken, B. (2010). BELF competence as business knowledge of internationally operating business professionals. Journal of Business Communication, 47(4), pp. 380–407. Krippendorf, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Louhiala-Salminen, L. (1997). Investigating the genre of a business fax: A Finnish case study. Journal of Business Communication, 34(3), pp. 316–333. Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2002). The fly’s perspective: Discourse in the daily routine of a business manager. English for Specific Purposes, 21(3), pp. 211–231. Louhiala-Salminen, L., & Charles, M. (2006). English as the lingua franca of international business communication: Whose English? What English. In Palmer-Silveira J., Ruiz-Garrido, M., & Fortanet-Gomez, I. (Eds.) English for international and intercultural business communication. Bern: Peter Lang. pp. 27–54. Louhiala-Salminen, L., Charles, M., & Kankaanranta, A. (2005). English as a lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: Two case companies. English for Specific Purposes, Special issue: English as a lingua franca international business contexts, 24(4), pp. 401–421. Louhiala-Salminen, L., & Kankaanranta, A. (2011). Professional communication in a global business context: The notion of global communicative competence. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Special issue on Professional Communication in Global Contexts, 54(3) September, pp. 244–262. Louhiala-Salminen, L., & Kankaanranta, A. (2012). Language issues in international internal communication: English or local language? If English, what English? Public Relations Review, 38(2), pp. 262–269. 319
Anne Kankaanranta and Leena Louhiala-Salminen
Nickerson, C. (2000). Playing the corporate language game: An investigation of the genres and discourse strategies in English used by Dutch writers working in multinational corporations. Utrecht studies of language and communication, vol. 15. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. Nonaka, I., Umemoto, K., & Senoo, D. (1996). From information processing to knowledge creation: a paradigm shift in business management. Technology in society, 18(2), pp. 203–218. Piekkari, R., Welch, D.E., & Welch, L.S. (2014). Language in international business: The multinlingual reality of global business expansion. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Poncini, G. (2003). Multicultural business meetings and the role of languages other than English. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 24(1), pp. 17–32. Pratt, M.L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, pp. 33–40. Pullin, P. (2010). Small talk, rapport, and international communicative competence lessons to learn from BELF. Journal of Business Communication, 47(4), pp. 455–476. Pullin Stark, P. (2009). No joke—This is serious! Power, solidarity and humour in business English as a lingua franca (BELF). In Mauranen, A. & Ranta, E. (Eds.) English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 152–177 Seidlhofer, B. (2006). English as a lingua franca and communities of practice. In Volk-Birke, S. & Lippert, J. (Eds.) Anglistentag 2006 Halle proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, pp. 307–318 Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding ELF. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press.
320
26 ELF in social contexts Kaisa S. Pietikäinen
Introduction English as a lingua franca (ELF) is not only a language of international study, trade and research, but also to a great extent the chosen language of communication in social contexts such as in friendships, families and romantic relationships all over the world. So far, only a few studies have delved into ELF as it is used in maintaining long-lasting social relationships and constructing social identities in what could be described as the private social sphere; in friendships (see e.g., Kalocsai’s work on Erasmus Communities of Practice; Kalocsai 2009, 2011, 2014) and in romantic relationships and families (Gundacker 2010; Klötzl 2014; Pietikäinen 2012, 2014, 2016). This chapter investigates ELF in the social sphere, concentrating particularly on intimate, long-term relationships. I start with a literature review on multilingual practices in social ELF and discuss the progress from code-switching to a translanguaging practice that seems to develop in close relationships over time. Then I move on to describing the pragmatics of pre-empting misunderstandings in long-term ELF relationships, in order to offer a more complete understanding of the nature of ELF in social contexts. Lastly, I report on a previously unpublished investigation into the development of social identities linked to ELF that are formed in established intercultural relationships.
Code alternation in social ELF One of the earliest papers that investigated the use of multilingual resources in what could be described as social ELF was Pölzl (2003), which studied casual conversations from an international group of academics working abroad for a short time. Pölzl’s code-switching findings ranged from terms of address, toastings, greetings and blessings to other “culture-laden” (2003: 18) borrowings either from the speaker’s first language (L1) or from another language (Ln), often the matrix language of the host country. With the choice of embedding another language into ELF, Pölzl concluded, the speakers signalled courtesy and (desired) membership of either an L1 group or the emergent social group. In Kalocsai (2014), code-switching/ translanguaging conventions were explored in a similar context, “the Erasmus Family” (p. 78) formed by exchange students in Hungary. The members’ stay abroad typically 321
Kaisa S. Pietikäinen
lasted from one semester to a full academic year, during which this social group developed particular social conventions. Kalocsai noted that while English was used as the main language of the group, smaller friendship groups used other languages (e.g., the French would use French among themselves), although other group members often disapproved of this practice. In addition, code-switching (mostly to Hungarian) was used in connection with greeting, addressing, (teaching of) swear words, apologising, congratulating, thanking and in response tokens. Kalocsai analysed that the practice of ritual code-switching contributed to the building of a social, “fun-based community” (p. 122). In long-term romantic relationships where the main language is ELF, the pragmatics of code alternation were investigated in Pietikäinen (2012, 2014). Pietikäinen (2012) found that ELF couples code-switch for various interactional purposes, including: i) language demonstration, i.e., exhibiting particular Ln skills or teaching one’s own L1; ii) replacing or clarifying unfamiliar terms with corresponding items from L1 or Ln; iii) replacing “nontranslatables” (Pietikäinen 2014: 6), i.e., words that do not translate into English directly; iv) addressee specification, e.g., when talking to children; and v) message emphasis, to make a point. Most interestingly, though, Pietikäinen (2012) also noted that on some occasions ELF couples used Ln items without notable awareness of the actual switch from either interlocutor. In fact, Kalocsai (2014) made similar observations in Erasmus students: some of the ritual Hungarian practices became so internalised after a while, that the speakers were no longer aware of them. After they had left Hungary, they were surprised to hear themselves switch into Hungarian. In Pietikäinen (2014) this “automatic code-switching”, i.e., code alternation “unmarked by any signs of awareness of switching such as hesitation, hedging, or flagging from the speaker” (p. 9) and that seemed to pass unnoticed by either interlocutor, was studied in more detail. The conclusion was that because code alternation does not always seem to be a conscious choice, it cannot routinely be interpreted as deliberately indexical of the speaker’s identity, unlike suggested in Pölzl (2003). ELF couples were found to automatically switch short words such as response tokens/backchannels and question words, but also informationcarrying content words and place names (Pietikäinen 2014, 2015). It seems that initially, in forming intercultural social groups, ELF speakers code-switch and borrow culturally salient tokens that have, in addition to the semantic meaning of the item, some social significance in the switch itself, as in Pölzl (2003). In Kalocsai (2014), where the speakers frequently socialized over a longer period of time, the list of frequently code-switched items became relatively long and specific (see Kalocsai 2014: 122 for details), and even some automatic code-switching was observed, which indicates that the social significance of code alternation as such had diminished. However, the speakers’ code-switches were still based on ritual expressions learned in the community language (Hungarian), and other switches were mainly restricted to smaller groups sharing the same L1. Long-term ELF couples, on the other hand, alternate codes frequently, to the extent that they sometimes forget they are in fact doing so (Pietikäinen 2012, 2014, 2015). The code alternation practices of ELF couples resemble the translanguaging practices of bilingual families, where, according to García and Li Wei (2014), features from different languages are selected according to different social associations, but where mixing also occurs because translanguaging “signals fluid language practices, now often released, in the family intimacy, from the social external conventions that tie them to one or another ‘language’” (p. 23). Piller (2002: 135) argues that in the family environment, there “really is an option for individual language choice, much more so than in public and institutional contexts”. In the home, ELF couples can “let down the mental barriers” (GardnerChloros 1995: 71) between languages, at least to the extent they assume that their partner will understand (as not all intercultural couples learn each other’s L1s). Thus, ELF couples do not 322
ELF in social contexts
only go back and forth between two or more languages (as in code-switching), but are able to draw from the whole of their linguistic repertoires in order to achieve intersubjectivity (as in translanguaging) without having to restrict or hedge their production as much as in contexts where speakers are less familiar with each other. This progress from interactionally meaningful code-switching over time into frequent translanguaging practices resonates well with a theory previously developed in bilingual studies: Peter Auer (1998) sketches a possible continuum from interactionally meaningful code alternation (where the switch itself has particular communicative significance) into a mixed code (where languages/codes are mixed frequently, from the analyst’s perspective, although not necessarily from that of the speaker). Auer (1998) suggests that in the course of time, code alternation can develop into a mixed code through i) turn-internal, discourserelated switches; ii) recurrent borrowings (often of content words); iii) code-switching of discourse markers; and iv) “the emergence of a new structural division of linguistic labour between the elements originally taken from language A and those from language B”, i.e., the grammaticalisation or lexicalisation of code-alternation (pp. 16–20). Auer (1998) proposes that in this gradual process, as code alternations become more frequent, less discourse-related or social value is attached to the switch itself, and although the speakers are usually able to recognise the switches, their semantic value is bleached. In long-term ELF couples, speakers often switch because an item is more readily available in another language than English, not because the switch would have any particular cultural meaning (Klötzl 2014). We also see ELF couples using turn-internal discourse-related switches (such as replacing nontranslatables and message emphasis), borrowing content words, switching discourse markers and generally alternating codes frequently (Pietikäinen 2012, 2014, 2015). However, it is not an easy task to assess the extent to which ELF couple talk can be defined as a mixed code. Each couple has to be treated as their own micro-community with their own, constantly changing practices, and currently there is no available research on whether particular types of items are consistently mixed and if so, into which language, by whom, and what are the outlines of this lexicalisation. As Auer (1998: 16) admits, code-switching with signalling qualities often coexists with mixed code in (bilingual) conversation, so these two phenomena are difficult to separate. Nevertheless, the development of particular translanguaging practices in longterm ELF relationships certainly appears to offer interesting possibilities for further research and theorization in the ELF paradigm.
ELF couples and avoiding miscommunication Established ELF couples have often taken a greater risk for the maintenance of the relationship than those in same-culture relationships. One or both partners have typically immigrated to a new country, either before or after meeting their partner. According to she (2002), intercultural love relationships are widely portrayed as risky in the media and in much of sociological research, but in her research on German–English bilingual couples, she finds no evidence of these relationships being any more or less challenging than intracultural relationships. For ELF couples, however, the fact that both partners are compelled to use a lingua franca in order to understand each other may be a challenge. They may be more aware of the possibility of misunderstandings and of the burden that sustained misunderstandings would put on their relationship. Perhaps not so surprisingly then, long-term ELF couples have been found to apply specific strategies to pre-empt possible problems of understanding (Pietikäinen 2016). These strategies include: i) frequently applied, direct clarification questions (such as “what”, “who”) and minimal incomprehension tokens (e.g., “hm?”, “aah?”); 323
Kaisa S. Pietikäinen
ii) echoing of problematic utterances either verbatim (e.g., “it‘s the one you bought the first time” – “first time?”) or with detailing information (e.g., “in the U.S. – or in China?”); iii) mitigated paraphrases (e.g., “you mean X?”); iv) active self-repair of possibly problematic utterances in the form of clarifying, repeating or paraphrasing until a satisfactory confirmation of understanding is achieved; v) cooperative code-switching (into L1 or Ln); and vi) extra-linguistic means such as acting out, showing, and onomatopoeia (Pietikäinen 2016). Although corresponding pre-emptive strategies (apart from extra-linguistic means) have been identified in academic ELF contexts (see e.g., Kaur 2010; Mauranen 2006), ELF speakers in private settings seem to attach greater importance to the “right kind” of understanding and assign less significance to how exactly this is achieved or what kind of an image is conveyed of oneself in the process of trying to find out what exactly it was that the partner meant. Notably, co-construction of utterances, particularly collaborative completion, which was frequently displayed in Mauranen’s (2006) academic data, was applied less in ELF couple talk (Pietikäinen 2016), and other-repair in couple talk was also strongly dispreferred or cajoled. This highlights the contrast between institutional talk and private talk as discourse types: in seminar discussions, the senior faculty member as the most knowledgeable speaker is typically in charge, and it is socially accepted for him/her to initiate repair. In contemporary romantic relationships, on the other hand, the partners are in principle equal, and this was also noticeable in Pietikäinen (2016), where ELF partners commonly showed a high level of appreciation toward each other in their talk. Despite the generous range of pre-emptive measures from which both the hearer and the speaker can choose, sometimes ELF couples misunderstand too. Most of the misunderstandings identified in Pietikäinen (2016) were vagueness-induced: the speaker was not explicit enough and/or there was not enough situational support; hence the hearer drew a misinformed conclusion. A common reference point confusion concerned the object of talk (e.g., “Oh, that Maria”). Pietikäinen (2016) argues that this happens because the couples fall into the “common ground fallacy” (Mustajoki 2012) – they assume that the partner understands from fewer contextualization cues, because the partners already share so much knowledge.
Multilingual language identity in ELF couples In its early days, researchers typically treated ELF as culture-free; a language of communication that the speakers would be unlikely to identify with (e.g., House 1999, 2003; Meierkord 2002). Despite the body of research in ELF and identity gradually gaining more ground (see e.g., Baker 2015; Jenkins 2007; Sung 2014), some studies still assume ELF to be culturally neutral and “not a language in terms of which speakers define themselves” (House 2014: 364). Whether ELF is a language of identification is not, however, an issue of debate; it is a matter of context. When used only as a foreign language in limited circumstances such as in ordering dinner at a restaurant, ELF hardly engages a large proportion of a tourist’s language identity. But for the waiter whose professional identity is to a great extent built on how smoothly he manages to fawn on the restaurant-goers, ELF is a matter of professional identity. And for the couple in the corner table whose 10-year marriage has almost entirely been constructed in ELF, it certainly has more importance than as a mere tool of communication. It is common to assume that a person’s L1 is their main language of identification, but the facets of a multilingual identity are in a constant process of development; they can be multiple, “mongrel”, and even contradicting (Fuller 2013: 36). As a rough vignette of this, I will share the personal linguistic history of one of the respondents in the interview study analysed 324
ELF in social contexts
below. Jan1 grew up monolingually in the Netherlands, learned English, German and French at school, moved to Finland to work, met his wife and started learning Finnish. During the nearly 20 years of living in Finland, he has immersed himself into the Finnish culture, but he is still not “at home” with speaking Finnish. He uses Dutch, English, German and Finnish in his professional life, English mixed with Finnish with his wife and Dutch with his children and his own parents. He has friends with whom he uses one language only, and friends with whom he mixes languages. The whole landscape of his identity is built with and upon all of these languages, drawing from diverse cultures and experiences. All polyglots have their own histories where different languages are interwoven with particular phases, contexts and social circles. In order to study ELF as a part of the multilingual identity, one has to attempt to take all these multiple, layered and changing dimensions into consideration. My understanding of identity arises from the social constructionist perspective of conversation analysis, where local membership categories are assumed and rejected as part of interactional work (Antaki 2013), but I also acknowledge individuals’ narratives as producing meaning through constructing and reconstructing reality (as in Burck 2005: 23–25; Pavlenko and Blackledge 2004: 14). The analysis of ELF couples’ language identities to which we now turn, attempts to answer the following questions: How do ELF couples conceive of living a life in several languages and using primarily a L2 with their spouse? What meanings are given to the language(s) they use in their relationship and to the cultural factors that influence their shared reality? And how do others perceive their choice (of language and partner), as the couples have experienced it? For this inquiry, I interviewed six established ELF couples in their homes in the UK, Finland and Norway. “Established” here refers to the couples’ commitment to the relationship; each of the couples had been together over 3 years (3–17 years to be exact) and were living together at the time of the interviews. Three couples were married, two had children and one couple was expecting their first child. The couples were asked loosely structured questions of their relationship history, language practices, and issues and resources relating to their cultural and linguistic circumstances (for an overview of the interview questions, see Pietikäinen 2014: Appendix 1). All interview situations were informal, and the questions were not followed strictly; their role was only in providing topics for the couples to discuss freely. The total of 9 hours and 9 minutes of voice recordings were then analysed using both conversation analysis and content analysis. The transcriptions exhibited below have been simplified for readability, and all names have been changed. Language choice and identification with English The question of who speaks which language to whom, where and when, is a complex, identityrelated issue that often has no straightforward answer when it comes to multilingual speakers (see e.g., Maryns 2012). For ELF couples, however, the choice of English as the predominant language of couple talk is commonly dictated by necessity. English, being the most widely spread foreign language, is often the only or most fluent language the couple share in the beginning of the relationship, so they are compelled to get to know each other in English. This was the case with all but one of the interviewed couples; one couple had started with “French and sign”, but shifted to English during their first year together. Changing the couple tongue is an issue that all the couples had contemplated on, but despite the fact that most of the partners had learned to speak each other’s L1 to some extent, they were reluctant to change the couple tongue: they all considered English to be easy, and it was found more arduous to change the predominant couple tongue, as described by one of the interviewees: 325
Kaisa S. Pietikäinen
You start speaking a certain language to a certain person. It’s very difficult to change. (Päivi, Finnish; Dutch spouse; living in Finland) Piller (2002) has suggested that the difficulty of changing from the first couple tongue to another may be explained by “the close relationship between language and the performance of identity” (p. 137). ELF couples have become familiar with each other in English, their couple identity has mostly been constructed, negotiated and nurtured in English, and so their couple identity is inextricably, although perhaps unintentionally, tied to the English language, regardless of what the individuals’ other languages of identification may be: I know [my husband] as an English-speaking person, or Icelandic. Those are the two strongest ones. (Kirsi, Finnish; Icelandic spouse; living in Norway) Yeah English, e- English is our language – to extense [sic]. But Finnish, I can even sometime take the telephone, make some joke yeah mitä kuuluu? (Bouba, Senegalese; Finnish spouse; living in Finland; “mitä kuuluu” means “how are you” in Finnish) Many of the participants also identified with English outside the home domain: some had English as their working language, and for those living in the UK, English had a major role as the main community language. English was also seen as more equal than either of the partners’ L1s, as sarcastically remarked here2: We have been speaking English together, [it] is the fairest situation, because it’s not your eh native language and not the other one’s either so you’re at, equally handicapped. (Jan, Dutch; Finnish spouse, living in Finland) As English was overall seen as a part of the couples’ lives, and continuing with English as the main couple language was seen as the easiest choice, changing the couples’ linguistic practices would require substantial motivation and a valid reason. Interestingly, the couples seemed to assess that a valid enough reason would be to practice their skills in another language (i.e., the community language or one partner’s L1). For those living in Finland or Norway, however, this was not presently considered a viable choice, either because the partners already mastered the community language and hence did not need more practice, or because they did not feel fluent enough to go through with such a dramatic change. However, these couples were open for changing the couple tongue in the future. Of the three couples living in the UK, two said that they were unable to adopt either partner’s L1 as the couple tongue because of inadequate language skills, and one reported that they wished to maintain their high level of English and were therefore reluctant to change the home language. None of the six couples described any kind of judgement of their couple tongue from their families, but the same could not always be said of friends or acquaintances. The Finnish– Icelandic couple shared an insightful experience: When we lived in Denmark, for example, my boss was saying that you have to speak Danish which is- which-, with each other because you live in Denmark. And then people think that because we moved to Norway that we speak Norwegian together, but it doesn’t really go like that necessarily. (Kirsi, Finnish; Icelandic spouse; living in Norway) 326
ELF in social contexts
The proclamation from Kirsi’s employer; “you have to speak Danish” (despite being disguised as humour) undermined the couple’s authority to decide on their own language practices and reflected the underlying expectations for immigrants to emulate the language norms of the host country – although they may be completely irrelevant and impractical for ELF couples. ELF couples have constructed their relationship using predominantly English, and in this process English has become a part of their identity as a couple. It is their private English which they have negotiated and moulded to fit their needs, and to which they identify as a couple, as embellished in Kirsi’s summary: Even though I speak fluent Danish it wasn’t about that, but it was just, nei, I don’t, we’re [an] English-speaking couple. (Kirsi, Finnish; Icelandic spouse; living in Norway; “nei” stands for “no” in Norwegian/Danish/Swedish/Icelandic) Multilingualism in principle and practice Although all the interviewed couples identified themselves as English-speaking couples, there is, however, a potential discrepancy between what speakers identify as, and what their language practices actually are. As an example, when recruiting intercultural couples who “speak mainly English” (as written in the recruitment announcement) in 2013, I had to exclude two couples from my data, as it turned out that one of them actually spoke Spanish and the other Hindi, and both couples only rarely switched into English. The six interviewed couples spoke mainly English together, but multilingualism and “internationalism” were generally described as a part of the speakers’ individual identities; in family backgrounds, work identities, or as a general way of life, even from the time preceding the relationship: We were both very international from the start, so to say. Both have foreign friends and I have been like going to congresses abroad and have a lot of contacts and was working with foreigners. (Päivi, Finnish; Dutch spouse, living in Finland) All of the couples mentioned that they resorted to other languages occasionally, typically to one or both partners’ first languages, but also to the dominant community language (other than English). The couples claimed that they mainly code-switched “for fun”, for terms of endearment, and for clarification purposes. Code-switching was generally reported as intra-sentential: We use some words, Luxembourgish words or Mandarin words while we speak English, in between. (Elisa, Luxembourgish; Malaysian spouse; living in the UK) Even though our English is not perfect but we understand each other and, and we can always, if it’s about a word then we just take another language word from another language. (Kirsi, Finnish; Icelandic spouse; living in Norway) Switching languages and borrowing expressions from L1/Ln was treated as “no biggie”, as something normal and ordinary, and this may be difficult for outsiders to fathom, as depicted below: 327
Kaisa S. Pietikäinen
When I talk English, [my friends] say: how can your wife understand? Because I can speak English and my mother’s language [at the] same time. (Bouba, Senegalese; Finnish spouse; living in Finland) However, translanguaging is not something ELF couples can do freely even when they are alone. For example, by switching into his L1, a husband might risk excluding his wife from the conversation if her command of his L1 is limited, and vice versa. Some cultural connotations can also easily be misinterpreted and therefore, as Klötzl (2014) argues, in incorporating other codes into their talk, ELF couples have to negotiate both the accessibility and appropriateness of these. As noted in Pietikäinen (2014), ELF couples seem to have a positive stance toward incorporating L1/Ln items into their ELF as long as understanding is not jeopardised, and according to Klötzl the same applies to cultural concepts, as long as the couples manage to create their “shared affective territory” (Klötzl 2014: 45). It is then up to the couples themselves how multilingual “their English” will become like. Parallel and contesting cultural dimensions In ELF couples, the partners come from different language and cultural backgrounds. They belong to different cultural groups related to their nationality, first languages, possibly occupation and gender. Often these groups are mutually exclusive: the partners cannot relate to each other by e.g., reminiscing similar experiences from their childhood such as watching the same cartoon show or playing with the same toys. Instead, they have endless possibilities for comparing their individual experiences in different cultures, as reported by the interviewees. In involving each other in this way, they can enforce their intimate bond. They create a joint cultural in-group through sharing experiences, developing own traditions and negotiating values and practices. Although most of this is performed in English, their English has little to do with cultural associations attached to L1 English. Instead, ELF couples co-create their English, which they refill with their own in-group cultural meanings (Klötzl 2014). Of course, this is not an entirely unproblematic process; the interviewed couples did admit that some nuances and implications of some English words were occasionally interpreted differently by the spouses, but more so in the beginning of the relationship than later on. There were three distinct ways in which the couples treated the cultural differences seemingly attached to their national cultures: 1 Three couples acknowledged that they had so-called cultural differences, but these differences were rather connected to differences in the partners’ personalities, family backgrounds or genders, than to national cultures. 2 Two couples asserted that they noticed no or very small cultural differences between them; they had created their own couple culture. One of these couples reported that their national cultures were very alike to begin with (Finnish and Icelandic), and that they were both middle children from very similar families, which made their personalities similar. The second couple positioned their different national cultures (Luxembourgish and Malaysian) secondary, whereas their shared religion and core values were seen as a highly important, unifying force. 3 Only the Finnish-Senegalese couple reported having strong cultural differences, which were directly attributed to the national cultures that they identified with. They found stark contrasts between Finnish independence and demand for personal space compared to 328
ELF in social contexts
Senegalese communality, gender roles in these two countries (gender equality/traditional gender roles), and the predominant religions (Christianity/Islam). This was also the only couple who reported experiencing outright racism from their host community. Despite all this, the couple emphasised their ability to compromise to overcome cultural differences within their family. Although all ELF couples were more or less satisfied with their own in-group culture, cultural clashes typically occurred in the borderline space with other cultural groups. For example, cultural differences were commonly experienced during visits to the extended family: I don’t really notice cultural differences between us, but I notice it when we visit our families. (Elisa, Luxembourgish; Malaysian spouse; living in the UK) Although a couple may be completely at ease with the cocktail of cultures and languages between themselves, they may face troubles in social situations where meanings are not as easily conveyed and where one partner has to act as an interpreter between languages and/or as a mediator between cultures. This was experienced as very straining. Even if the extended family or friends understand English, they may not understand the couple when they talk to each other: Other people might struggle a bit understanding our English, because we’ve spoken together English so much, just the two of us. (Loftur, Icelandic; Finnish spouse; living in Norway) ELF couples’ Englishes include expressions related to the couple culture that only that particular couple share privately. Although the cultural references introduced into the couple tongue may originate in L1-related cultures and operate on two parallel levels (within the couplehood and in an L1 context), the couple culture is not a sum of each partner’s individual cultures merged together in English, but a jointly constructed development negotiated privately in the course of time.
Conclusion In this chapter, ELF has been examined as it is used and identified within social contexts, particularly in long-term intercultural relationships. First, code alternation practices were compared from short-term social contexts in Pölzl (2003), to a maximum of one-year’s friendship groups in Kalocsai (2014) and further to intimate relationships of 3–17 years in Pietikäinen (2012, 2014, 2015). In this comparison, a line of development can be detected from culture-related borrowings and code-switched ceremonial expressions (short term) through ritualization of community-constructing code-switching (mid term) into the frequent translanguaging in intimate (long-term) relationships that seemed to have various interactional purposes, but that also appeared automatically. These observations were then set against theories from bilingualism studies, and it was concluded that, although more research still needs to be done in order to determine to what extent any given social ELF code developed over time can be declared a mixed code, it is apparent that ELF speakers in regular social contact let their guards down when it comes to translanguaging and develop shared multilingual practices over the years. 329
Kaisa S. Pietikäinen
A similar flexible outlook seems to be applied to the pragmatics of achieving intelligibility in ELF in social contexts. As it is pivotal for the sustainability of a relationship that speakers are able to avoid and quickly repair any misunderstandings, ELF couples seem to choose whatever strategies are available, as long as sufficiently accurate understanding is achieved and mutual appreciation is maintained (Pietikäinen 2016). For example, self-repair, cooperative code-switching and even acting out and onomatopoeia are used in making oneself understood, whereas the hearer readily signals any unclear items by echoing or with mitigated paraphrases, minimal incomprehension tokens and direct clarification questions, which, in more formal contexts, could be interpreted as face-threatening. Despite the interactional work ELF speakers in intimate settings do, the fact that they already know each other has a downside too: misunderstandings are not completely avoided because the speakers expect to understand each other easier, and thus sometimes fail to provide sufficient contextualization cues. The last section of this chapter offered a brief analysis of ELF couples’ identities as they unfolded in interview-induced narratives. The couples identified as “English-speaking couples”, but all had at least considered changing the couple tongue. Generally, however, changing the existing practice was found too challenging – the partners had learned to know each other in English, using English was effortless for them, and a fairer choice than either L1. Yet, other languages were recognised as a resource used in, e.g., clarifying and expressing caring. The individuals in ELF relationships admitted to being bi-/multilinguals and somewhat “international” even before meeting their spouses. Any cultural differences the couples reported were dealt with in distinctive ways: by associating their differences to other factors than national culture, by stressing similarities and the shared culture, and by emphasising their ability to compromise. Problems principally only arose in social situations where language practices needed to be mediated to accommodate all participants. Overall, the analysis illuminates that the “ELF couple identity” is not a sum of individual ELF identities. Each partner has their mutually exclusive and parallel social spaces, and the interplay of these has to be negotiated in different contexts and over time. The languages they use in this negotiation process become meaningful as vital elements of their shared practice. Although more research into ELF in social contexts is required, it is evident that in close relationships, a lingua franca is sculpted to meet the needs of that particular (micro-) social community, and that time is required for this development to take place.
Notes 1 All names of the participants have been changed. 2 Underlining in the transcripts throughout the chapter mark prosodic emphasis in the participants’ utterances.
Related chapters in this handbook 3 Ehrenreich, Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca 17 Cogo and House, The pragmatics of ELF 29 Cogo, ELF and multilingualism
Further reading Klötzl, S. (2014). “Maybe just things we grew up with”: linguistic and cultural hybridity in ELF couple talk. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(1), pp. 27–48. Pietikäinen, K.S. (2014). ELF couples and automatic code-switching. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(1), pp. 1–26. 330
ELF in social contexts
Pietikäinen, K.S. (2016). Misunderstandings and ensuring understanding in private ELF talk. Applied Linguistics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw005 Piller, I. (2002). Bilingual Couples Talk: The Discursive Construction of Hybridity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
References Antaki, C. (2013). Conversation analysis and identity in interaction. In: C.A. Chapelle, ed., The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. London: Blackwell, pp. 1–5. Auer, P. (1998). Introduction: Bilingual conversation revisited. In: P. Auer, ed., Code-Switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity. London: Routledge. pp. 1–24. Baker, W. (2015). Culture and Identity through English as a Lingua Franca. Hawthorne, NY: De Gruyter Mouton. Burck, C. (2005). Multilingual Living: Explorations of Language and Subjectivity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Fuller, J.M. (2013). Made in Berlin: Bilingualism and identity among immigrant and Germanbackground children. In: I. DuBois and N. Baumgarten, eds, Multilingual Identities: New Global Perspectives. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 35–50. García, O. and Li Wei (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gardner-Chloros, P. (1995). Code-switching in community, regional and national repertoires: the myth of the discreteness of linguistic systems. In: L. Milroy and P. Muysken, eds, One Speaker, Two Languages: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Code-Switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 68–89. Gundacker, J. (2010). English as a Lingua Franca Between Couples: Motivations and Limitations. Saarbrücken: Verlag Dr. Müller. House, J. (1999). Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in English as lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility. In: C. Gnutzmann, ed., Teaching and learning English as a Global Language: Native and Non-native Perspectives. Tübingen: Stauffenberg, pp. 73–89. House, J. (2003). English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(4), pp. 556–578. House, J. (2014). English as a global lingua franca: A threat to multilingual communication and translation? Language Teaching 47(3), pp. 363–376. Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kalocsai, K. (2009). Erasmus exchange students: A behind-the-scenes view into an ELF community of practice. Apples: Journal of Applied Language Studies 3(1), pp. 25–49. Kalocsai, K. (2011). The show of interpersonal involvement and the building of rapport in an ELF community of practice. In: A. Archibald, A. Cogo and J. Jenkins, eds, Latest Trends in ELF Research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 113–138. Kalocsai, K. (2014). Communities of Practice and English as a Lingua Franca: A Study of Students in a Central European Context. Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton. Kaur, J. (2010). Pre-empting problems of understanding in English as a lingua franca. In: A. Mauranen and E. Ranta, eds, English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 107–123. Klötzl, S. (2014). “Maybe just things we grew up with”: linguistic and cultural hybridity in ELF couple talk. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(1), pp. 27–48. Maryns, K. (2012). Multilingualism in legal settings. In: M. Marion-Jones, A. Blackledge and A. Creese, eds, The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. London: Routledge, pp. 297–313. Mauranen, A. (2006). Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177, pp. 123–150. Meierkord, C. (2002). “Language stripped bare” or “linguistic masala”? Culture in lingua franca communication. In: K. Knapp and C. Meierkord, eds, Lingua franca communication. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 109–133. Mustajoki, A. (2012). A speaker-oriented multidimensional approach to risks and causes of miscommunication. Language and Dialogue 2(2), pp. 216–243. 331
Kaisa S. Pietikäinen
Pavlenko, A. and Blackledge, A. (2004). Introduction: New theoretical approaches to the study of negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. In: A. Pavlenko and A. Blackledge, eds, Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 1–29. Pietikäinen, K.S. (2012). English as a lingua franca couples in interview: Code-switching stimuli. MA thesis, Newcastle University. Pietikäinen, K.S. (2014). ELF couples and automatic code-switching. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(1), pp. 1–26. Pietikäinen, K.S. (2015) “English is our language, to extense”: Multilingual practices and language identity in established ELF relationships. Paper presented at Changing English, 8–10 June 2015. University of Helsinki. Pietikäinen, K.S. (2016). Misunderstandings and ensuring understanding in private ELF talk. Applied Linguistics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw005. Piller, I. (2002). Bilingual Couples Talk: The Discursive Construction of Hybridity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pölzl, U. (2003). Signalling cultural identity: the use of L1/Ln in ELF. Vienna English Working Papers, 12(2), pp. 3–23. Sung, C.C.M. (2014). Accent and identity: exploring the perceptions among bilingual speakers of English as a lingua franca in Hong Kong. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 17(5), pp. 544–557.
332
27 Humour in ELF interaction A powerful, multifunctional resource in relational practice Patricia Pullin
Introduction Humour would appear to be a universal and multifunctional phenomenon intrinsic to human interaction and is studied in a wide range of disciplines in addition to linguistics, for example psychology, sociology and philosophy (Dynel, 2011). Within the field of linguistic pragmatics, a number of researchers have investigated humour in native-speaker discourse (e.g. Coates, 2007; Hay, 2000; Holmes, 2000, 2006; Holmes and Marra, 2002, 2004; Norrick, 2003; Pullin, 2011) and in native speaker/non-native speaker interaction (Rogerson-Revell, 2007). However, to date humour in English as a lingua franca (ELF) has, with some notable exceptions (Gotti, 2014; Matsumoto, 2014; Pullin Stark, 2009; Walkinshaw, 2016; Walkinshaw and Kirkpatrick, 2014), received less attention. Yet, in ELF, as this chapter aims to illustrate, humour proves to be a powerful resource in achieving professional and academic goals, while nurturing, maintaining and addressing relational issues. The focus of this chapter is on the use of humour in professional (business) and academic settings, its conjoint (Holmes, 2006) or jointly constructed nature, and its role as an aspect of ‘relational practice’ or ‘rapport’ (Holmes and Marra, 2004; Spencer-Oatey, 2009), which concerns the way interlocutors negotiate, build and maintain interpersonal relations in situ. I will consider functions of humour and relational work and discuss a number of examples of interactional humour in contexts where ELF is used, illustrating different functions and types of humour and its co-constructed nature. Finally, in concluding, I will reflect on key features of humour and relational work in ELF.
Humour and relational work Humour is a way of projecting or interpreting talk and has been defined as a ‘competence’ (Attardo, 1994). In this chapter, the focus is not on jokes, which can be defined as humorous scripted stories following a generic formula that is often culturally based, but on humour as a dynamic, multifunctional and emergent phenomenon that serves in helping to build and maintain relations. The notion of relational practice or work derives from politeness theory (Brown and Levinson, 1987). Holmes and Marra (2004, p. 377) use the term relational practice to 333
Patricia Pullin
encompass a wide range of supportive and collaborative work that helps nurture relationships in the workplace. This is similar to the notion of rapport and rapport management, which covers any behaviour that has an impact on interpersonal relations, be it positive, negative or neutral (Spencer-Oatey and Franklin, 2009). Locher (2004, p. 322) notes the central importance of facework in relational work and defines relational work as, ‘the process of shaping relationships in interaction by taking face into consideration’. Brown and Levinson’s (1987) conceptualization of face as ‘positive face’ being the need to feel valued and respected and ‘negative face’ relating to the need for autonomy are of particular relevance in relation to goal-related interaction in institutional settings. The issues of humour and face have been addressed by Walkinshaw and Kirkpatrick (2014) in ELF. The multifunctional nature of humour has been underlined by a number of researchers (e.g. Hay, 2000; Holmes, 2000; Matsumoto, 2014; Walkinshaw and Kirkpatrick, 2014 specifically on ELF). For example, humour can help in bonding and nurturing solidarity, in reducing tension and in mitigating, wielding or contesting power. It can also help in coping with difficult situations (Holmes and Stubbe, 2003). Hay (2000) outlines three basic functions of humour, which she defines as: solidarity-based, power-based and psychological, and notes that humour ‘reflects and affects group dynamics’ (Hay, 2000, p. 710). The notion of solidarity is important in relational work and can be related to face, while power is present in most institutional settings. Psychological functions of humour can also be related to face, ‘coping’, for example, with difficult or sensitive issues, or ‘defending’ oneself in the case of criticism, as the examples in the next section illustrate. Holmes and Marra (2002) differentiate between ‘supportive’ and ‘contestive’ humour. In their terms: ‘supportive humour agrees with, adds to, elaborates or strengthens the propositions or arguments of previous contribution(s) . . . and contestive humour, by contrast, challenges, disagrees with or undermines the propositions or arguments put forward in earlier contributions’ (Holmes and Marra, 2002, p. 1687). Holmes (2000) also alludes to ‘repressive humour’, which can involve subtle or less subtle control or criticism by superiors, while contestive humour can be used by people to challenge their superiors. In the next section, I look at specific examples of humour in context and analyse them in relation to their functions and also the types of humour.
Interactional humour in context Dynel (2011: 4) defines humour in interaction as ‘humour relevantly interwoven into conversations, both spoken and written, whether private, institutional or mediated’. Holmes (2006) refers to ‘conjoint humour’ in which the instances of humour are developed over a number of turns, collaboratively. I refer to this as interactional humour (Pullin, 2011). The examples analysed below are instances of authentic interactions recorded in situ in academic and corporate settings (see Table 27.1). The examples from the corporate context were included in Pullin Stark (2009). They illustrate the multifunctional nature of humour, its emergent and dynamic nature, and the strategic role of humour plays in relational work. The examples are organised in the three broad categories identified by Hay (2000), i.e. solidarity-based, power-based and psychological, although there is frequent overlap between the categories and the framework has been adapted to institutional discourse as Hay’s original analyses were based on causal conversation. The examples also illustrate a number of different types of humour, for instance teasing or sarcasm. In the corpus, humour was identified following Holmes (2000 p. 163): ‘Humorous utterances are those identified by the analyst, on the basis of paralinguistic, prosodic and 334
Humour in ELF interaction Table 27.1 Contexts of examples of humour in authentic interactions Context
Speakers
First language
Other languages
Role
International import/export company in the French-speaking part of Switzerland (CHB_F2 on a short visit to the company from Middle Eastern office)
BM1
SwissGerman
French German
Senior regional manager
BF1
French
Swiss-German German
Account assistant
BF2
Armenian
BM2
Portuguese
French
BM3
Rumanian
French
SM1 SM2 CM1 CF1
French French Chinese Chinese
German German
BE1
French
German plus notions of Danish, Egyptian Arabic and Italian
International Sino-Swiss Summer University (SSSU) University of Applied Sciences Frenchspeaking part of Switzerland Interdisciplinary course for business students and engineers on Innovation (BE) University of Applied Sciences Frenchspeaking part of Switzerland
Regional manager (middle East) IT specialist Manager’s assistant Student Student Student Student Student
discoursal clues, as intended by the speaker(s) to be amusing and perceived to be amusing at least by some participants’. Laughter may or may not be present when humour occurs, although it frequently is, and Attardo (1994) points out that in laughing together about something, speakers share a degree of ‘affinity’, which can support bonding. Adelswärd (1989) also relates laughter to rapport and a reflection of common ground. Walkinshaw and Kirkpatrick (2014) noted the frequency of laughter in ELF discourse. Solidarity-based humour Building and nurturing relationships involves creating and maintaining solidarity. Solidarity can be expressed through a number of forms of humour. One form, illustrated in Example 1 below, is through sharing personal information, which can help to build both solidarity and trust (Hay, 2000; Holmes and Marra, 2004). In sharing information that is humorous, speakers get to know each other better while contributing to the creation of an informal, relaxed atmosphere, which can help them to bond. This is the case in Example 1, which was drawn from an ice-breaking exercise set up by the lecturers in the first session of a new interdisciplinary course on innovation, involving business students and engineers. The aim of the activity was specifically to help the group to bond and to create a learner-friendly environment. In his study of EMI lectures in Italy, Gotti (2014 p. 354) noted the role of humour in helping to create a ‘relaxed and cooperative setting so that students can actively participate in the lesson and fully profit from it’. In this activity, each person, including the lecturers, had to provide information on themselves (a secret, a quality and a weakness). The anecdote 335
Patricia Pullin
analysed here provoked much laughter and was referred back to jokingly later in the session (transcription conventions are located in the appendix to this chapter (p. 342)). Example 1: Interdisciplinary innovation course – ice-breaking activity 1 BE_F 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I’m () a business student () is my nickname my it’s the way my parents call me at home it’s Arabic its mean pamper ((laughter)) my secret is ((laughs)) not that I’m () ((looks at the student whose turn was just before her)) I wrote I peed while being on stage twice ((laughter)) um yeah that’s quite something when I’m on stage it was like for a kids show and I guess I was stressed ((laughs)) uh () I was in a kindergarten but actually () being on stage right now ((laughter)) the second time was in (country) and it was () in front of the king and thousands of people {.hhh} so yeah I peed in front of king ((laughter))
In this example, the student first gave information about her name and her discipline and also her nickname. She then led into her ‘secret’, which in fact involved peeing in public on two occasions. The first instance made everyone laugh, while the royal context seemed to evoke shocked surprise as participants could be heard to catch their breaths before the laughter broke out. In fact, we learn a lot more about the student in the example than just that she peed in public. Tannen (1993) argues that in most everyday conversation there is constant realignment between participants and that this involves identity display and/or the negotiation of relational identity with others and through others. In this instance, we learn that she is multilingual and probably comes from a well-off family. In addition, her style in telling the story implies that she is an outgoing person with a good sense of humour and can laugh at herself. Interestingly, the student also seems to be a good storyteller as she rounds the story off with repetition, saying ‘so yeah I peed I front of the king’. Chafe (1982, p. 45) refers to speakers enriching their discourse through ‘experiential involvement’ or details of real experiences. Similarly, Tannen (1989, p. 12) views involvement as ‘an internal, even emotional connection individuals feel which binds them to other people’, but also as ‘an achievement in conversational interaction’, with the telling of stories as an ‘involvement strategy’ that nurtures rapport. Hay (2000) points out that sharing sensitive information can also indicate a speaker’s trust of the audience. Thus sharing a humorous anecdote can function well in helping to create a relaxed atmosphere, helping people to get to know each other and bond. Finally, humour, in such instances can also reflect a person’s communication style. Tannen (1984, p.132) claims that, ‘One of the most distinctive aspects of any person’s style is the use of humor’. Communication styles sometimes clash, but this student’s style seemed to have a positive impact on the atmosphere and relations in the group. Another form of humour that can build solidarity and rapport is teasing. Teasing can, of course, also be antagonistic, but in the data sets analysed here there were no negative examples of teasing. In analysing informal exchanges in Asian contexts, Walkinshaw (2016, p. 265) also found that teasing ‘tends to orient to solidarity and consensus more than to conflict’. Example 2 illustrates an instance of teasing that arose spontaneously from the context. Example 2: Sino-Swiss Summer University (SSSU). The Swiss students are helping the Chinese students to set up Dropbox accounts 1 SM2 I think you have to check your number ((reference to Dropbox)) 2 CF no it’s my phone number 336
Humour in ELF interaction
3 SM2 4 CF 5 SM2 6 SM1 7
it’s your phone number ((mildly flirtatious)) yeah ((smile)) okay I will have your phone number ((laughter)) () very happy now great okay so I start with a short presentation of the company so we were founded in 2009 ((continued with this))
Boxer and Cortés-Conde (1997) suggest that teasing can function in creating new relationships and strengthening or weakening existing relationships. In this instance, although early in the Summer University, the students had spent enough time together to be able to use the language playfully without risk of face threat. SM2’s tone and smiles in line 3 showed that he was teasing rather than being serious, as did his remark ‘very happy now’ in line 5. The Chinese student smiled fleetingly and slightly coyly, showing she understood the humour, but then got on with the job. This also indicated that she took it as teasing, rather than serious flirting, which could have been offensive. This fleeting instance of humour reflects the ability of EFL users to use the language in subtle ways. It works in ELF as it is based on a universal phenomenon, i.e. flirting, and as such reflects humour that does not need to be based on particular cultural knowledge. However, flirting in ELF can also be ambiguous, as shown by Matsumoto (2014). The following example is an example of interactional or co-constructed humour, in which solidarity is reinforced by creating an in-group among the speakers and an out-group of absent others. Boxer and Cortés-Conde (1997, p. 283) argue insightfully that joking at the expense of absent others allows speakers to affirm and reaffirm relationships, and yet remain vague about the specific nature of these relationships. They maintain that: Bonding against others perceived as different allows us to become a unit without having to define what we are for each other. What makes us part of an in-group is having in common an ‘out/group’ … there is identity display through reducing the ‘others’ to some laughable characterization that makes them different from us. The need to identify common ground and identity is important in the workplace although keeping the relationship vague can also help when tension is high, as is the case here. Example 3: Corporate context – discussing problems with difficult clients who push them to process orders quickly 1 BM1 2 3 BF2 4 BM1 5 6 7 8 BF2 9 BM1 10 BF1 11 BM1 12 BF2 13
they push you know {()} they send you today the order and tomorrow you get the first phone call yeah for example you know Mr A. well yeah {yeah} he’s but okay uh yes I know I mean they are they screw pressure on our {I know} and you know they talk not very nicely because this is a woman ((mimicking an angry voice)) () I sent (), and you told me you will, no okay () okay no problem ()= you have to be tough with them tell them to call me ((laughter)) I wouldn’t mind I wouldn’t mind eh ((loudly – joking tone)) they are very very interested to talk with you ((some overlap and lack of clarity)) 337
Patricia Pullin
14 BF1 15 16 17 18 BM1
since I had () before you know ((country)) when they are calling () ((further imitation of an angry voice)) Mr General Manager, Mr General Manager, ((name)) () not satisfied= ((much laughter)) ((imitating an angry voice)) what are you thinking ((laughter))
In this example of interactional humour one turn flows into the next, as in line 3, where SF2 quickly provides a concrete example of the type of client the manager is referring to, indicating that they are insiders and have common ground in terms of the problems they face. The co-constructed nature of the humour (Coates, 2007; Davies, 2003; Pullin, 2011) is further exemplified in the way the speakers mimic the client in lines 7 and 18–19. Production is shared between the three speakers as they play the role of the angry client, mimicking his voice. Holmes (2006: 33) notes that in such jointly constructed humour sequences: ‘People extend and build on one another’s humorous comments [. . .] the process is generative or circular, since this kind of humor constructs and contributes to the solidarity of a group’. There also appear to be several levels of humorous meaning operating within this except. The manager has made the point, in lines 5 and 6, that the clients in question tend to lack respect towards women, ‘they talk not very nicely because this is a woman’, and in line 9, perhaps showing his solidarity to the women in the group and adds ’you have to be tough with them’. BF1 responds in the following line suggesting he tell them to call her. BF2’s swift repartee in lines 12 and 13 saying ‘they are very very interested to talk with you’ also implies sexual innuendo, as in Example 2, and irony in that the male clients who treat women with a lack of respect nevertheless find them attractive. Bonding through collaborative, interactional humour, in this case at the expense of absent others, is one means of creating common ground that relates to their professional goals and hence reinforces group cohesion, rather than allowing differences to divide them. It is interesting to note how successful they are as speakers of English as a lingua franca in using humour strategically and collaboratively. Finally, the multifunctional nature of humour is also apparent in that this short interlude from goal-related activities allows the release of tension and the opportunity to get things into perspective. The considerable hearty laughter would appear to confirm this. The example also illustrates the fact that humour in the workplace, as a form of relational talk, tends to be interwoven into transactional talk (Holmes, 2000), in contrast to less formal settings where it may be the core of the discourse (Coates, 2007). Power-based humour Whereas in the two examples above, the students were working as equals and power relations were not involved, Examples 4 and 5 from a corporate setting involve interfaces between power and humour as one of the senior managers was often present. Example 3 illustrates the way a boss can mitigate his or her power through the use of humour, while also supporting a member of staff and avoiding face threat. Example 4: Corporate meeting – discussion between the manager (boss) and an IT specialist 1 BM1 we will not talk Portuguese as I normally do with you ((laughter)) 2 I will talk French () we go in English () 3 BM2 () speak English yes (..) it’s recorded? 338
Humour in ELF interaction
4 BM1 only if you agree (..) if not= 5 BM2 =I can agree now it’s ((laughter)) okay 6 BM1 no it’s okay you know it’s recorded to work how we do it The IT specialist had not been told of the researcher’s presence at the meeting and the fact that the meeting was to be held in English. The manager uses humour to overcome any surprise or fear the IT specialist might feel. In lines 1 and 2, he jokingly says ‘we will not talk Portuguese as I normally do with you’. This is a joke as the manager doesn’t speak Portuguese, their usual language of communication is French, but it does reflect the multilingual nature of ELF users and their flexibility in switching from one language to another. Nevertheless, in line 3, the IT specialist, having spotted the recorder, appears to be apprehensive. In his role as boss, the manager deftly offers the opportunity to decline saying, ‘only if you agree’. Humour thus functions here in releasing tension, which may be reflected in the belated laughter at the joke, and face protection by offering the opportunity not to do the meeting in English (line 4). However, before the Manager as finished speaking in line 5, there is latched speech as the IT specialist says ‘I can agree now’. Latched speech can reflect convergence and in converging with his boss, the IT specialist expresses solidarity. The manager has also mitigated his power by using humour to deal with the language change, rather than simply issuing a directive. In Example 5, however, the use of power is expressed through sarcasm and serves to set or reset boundaries concerning behaviour. As such, it can be viewed as repressive humour (Holmes and Marra, 2002). Example 5: Intervention by the manager following conflict that took place when he was not with the team 1 BM1 can I have this dossier (file) and I can look at it 2 BF1 You can yes look [at it] 3 BM1 [don’t worry] keep going handling your problems 4 BF1 I do ((laughs)) 5 BF2 [what does it said] 6 BM1 [drink a glass of water] I’ll put in each 20 grams of rum ((leaves the room with the file and BM3 who was also present)) Prior to the manager’s intervention, the conversation had become heated and had degenerated into a multilingual slanging match involving German and French. The manager came in and quickly stopped the argument, although BF1 spoke to him at some length in SwissGerman about BM3’s prior interference. BM3, who does not speak in the example, did not understand Swiss-German and BF2 understood neither French nor German. She seemed quite shaken by the exchange, although she was ignored when she asked ‘what does is said’ in line 5. All of this reflected a high level of tension and a complete lack of solidarity, (cf Jenks, 2012; Mauranen, 2012; and Walkinshaw and Kirkpatrick, 2014 on the fact that ELF is not always consensual). After saying that the matter would be dealt with the following week, the manager asked BF1 for the file, in line 1. Her response in line 2 appeared through the tone of her voice to be contestive (Holmes and Marra, 2004) in that she may have been testing the boundaries of power and implicitly reasserting her own power in ‘giving him permission’ to look at the file. However, before she finished her utterance BM1 overlaps with her, saying sarcastically 339
Patricia Pullin
‘don’t worry keep going handling your problems’. Hay (2000: 377) notes that humour can be used to delineate boundaries if a member of a group has ‘overstepped the boundaries of acceptability’, as has been the case here. Holmes and Marra (2004) also argue that humour can function as a form of ‘damage control’. Despite the sarcasm that clearly puts everyone in their place, the humour does release tension as BF1 responds in line 4 ‘I do’ and laughs. This may also be a form of defensive humour, which is discussed below. Finally, BM1 says as he leaves the room ‘drink a glass of water’ I’ll put in each 20 grams of rum, perhaps implying that the all need a stiff drink or expressing his exasperation. The rum may also be an indirect allusion to the practice of giving soldiers rum before battle (cf. discussion in Pullin Stark, 2009). Psychological humour Hay (2000) notes the defensive way humour can function in protecting the speaker’s own face or as a coping strategy to deal with problems. Norrick (2003) also refers to selfteasing as a positive way of presenting oneself in that one can cope with problems and laugh at oneself. Example 6 follows on from the row that was alluded to in Example 5 and illustrates these functions of humour. Example 6: This excerpt follows on from Example 5 after the manager and his assistant had left the room 1 BF2 what did he ((BF2 spills her tea)) oh sorry I’m so sorry 2 BF1 don’t don’t worry 3 BF2 I’m so sorry whoops 4 BF1 don’t worry don’t worry 5 BF2 I’m so sorry 6 BF1 ((humorous tone)) no not on the documents but {()} voilà ((there you are)) 7 BF2 °do you have a tissue° 8 BF1 °I have a little one° 9 BF2 what does R. want BF1 ((BF1 explains the problem that started with a telephone conversation to R in Germany)) 10 BF2 yeah I again there is a complaint yeah (…) 11 BF1 cherrio ((they both raise their glasses)) 12 BF2 cheery ((laughter)) maybe maybe 13 BF1 muss nicht Fernseh go gell ((to the researcher)) ((laughs)) hhh In this example, there is an instance of a coping strategy and also a defensive strategy. As mentioned above, BF2, who did not speak the local languages, was very upset by the preceding argument. Once the boss had left the room, she began to ask what had been said, but then spilt her tea (line 1). She became very upset about this and apologised many times. In line 6, BF1 ironically warned her not to let the tea go on to the documents. In fact, it did and the ‘voilà’ in the same line provides a humorous coda to the incident, indicating in French ‘there we are’, i.e. ‘you have done just what I said you shouldn’t’. BF1 then in a very quiet voice, perhaps reflecting her dismay, asks for a tissue. Mirroring her tone, her colleague says that she has
340
Humour in ELF interaction
‘a small one’. This is, of course, ironic and may reflect the fact that not a lot can be done now about the rather catastrophic situation in general and not just about the water on the documents. As such, BF1 uses humour as a coping strategy and to calm her colleague down. BF1 then fills in her colleague on what the problem was and in lines 11 and 12 they both raise their glasses and say ‘cheerio’ and ‘cheery’ and laugh spontaneously. The words used indicate linguistic convergence and are an example of non-standard language that is perfectly effective in the context; the speakers are using the language ‘in their own right’ as a socio-professional resource and not as language learners (Jenkins, 2007; Seidlhofer, 2004). Here, the words ‘cheerio’ and ‘cheery’ seem to release the tension and also provide closure. However, what follows in line 13 is a further use of humour that is defensive in that the speaker is joking about herself and thus protecting her own face and deflecting negative judgement (Hay, 2000). Having apparently forgotten the researcher’s presence until this point, BF1 says ‘muss nicht Fernseh go gell’ ((to the researcher)) and laughs. This is in Swiss-German and the speaker could have no knowledge that the researcher would understand it. Roughly translated, it means that ‘one doesn’t need reality TV’, implying that their behaviour was worthy of a reality show as everything got out of hand. Finally, during the examples in which BF1 was involved, the fact that she had a strong sense of humour and the ability to use it to fulfil multiple functions was very evident, again reflecting the fact that humour in ELF can be very subtle and effective. The final example is also an example of using humour to cope under stress. Example 7: Sino-Swiss Summer University (SSSU) – the Swiss students are helping the Chinese students to set up Dropbox accounts 1 SM2 if I share the file you can edit you can create your file you can also you can delete, you can= 2 SM1 =do not delete ((laughter)) 3 CM ((laughter)) 4 CF ((laughter)) Setting up Dropbox to work on their joint report had been quite laborious, although the students all agreed it would be a good idea. There were problems over the language on the website, which was in French, and questions about whether or not they had to pay for it. In the excerpt above, SM2 is describing everything you can do with files in Dropbox. However, before he completes his sentence, SM1intervenes, picking up the word ‘delete’ from the previous utterance and saying in a joking tone ‘do not delete’. This causes much laughter and as in Example 6, undoubtedly functions in releasing tension in the group, so it is also an example of a coping strategy. The different communication styles of the two Swiss students was also reflected in their use of humour. SM2 was very task-oriented and after this excerpt immediately brought the group back to the task. SM1, on the other hand, had a playful sense of humour, as illustrated here.
Conclusion In conclusion, a number of points stand out in the analysis of humour above. The data show that users of ELF are very competent in using humour in both academic and workplace settings. They are able to tease each other, co-construct humorous dialogue, mocking absent
341
Patricia Pullin
others and hence nurturing in-group rapport, use irony to protect their own and others’ face and even sarcasm as a means of bringing a group to order. While humour is a universal phenomenon, there are some differences that stand out in ELF humour. First, the instances of humour analysed are not dependent on knowledge based on a specific culture. Second, non-standard use of language does not impede the effectiveness of humour, as illustrated in Example 3. Third, the use of humour can be related to language or typical ELF multilingualism, for example, when the manager said he would not speak Portuguese, which he couldn’t anyway, and also showed sensitivity to face in his awareness of possible limits of individual multilingualism. The way the speakers use humour also reflects their individual style. In sum, the subtle use of humour by users of ELF can be seen as an achievement per se, but also as a powerful tool used in relational work to nurture rapport, release tension and protect face, in addition to mitigating or wielding power. One of the strengths of ELF users is their adaptability and ability to use the resources they have to exploit the language effectively. Similarly, humour lends itself to flexible, spontaneous use and its multifunctional nature reinforces its utility in relational work in ELF.
Appendix: Transcription conventions Taken from Dressler and Kreuz (2000); only those symbols occurring in this chapter are included. = Latched talk (lack of temporal gap between two speakers – typically used at end of first speaker’s line and at beginning of next speaker’s utterance) { }
Backchannel {S:OK}
[ ]
Overlapping speech
(e.g. We missed the callback
[again, I really am]
[Oh okay,] that’s all right.)
°text°
Text spoken softly
.h .hhh
In-breath (.h = inhalation – .hhh longer inhalation
((behaviour)) Transcriber’s comments (e.g. whispers, coughing, laughter) ( ) Unclear or intelligible speech (unclear/questionable words appear within the parentheses)
Further reading Matsumoto, Y. 2014, Collaborative co-construction of humorous interaction among ELF speakers. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 81–107. Pullin Stark, P. 2009, No joke – this is serious! Power, solidarity and humour in business English as a lingua franca (BELF). In English as a lingua franca: studies and findings, eds A. Mauranen and E. Ranta. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 152–177. Walkinshaw, I. and Kirkpatrick, A. 2014, Mutual face preservation among Asian speakers of English as a lingua franca. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, vol. 3 no. 2, pp. 269–291. 342
Humour in ELF interaction
References Adelswärd, V. (1989), Laughter and dialogue. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, vol. 12, pp. 107–136. Attardo, S. (1994), Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Boxer, D. and Cortés-Conde, F. (1997), From bonding to biting: conversational joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 27, pp. 275–294. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987), Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chafe, W (1982), Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Spoken and written language, ed. D Tannen. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX, pp. 35–53. Coates, J. (2007), Talk in a play frame: more on Laughter and Intimacy. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 39, pp. 29–49. Davies, C. (2003), How English-learners joke with native speakers: an interactional sociolinguistic perspective on humor as collaborative discourse across cultures. Journal of Pragmatics vol. 35, pp. 1361–1385. Dressler, R.A and Kreuz, R.J. (2000), Transcribing oral discourse. Discourse Processes, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 25–36. Dynel, M. (ed.) (2011), The pragmatics of humour across discourse domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gotti, M. (2014), Explanatory strategies in university courses taught in ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 337–361. Hay, J. (2000), Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 32, pp. 709–742. Holmes, J. (2000), Politeness, power and provocation: how humour functions in the workplace. Discourse Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 159–185. Holmes, J. (2006), Sharing a laugh: Pragmatic aspects of humour and gender in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 38, no. 26–50. Holmes, J. and Marra, M. (2002), Having a laugh at work: how humour contributes to workplace culture. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 34, pp. 1683–1710. Holmes, J. and Marra, M. (2004), Relational practice in the workplace: Women’s talk or gendered discourse? Language in Society, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 377–398. Holmes, J. and Stubbe, M. (2003), Power and politeness in the workplace. Edinburgh: Pearson Education, Edinburgh. Jenkins, J. (2007), English as a lingua franca: attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenks, C. (2012), Doing being reprehensive: some interactional features of English as a lingua franca in a chat room. Applied Linguistics, vol. 33 no.4, pp. 386–405. Locher, M. (2004), Power and politeness in action: disagreements in oral communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Matsumoto, Y. (2014), Collaborative co-construction of humorous interaction among ELF speakers. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 81–107. Mauranen, A (2012), Exploring ELF academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norrick, N. (2003), Issues in conversational joking. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 35, pp. 1333–1359. Pullin, P. (2011), Humour and the integration of new staff in the workplace: an interactional study. In The pragmatics of humour across discourse domains, ed. M. Dynel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 265–288. Pullin Stark, P. (2009), No joke – this is serious! Power, solidarity and humour in business English as a lingua franca (BELF). In English as a lingua franca: studies and findings, eds A. Mauranen and E. Ranta. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 152–177. Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007), Humour in business: a double-edged sword A study of humour and style shifting in intercultural business meetings. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 39, pp. 4–27. Seidlhofer, B (2004), Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 24, pp. 209–239. Spencer-Oatey, H. and Franklin, P. 2009 Intercultural interaction. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Tannen, D. (1984), Conversational style: analysing talk among friends, Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tannen, D. (1989), Talking voices: repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 343
Patricia Pullin
Tannen, D. (1993), What’s in a frame?: Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In Framing in discourse, ed. D. Tannen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 14–56. Walkinshaw, I. (2016), Teasing in informal contexts in English as an Asian lingua franca. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, vol. 5 no. 2, pp. 249–271. Walkinshaw, I. and Kirkpatrick, A. (2014), Mutual face preservation among Asian speakers of English as a lingua franca. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, vol. 3 no. 2, pp. 269–291.
344
28 ELF in electronically mediated intercultural communication Chittima Sangiamchit
Introduction The emergence of the Internet as the backbone of global communication in the twenty-first century has reinforced an interconnectedness between people across the globe with few boundaries. As a result of globalisation, English has become the most dominant language of communication online and an important means for wider communication among English users from different first languages and cultures. It is most often used as a commonly shared lingua franca of communication or ELF in these globalised transnational spaces (Vettorel, 2014). It serves as a linguistic resource to fulfil communication purposes of online users and involves diversified English(es) and cultures due to different linguistic and cultural resources brought into online communication by its multilingual and multicultural users. ELF and cultures through ELF are, therefore, constantly changed, adaptive, fluid and emergent resources that are negotiated and context dependent (Baker, 2009). Within ELF research, English has been investigated from both linguistic and cultural aspects in a range of different research domains, including in particular, higher education (Jenkins, 2014; Mauranen, 2012), and business (Ehrenreich, 2011). In online contexts, however, ELF research is still in its infancy (Jenks, 2013; Ke, 2012; Ke and Cahyani, 2014; Vettorel, 2014). This chapter aims to provide a review of research into electronically mediated communication and its relation to intercultural ELF usage. It introduces the term ‘electronically mediated intercultural communication’ (EMIC) and examines a particular channel of EMIC; social network sites (SNSs). The chapter then focuses on a discussion of how EMIC on SNSs relate to intercultural communication and ELF. An example of ELF use in a specific SNS, Facebook, is provided to illustrate linguistic and cultural variations in online electronic media.
Overview of EMIC and social network sites Definition and characteristics of EMIC Put simply, electronically mediated intercultural communication (EMIC) involves online intercultural interactions through mediated digital devices. It is proposed as an alternative 345
Chittima Sangiamchit
term to computer-mediated communication or CMC. Herring (2007: 1) defines CMC as ‘predominantly text-based human to human interaction mediated by networked computers or mobile telephony’. Considering the rapid advancement of communication technologies, Internet users can access wider communication through not only personal computers (PC) or laptops, as previously, but also through mobile/smart phones and tablets anywhere where there is Internet accessibility. Further, Internet users can interact in many different ways and combine many forms of online features in the communication process. The term EMIC, thus, replaces CMC here in order to illustrate more varied ways of current digital communication. It is defined as intercultural interactions through computer mediated networks on electronic devices, such as computer, laptops, mobile/smart phones and tablets. EMIC brings distinctive characteristics to the communication process and this results in dynamic and highly flexible online intercultural communication. These characteristics are delineated below across four aspects; multilingualism and multiculturalism, multi-way communication, multimodality and mobility. It is obviously true that the Internet has become a global communication network in recent years. According to Internet World Stats (2016a), 49.5 per cent of the total world population are now online and nearly half of this amount is from Asia. Other regions are represented in more minor proportions (e.g. Europe 16.9 per cent, Latin America/Caribbean 10.7 per cent and Africa 9.4 per cent). In relation to language on the Internet, the statistics unsurprisingly show that English is the first of the top 10 languages used by approximately a quarter of the total world Internet users, followed by Chinese (20.8 per cent), Spanish (7.7 per cent), Arabic (4.7 per cent), Portuguese (4.3 per cent), Japanese (3.2 per cent), Malay (3.0 per cent), Russian (2.9 per cent), French (2.8 per cent) and German (2.3 per cent) (Internet World Stats, 2016b). Two obvious implications of the statistics are; first, non-native English users (NNESs) exceed native English users (NESs) on the Internet; and second, there are other languages present for communication on the Internet, although English is the most dominant. From these facts, EMIC involves transnational users who come together online with a range of different linguistic and cultural resources. Therefore, it is both multilingual and also multicultural. A detailed discussion of multilingualism and multiculturalism is returned to later in the chapter in the section entitled ‘English as a lingua franca for intercultural communication in EMIC’. Moving on to multi-way communication, asynchronous and synchronous communication are traditionally well-known types of EMIC. Asynchronous communication provides users’ with an opportunity to interact with communication messages, such as send, post, read, reply or even edit these messages at different times (Androutsopoulos, 2006; Herring, 2010; Morse, 2003). Email, blogs, discussion boards, SNSs are examples of asynchronous communication. Synchronous communication, in contrast, is understood as communication between two or more online users in real time, such as chat in either text messages or voice/video calls. Technological development over time has transformed many EMIC platforms into communication centres that combine both asynchronous and synchronous modes together and users can engage in a variety of interactions, such as one to one and/or group chats, posts activities on blogs and take part in discussion boards. In this sense, EMIC is essentially multi-way communication. EMIC is also multimodal in which a range of different modal features can be used to represent communicative meanings, such as text, audio, video, images and file sharing. Jewitt (2009) explains that multimodality involves the full range of communication forms for understanding communication and representation. It includes not only language, but also images, photos, videos and so on. As seen from current EMIC, many platforms converge 346
ELF in electronically mediated communication
channels or modes for user-to user communication, including text, audio, video and images. Herring (2015) refers to this phenomenon as ‘interactive multimodal platforms’ (IMPs), which allow users to comment and interact on a single social media site through multiple (synchronous or asynchronous) modes. She states that IMP involves text and at least one other mode (audio, video and graphics). According to multimodality available on many sites of EMIC, communicative meanings are conveyed, distributed, received, interpreted and remade through many representational and communicative modes. Thus, communicative meanings are constructed not just through language; instead the meanings in any one mode are often intertwined with the meanings made with those of all other modes co-present and ‘co-operating’ in the communicative event (Jewitt, 2009: 15). Language is, therefore, only ever one mode surrounded by a multimodal cluster of modes. The interaction between modes produces communicative meanings (Herring, 2015; Jewitt, 2009), Images, for instance, are thought to be in a supportive relation to writing. Therefore, multimodal features provide an extended repertoire of meaning-making resources that people use to construct meanings. In so doing, it also offers a new perspective for understanding communication. The last important characteristic of EMIC is mobility. EMIC has become increasingly mobilized as an effect of communication technology development. Users can access EMIC on the move wherever they can connect to the Internet. It is worth considering that ‘mobility’ does not refer only to the movement in communication of just users, but also objects (communication devices), symbols (for examples, information, images and videos), contexts and spaces of EMIC (Kakihara and Sørensen, 2001). These things are intertwined in that most current mobile digital communication devices are designed for movement that expands the space of EMIC away from just personal computers (PC) and further facilitates social activities between people without geographical proximity. EMIC is then a new way where people from different languages, communities and cultures can interact with others in diverse contexts almost anywhere and anytime via PC or various mobile digital communication technologies such as laptops, mobiles, and tablets. In this sense, it could be argued that the fluid mobility of EMIC results in new complex patterns of human interactions and communication. Before analysing the relevance of EMIC to intercultural communication through ELF, the next section provides an explanation of social network sites as a recent popular EMIC platform. Social network sites (SNSs) One of the most significant developments of EMIC is social network sites (in short SNSs). There were 1.96 billion SNSs users around the world in 2015 (Statista, 2016). The top five leading SNSs currently are Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+ and Youtube (Moreau, 2016). Ellison and Boyd (2013: 158) define SNSs as a networked communication platform in which participants 1) have uniquely identifiable profiles that consist of user-supplied content, content provided by other users, and/or system-provided data; 2) can publicly articulate connections that can be viewed and traversed by others; and 3) can consume, produce, and/ or interact with streams of user-generated content provided by their connections on the site. SNSs are a genre of social media (Ellison and Boyd, 2013). In this chapter, it is accepted as a particular category of social media that contains different features and supports users to engage in EMIC in various ways. SNSs can be contextualised under the context of Web 2.0 as discussed below. 347
Chittima Sangiamchit
O’Reilly (2005) initially provides the term ‘Web 2.0’ to encapsulate websites that are built to facilitate interactivity and co-creation of content by website visitors in addition to original authors (Walther et al., 2011: 26). With technological development, Herring (2013: 4) redefines Web 2.0 as ‘web-based platforms that emerged as popular in the first decade of the twenty-first century, and that incorporate user-generated content and social interaction, often alongside or in response to structures and/or (multimedia) content provided by the sites themselves’. It is an environment with active participation and sharing practices (O’Reilly, 2005). It focuses on ‘interaction’ rather than ‘receptive-only processes’. Through Web 2.0 tools, users are supported to actively create content at different levels: by editing and uploading texts, either in their original form or modifying creations of other users, by commenting on them, and/or by linking different kinds of texts. Examples of Web 2.0 platforms are Facebook, Flickr, Twitter and Youtube (Herring, 2013). SNSs contain a variety of technical features and vary across different SNSs. I have categorised their features into four primary aspects that appear to be distinctive and salient. These include profiles, connection lists, stream of updates and multiple modes of communication. Profiles are central to SNSs where one can show who they are (for example, names, photo, birthday, education, workplace and interests). Profiles are a page in which users represent themselves and gather for sharing and communication. They are normally updated when users feel they need to do it; although, this automatically happens when users and/or their friends update their activities on their profile pages. For example, users can find out other users have just graduated from photos they or their friends posted. Streams of ‘updates’ have become more salient today when users are encouraged to create contents and share with others in the same online communities. This is a very important feature that represents individual expressions of activities, ideas and beliefs on any topics related to their interests. Other users can also construct their ideas about at least individual users who update their activities and any issues posted on the platforms, such as news, activities, advertisements and movies. Examples of SNSs ‘updates’ features are Facebook’s ‘News Feed’, Twitter’s ‘tweets’ and Line’s ‘Timeline’. ‘Connection lists’ allows users to create their personal list of contacts by requesting and confirming friend requests. While adding friends options, users can delete the requests if they do not want to have a connection. They can also minimise the number of their friends by ‘unfriending’ those who are in their current friend list. ‘Connection lists’ serves multiple purposes on SNSs. Users can keep in touch through following ‘updates’ and browsing and commenting on these ‘updates’. In this way, the users get involved in different updates of each other and keep in touch, resulting in stronger ties in their relationships and building a sense of community. Further, the ‘connection lists’ can be a tool to control who can access what content and also discover friends in common. Multiple modes of communication is another important feature of SNSs. On most SNSs, these can be one-to-one (e.g. private chat between two users), one to many (e.g. group chat and posts on public online page), synchronous and asynchronous. Ellison and Boyd (2013) claim that SNSs have been evolving into being more media centric and less profile centric. Users can share various media whether text, photos, video and these interactions can encourage productive exchanges since there is an engagement of extended networks, such as ‘Friends’ and ‘Friends of Friends’. As such, SNSs (and EMIC) is no longer primarily involved in textual exchanges or written-based forms (Herring, 2007), rather multimodal features also play a crucial role. It is common that users can interact with SNSs in a variety of optional ways, for example, they can post photos and explain what happens in that photo through written explanation. Therefore, the technical affordances of SNSs have become 348
ELF in electronically mediated communication
increasingly fluid. Accompanying this, people’s practices, expectations and social norms have also co-evolved alongside the technical features and social interaction opportunities.
Electronically mediated intercultural communication on SNSs through ELF EMIC on SNSs SNSs offer great opportunities for contact with other cultures, regardless of the time and space distance. They have increasingly become the area of diversified cultural engagement and a medium of intercultural exchanges because users of different linguistic and cultural backgrounds can interact, share opinions and construct knowledge about various cultural values. In this section, how SNSs relate to EMIC is discussed through the lens of cultural representation and cultural construction, applying the concept of self-presentation and multimodal features of the mediums. Sperber (1996) explains cultural representation as a fuzzy subset of mental and public representations inhabiting a given social group. According to his notion, mental representations may exist inside its user, such as a memory, a belief, an intention and a preference while a public representation may also exist in the environment of its users, which involve several users and include signals, utterances, texts and pictures, for example. Interpretation is an important tool to understand meanings of mental and public representations. Hall (1997) highlights that ‘cultural representation’ involves the use of language, signs and images that stand for or represent things. By looking at cultural construction, it is about the way in which people shape their ideas and understand different things in the world. Burr (1995: 2–3) discusses relevant ideas through social constructionism in that people ‘take a critical stance towards our taken-for-granted ways of understanding the world (including ourselves)’. People can exchange knowledge between them through the daily interactions and negotiate the meanings as well as construct their knowledge according to their understandings. As such, there are different possible social constructions and these bring with it different kinds of behaviours and actions. Then, how do cultural representation and cultural construction relate to intercultural communication on SNSs (EMIC)? Baker (2015) indicates that intercultural communication involves communication where cultural and linguistic differences are perceived in the interactions. In SNSs, cultural representation and construction generate intercultural communication in the sense that users share their interests, perspectives, knowledge, etc., using a variety of modal features available on the mediums (e.g. texts, photos and videos) and in turn they learn these from their communication and interactions with other users of different linguacultures. Pauwels (2012) supports that different multi-features facilitate cultural representation of the users while at the same time an interplay of these different features help them understand the communicative meanings and construct their understandings of the communication. The concept of self-representation with the support of multimodal features is helpful to explain how SNSs users represent and construct their cultures. Leary (1996: 2) explains that self-presentation is ‘the process of controlling how one is perceived by other people’. It is used to construct desirable images and/or present their identities to audiences. A number of studies on SNSs have found that the creation and uploading of personal profiles are the main activities of a particular SNS, Facebook (Boyd and Ellison, 2007; Eisenlauer, 2014; Gross and Acquisti, 2005). Self-presentation, therefore, can be claimed as a key activity on SNSs. 349
Chittima Sangiamchit
It is supported by multimodal features in which the users can present their interests, ideas and beliefs through a range of available modes on SNSs, such as posting messages, photos, videos and external links, for example, on either their or others personal SNSs pages (e.g. News Feed on Facebook, Timeline on Line). Other users (i.e. friends in the list, friends of friends, those who are tagged or even strangers), who see these interactions from their ‘News Feed’ and ‘Notifications’ can understand what peoples’ knowledge about, experiences of, beliefs, values or attitudes to a particular issue are. They can construct their ideas about others from individual representation about various issues. Cultural representation and construction are seen as an inseparable part of this process as our cultural histories influence how we present ourselves and how we interpret others’ presentations. The users employ the communicative medium and its multiple modes to share their ideas and point of views to others in their online community. In this way, different cultures are manifested and the users experience multiple cultural practices and meanings. As such, cultures in EMIC are naturally heterogeneous, regarding individual different ideas, attitudes, experiences and so on. As Hannerz (1992) states, individuals are unique according to his or her education, experiences and social influences. Further, the world is in motion and there is a flow of different objects, including ideas and ideologies, people and goods, images and messages, technologies and techniques (Appadurai, 2001). Cultures, therefore, cannot be oversimplified based on culture–language–nationality correlations (Baker, 2009). Rather, the movement of cultural forms across the globe should be understood under heterogeneous perspectives in that languages and cultures are likely to be complex, dynamic and emergent (Baker, 2015). Pennycook’s notion of ‘transcultural flow’ (2007) can elucidate multilingual English practices in online spheres. According to this notion, English is a translocal language that is fluid and moves across contexts. It is bound up with transcultural flows, so it, similarly to cultures, moves, changes and is reused to fashion new identities in diverse contexts (Pennycook, 2007). Therefore, global flows of languages and cultures do not merely spread particular forms, but rather involve the process of borrowing, blending, remarking and returning to the processes alternative cultural production (Pennycook, 2007: 6). English as a lingua franca for intercultural communication in EMIC English is most often used as a lingua franca of online communication among users from a multitude of linguistic and cultural backgrounds (Seidlhofer, 2011; Vettorel, 2014). Seargeant et al. (2012) support English as an online lingua franca used as a means of online communication between people who do not share the same mother tongues. What makes ELF the main communicative language of online intercultural communication? There are two key reasons explaining why ELF is considered an important means of online intercultural communication. These are the nature of online settings and the multifarious uses of English(es). Regarding the nature of online settings, both modes and English languages have changed as a consequence of communicative technologies (Seargeant and Tagg, 2011; Seidlhofer, 2011). The advancement of technological communication heightens the opportunity of transnational and mobile English communication through ELF. The distinctive characteristics of digital media or SNSs in particular make global communication possible within a second through a variety of forms of either languages (e.g. texts) or visual features (e.g. photos and videos) without geographical boundaries. Continual development of online communication leads to an
350
ELF in electronically mediated communication
important shift in current communication of people around the world. Seidlhofer (2011) claims that electronic communication has accelerated changes in communication that are not limited to geographical community boundaries. Rather, the online sphere has become a popular mode of current communication where a large number of global users can get involved and contact each other. They can access the Internet anywhere it is available and perform online communication on the move through, for example, laptops, tablets and smart phones, with others who are or are not in the local geographical area. This makes distinctions, such as international and domestic, local and global blurred in EMIC (Vettorel, 2014: 2). And in all this, Seidlhofer (2011: 86) claims English is in a pivotal position as wider networking needs a lingua franca. Another consideration of ELF as a means of EMIC concerns the multifarious users of Englishes. The Internet and EMIC platforms such as SNSs have evolved into multilingual and multicultural spheres of communication where there is an engagement of users from across the globe as mentioned above. Online English users may be bilingual and multilingual. The use of English for EMIC among people from different linguacultural backgrounds thus involves contact with a myriad of local languages and cultures. It drives away from monolingual and monocultural orientations towards more multilingual and multicultural orientations. At this point, English is the ‘lingua franca’ of the Internet (Jenks, 2013; Marcoccia, 2012) and is used to make mutual intelligibility possible among people who do not share the same mother tongue in their intercultural communication (Jenkins et al., 2011; Seidlhofer, 2011). Due to the multilingualism and multiculturalism of EMIC, it is worth noting that although English is in a pivotal position, there are also other languages used for online communication, i.e. first languages of ELF users. The users have choices to use either English or other languages as well as mixing languages as a support for not only their multilingual competency but also through technological aids, such as ‘google translation’. Mauranen (2012) points out that English involves pluralised and hybrid uses of linguistic resources. Pluralisation in ELF communication comes from the hybrid repertoires of ELF users which are brought into communication. Cogo (2012: 291) supports pluralisation of English use in multilingual environments and considers these pluralised linguistic resources as a part of language users’ sociolinguistic repertoires. She claims that users shape, mould and construct their repertoires in the social collaborative activities, carried out within the multilingual ELF community. All this inevitably entails a consideration of the way English is used for communication, particularly in online experiences, in which people across the globe contact interculturally and bring their languages and cultures into such communications, resulting in not only orientation to others, but also in adaptation and changes to their communicative interactions. The next section presents an example from an ongoing study of ELF use for online intercultural communication and illustrates some of the key themes discussed above including linguistic and cultural complexity. The participants of this study were Thai international students from different disciplines at a UK university and they were active English users of a current popular SNS; Facebook.
Discussion of EMIC on SNSs This section presents an extract of EMIC among one of the main participants of my study (Ken) and his international friends on Facebook. ‘Ken’ posted a cartoon from ‘Rationalist’ on his Facebook page or a public. ‘Rationalist’ is a Facebook page that contains information about various issues, such as science, philosophy, articles and debates. The cartoon1 is 351
Chittima Sangiamchit
Figure 28.1 A wolf in sheep’s clothing
shown below, followed by the online conversation in response to his post. The format of the conversation from Facebook with cartoon and text is kept unchanged in order to present the original pattern of the conversation. Example: A wolf in sheep’s clothing Like · · Share · 18 hours ago · 10 people like this. 1. Diego sometimes … 18 hours ago · Like 2. Ken always . 18 hours ago · Like 3. Diego jajajaja, unfortunately you may be right 18 hours ago · Like 4. Nikhil Yayyy.. Look the speaker on the stage is a goat, just like us.. 16 hours ago via mobile · Like 5. Ken No ... We are more cute ha ha 16 hours ago via mobile · Like Figure 28.1 above presents the idea of democracy. In this picture, a wolf is seen as a representative of politicians while a group of sheep substitutes a population. The wolf uses a sheep as his puppet to canvass and obtain the support from other sheep. In doing this, he pretends to be a part of a flock of sheep and convinces them that he understands what they want. This can be seen from his laughing at the back of the stage that shows the wolf does not take the sheep’s interests into his serious concern. According to a follow-up interview,
352
ELF in electronically mediated communication
the participant Ken expressed his personal beliefs that wolves are deceptive animals, so he believed that this cartoon illustrated a very true fact of democracy in general. This example reveals three interesting points of intercultural communication. First obviously, the communication consists of multilingual and multicultural participants, including Thai (Ken), Indian (Nikhil), and Columbia (Diego), using ELF to exchange ideas. Although English was used primarily in this communication, another language, in this case Spanish, was also used alongside English. This can be seen in line 3 when the Spanish interlocutor used ‘jajajaja’ to express his amusement. It is worth noting that the language mixing between English and Spanish did not interrupt the conversation. Rather, other interlocutors can still carry on the conversation. Ken explained this online conversation during the interview in that he knew ‘jajajaja’ in Spanish means ‘hahaha’ in English due to his experience of online communication with Spanish as the first language (L1) users. And the way L1Spanish users use ‘jajajaja’ online is similar to Thais use of ‘555’ for expressing their laughter. Therefore, it can be seen here that the mixed use between English and other languages often happens online as users make choices to suit their communicative purposes and/or preferences. Given the fact that online English users have at least bilingual or multilingual ability, they can adapt, adjust and mix other languages with English in their online communication with users of different first language. Therefore, this example clearly shows multilingual practices of online intercultural communication. Moving on to another interesting point in terms of multicultural communication, the participant and his interlocutors shared their perspectives on a globally relevant communication topic, democracy. This topic transcends both the culture of the target language; English, and his and/or his interlocutors’ ‘home’ cultures. It can, thus, be claimed here that English language and culture are not necessarily linked to English speaking culture(s) and/or any particular culture. The topic of conversation can be anything of the users’ interest, ranging from local to global. The example also reveals a global flow of cultures as the participant and one of his interlocutors took nationally conceived cultures and blended or mixed it with other cultures for alternative cultural constructions. As seen in lines 4 and 5, the Indian interlocutor interpreted ‘goat’ instead of ‘sheep’ and the participant also understood what his interlocutor meant. This may be because goats are common in India and Thailand but not sheep. However, considering the close relevance between sheep and goat such as in terms of physical similarities, domestication and social behaviour, they mix these two animals in their discussion of democracy. In sum, both the cartoon and the concept of democracy can be observed in a transcultural flow (Pennycook, 2007) as this example demonstrates cultural movement and change. The last interesting point is about multimodality in cultural representation and cultural construction in online intercultural communication. As seen, the participant and his interlocutors exchanged their ideas based on the cartoon. In this sense, multimodal features of online mediums, in this case a cartoon, is a symbolic toolkit to represent multiple communicative meanings and interpretations together with and/ or in additional to language. This example highlights the significance of multimodal features online in representing and constructing cultures among online ELF users in online intercultural communication and the coordination of these features with (English) language in producing communicative meanings. In other word, language is not the sole tool of communication in this online technological age. Rather, as Jewitt (2009) and Herring (2015) claim, language is only ever one mode surrounded by a multimodal cluster of modes. The interaction between modes produces communicative meanings. Therefore, language and multimodal features as semiotic resources coordinate with each other to create cultures in online intercultural communication.
353
Chittima Sangiamchit
Summary and conclusions EMIC provides a new medium of communication in the age of digital globalisation. Rather than communication based on geographical locations, EMIC offers ways for Internet users to access computer-based network communication through electronic devices, such as mobile/ smart phones and tablets with few geographical limitations. There are four distinctive characteristics of EMIC: multilingualism and multiculturalism, multi-way communication, multimodality and mobility. SNSs are EMIC platforms where online users can communicate and interact with other online users. As EMIC platforms, these sites continually develop and introduce various features for easier and wider social communication. ‘Profiles’, ‘updates’, ‘connection lists’ and ‘multiple modes’ are their key features. These characteristics emphasise the hybrid and flexible nature of communication. Given the fact that the Internet has brought people across the globe into closer connection, ELF has an important role as a part of EMIC on platforms, such as SNSs to enable users to contact others who have different first languages and cultures. It can thus be claimed that EMIC involves rich intercultural communication in which online ELF users are able to represent and develop their ideas about others, using multimodal features of the technologies. In doing this, we see that the relationships between language and culture through ELF for online intercultural communication are complex, dynamic, emergent and fluid. As ELF is used by online users of different first languages and cultures, they do not only bring their own communicative resources and cultures into communication, but also negotiate and adapt these resources to be appropriate to each instance of online intercultural communication.
Note 1 This is an adaptation of the cartoon by the author that keeps the meaning but is not the original.
Further reading Baker, W. (2015) Culture and identity through English as a lingua franca: Rethinking concepts and goals in intercultural communication, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Vettorel, P. (2014) English as a lingua franca in wider networking: Blogging practices, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
References Androutsopoulos, J. (2006) ‘Introduction: sociolinguistics and computer-mediated communication’, Journal of Sociolinguistics, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 419–438. Appadurai, A. (2001) ‘Grassroots globalization and the research imagination’, in Appadurai, A. Globalization, Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press, pp. 1–21. Baker, W. (2009) ‘The cultures of English as a lingua franca’, TESOL Quarterly, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 567–592. Baker, W. (2015) Culture and identity through English as a lingua franca: Rethinking concepts and goals in intercultural communication, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Boyd, D.M. and Ellison, N.B. (2007) ‘Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 210–230. Burr, V. (1995) An introduction to social constructionism, London and New York: Routledge. Cogo, A. (2012) ‘ELF and super-diversity: a case study of ELF multilingual practices from a business context’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 287–313.
354
ELF in electronically mediated communication
Ehrenreich, S. (2011) ‘The dynamics of English as a lingua franca in international business: a language contact perspective’, in Archibald, A., Cogo, A. and Jenkins, J. Latest trends in ELF research, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 11–34. Eisenlauer, V. (2014) ‘Facebook: A multimodal discourse analysis of (semi-) automated communicative modes’, in Norris, S. and Maier, C.D. Interactions, images and texts: A reader in multimodality, Berlin: De Gruyter. Ellison, N.B. and Boyd, D.M. (2013) ‘Sociality through social network sites’, in Dutton, W.H. The Oxford handbook of internet studies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 151–172. Gross, R. and Acquisti, A. (2005) ‘Information revelation and privacy in online social networks’, Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on Privacy in the electronic society, Alexandria, VA, pp. 71–80. Hall, S. (1997) Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices, London: Sage. Hannerz, U. (1992) Cultural complexity: Studies in the social organization of meaning, New York: Columbia University Press. Herring, S.C. (2007) ‘A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse’, Language@ Internet, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–37. Herring, S.C. (2010) ‘Computer-mediated conversation. Part I: Introduction and overview’, Language@Internet, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1–12. Herring, S.C. (2013) ‘Discourse in Web 2.0: familiar, reconfigured, and emergent’, in Tannen, D. and Trester, A.M. Discourse 2.0: Language and new media, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 1–26. Herring, S.C. (2015) ‘New frontiers in interactive multimodal communication’, in Georgakopoulou, A. and Spilioti, T. The Routledge handbook of language and digital communication, London: Routledge, pp. 398–402. Internet World Stats (2016a) Internet users in the world by regions – June 2016, [Online], Available: www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm (accessed 1 November 2016). Internet World Stats (2016b) Top ten languages in the Internet in millions of users – June 2016, [Online], Available: www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm (accessed 1 November 2016). Jenkins, J. (2014) English as a lingua franca in the international university: The politics of academic English language policy, London: Routledge. Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2011) ‘Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca’, Cambridge Journal, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 281–315. Jenks, C. (2013) ‘Are you an ELF? The relevance of ELF as an equitable social category in online intercultural communication’, Language and Intercultural Communication, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–14. Jewitt, C. (2009) ‘An introduction to multimodality’, in Jewitt, C. The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis, London: Routledge, pp. 14–27. Kakihara, M. and Sørensen, C. (2001) ‘Expanding the “mobility” concept’, SIGGROUP Bulletin, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 33–37. Ke, I.-C. (2012) ‘English as a lingua franca (ELF) in intercultural communication: findings from ELF online projects and implications for ELT in Taiwan’, Taiwan Journal of TESOL, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 63–93. Ke, I.-C. and Cahyani, H. (2014) ‘Learning to become users of English as a lingua franca (ELF): how ELF online communication affects Taiwanese learners’ beliefs of English’, System, vol. 46, pp. 28–38. Leary, M.R. (1996) Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Marcoccia, M. (2012) ‘The internet, intercultural communication and cultural variation’, Language and Intercultural Communication, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 353–368. Mauranen, A. (2012) Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moreau, E. (2016) The top 25 social networking sites people are using, [Online], Available: http:// webtrends.about.com/od/socialnetworkingreviews/tp/Social-Networking-Sites.htm (accessed 1 November 2016). Morse, K. (2003) ‘Does one size fit all? Exploring asynchronous learning in a multicultural environment’, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 37–55.
355
Chittima Sangiamchit
O’Reilly, T. (2005) What Is Web 2.0?, [Online], Available: www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/ what-is-web-20.html (accessed 24 February 2016). Pauwels, L. (2012) ‘A multimodal framework for analyzing websites as cultural expressions’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 247–265. Pennycook, A. (2007) Global Englishes and transcultural flows, London: Routledge. Seargeant, P. and Tagg, C. (2011) ‘English on the internet and a “post-varieties” approach to language’, World Englishes, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 496–514. Seargeant, P., Tagg, C. and Ngampramuan, W. (2012) ‘Language choice and addressivity strategies in Thai–English social network interactions’, Journal of Sociolinguistics, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 510–531. Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a lingua franca, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sperber, D. (1996) Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach, Blackwell. Statista (2016) Number of social network users worldwide from 2010 to 2020 (in billions), [Online], Available: www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users (accessed 1 November 2016). Vettorel, P. (2014) English as a lingua franca in wider networking: Blogging practices, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Walther, J.B., Carr, C.T., Choi, S.S.W., DeAndrea, D.C., Kim, J., Tong, S.T. and Heide, B.V.D. (2011) ‘Interaction of interpersonal, peer, and media influence sources online: A research agenda for technology convergence’, in Papacharissi, Z. A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites, London: Routledge.
356
29 ELF and multilingualism Alessia Cogo
Introduction This chapter is intended to serve as an overview of ELF studies exploring multilingual aspects of various kinds, starting from the beginning of research into sociolinguistic aspects of ELF code-switching, to the latest developments concerning more fluid multilingual practices, such as translanguaging, while emphasising how multilingual resources and practices are a common aspect of ELF communication. The first strand explores multilingual aspects of ELF from a code-switching perspective, focusing on the role of multilingual resources for negotiating and enhancing understanding, and managing conversational moves. This research also shows how code-switching is used to create and support social relationships, as well as constructing, exploring and negotiating group memberships and identity. This approach has also been accompanied by work into the attitudes and orientations towards multilingual resources within ELF discourse, and we will explore these briefly. The second, and more recent, strand of research is the one occupied by studies into ELF and multilingual practices whose focus is not so much on language choice or code-switching, but on translanguaging and flexible multilingual repertoires. Within this approach, the focus is on the situated nature of practices within specific contexts and domain of expertise, where language is part of a constellation of practices, all relevant to the understanding of ELF communication. In the following sections I will emphasise the difference between these two approaches, but it is important to point out from the outset that these two perspectives do not contradict each other. Rather, they emphasise different aspects of ELF multilingualism and both can even be found within the same studies. In fact, as we will see below, researchers do not necessarily align with one perspective or the other, and the same researcher may be involved with analysing data from both angles.
ELF and the code-switching perspective Originally, research in ELF oriented towards exploring what ELF is, that is, what it looks like in terms of lexico-grammar, pronunciation and pragmatics. This research has been 357
Alessia Cogo
fundamental in emphasising an important aspect of ELF communication, namely that ELF does not only concern the English language, but includes other languages depending on the sociocultural context of the communicative exchange, the repertoire of the participants involved and other possible linguistic constraints. The multilingual research has also helped overcome a misunderstanding of ELF as consisting of ‘English only’ (mainly in English language teaching publications, but also in EU policy documents), therefore placing more emphasis on the diversity implied in the ‘lingua franca’ perspective. The focus has been on showing what languages are involved in ELF spoken or written discourse and what kind of roles or communicative functions they play. This strand emphasises a more structuralist/multilingual (in the sense of plurality and countability of languages) perspective on ELF where the emphasis is more on how multilingual resources/distinct languages are separately integrated or accommodated into the fabric of ELF discourse. In this perspective, multilingual aspects, while often identified as resources in a plurilingual repertoire, are normally clearly marked as part of a specific language (for example, they are identified as French, Japanese, Portuguese, etc.) and drawn upon by ELF users to create, negotiate and expand meaning and understanding. One of the most common phenomena that has been researched within this perspective is code-switching. This kind of research has emphasised the use of both overt and covert multilingual phenomena in ELF. The overt phenomena include code-switching or similar aspects, which clearly show the use of two or more languages in discourse. The covert phenomena, on the other hand, concern the influence of the user’s multilingual resources on their communication, which nonetheless remains in English (cf. Cogo 2016c). They are covert because they seem English resources on the surface but they are the result of cross-linguistic or crosscultural influences in the speakers’ repertoires. Hülmbauer (2011) explores cognates and how ELF speakers can draw on cross-linguistic influence of cognates to enhance meaningmaking. The study shows how resources that may appear as ‘false’ friends from an EFL perspective, actually serve as ‘true’ friends to ELF communication for their cross-linguistic similarities and consequently their cognitive transparency in ELF communication. In this perspective, while cognates can help mutual understanding in that they carry the same or overlapping meaning (for instance ‘informations’ that has cognates in ‘informazioni’ in Italian and ‘Informationen’ in German), false cognates may appear to be problematic because of their formal similarities but semantic difference across languages. Instead, as Hülmbauer demonstrates, the semantic divergence of false cognates may actually be helpful when other multilingual similarities can contribute to meaning making. For instance, the expression ‘grossly’, which in ENL is an emphatic adverb meaning ‘totally, completely’, is used in the sense of ‘generally, by and large’ and finds similar meaning in other languages (‘grosso modo’ in Italian and ‘im Grossen’ in German). The emphasis of the chapter is on the mental lexicon of ELF speakers and how they can make use of cross-linguistic similarities in their multilingual repertoire to cognitively interpret and construct meaning. Hülmbauer (2013) picks up on these aspects again when she explores the relation between the virtual aspects of English and the plurilingual perspective of the lingua franca mode. Cogo (2016c) shows how covert multilingual resources can help facilitate the process of understanding in her work on transnational business. Example 1 is a conversation involving three people, P and M (mainly Spanish-speaking background) talking with H (mainly German background), who does not appear in the transcript. They are talking about methods of payment and the customers’ tendency to complain about payment (transcription conventions are located in the appendix to this chapter (p. 366)). 358
ELF and multilingualism
Example 1 1 P: 2 3 M: 4
she want for each type eh method of payments a different thing at the end of the invoice here yes no but this here it say please send me the money and they reclamate always
From a covert perspective, the interesting part is M’s use of the verb ‘reclamate’ in line 4. M is explaining to P why she needs to mention all the methods of payment on the invoice, that is, because customers tend to complain (in her words, reclamate). The verb ‘reclamate’ is most probably influenced by Spanish, where the verb ‘reclamar’ means to complain/to express dissatisfaction. This is added to the suffix -ate, which is normally used to form verbs of Latin origin (as in ‘locate’, ‘alleviate’, ‘activate’ and similar). Since Spanish is included in the repertoire of all the speakers involved in this conversation (it is the first language of P and M, and spoken as a second language by H), ‘reclamate’ can therefore be assumed to be shared by the speakers in the conversation because of their multilingual repertoires, either as coming from their first language or because they are part of a community of practice, which has seen this term being used in their common repertoire. The covert use of multilingual resources is a creative and effective way of facilitating understanding by relying on the similarities within the participants’ repertoire of resources. Drawing on multilingual repertoires is also done in overt ways, by code-switching and similar language alternation phenomena. Research findings in this area have shown that code-switching is an expression of the bilingual or multilingual competence of the speakers (and not of their deficiency), who can draw on their multifaceted linguistic repertoire to contribute to the communication. In this perspective, therefore, the emphasis is not on the use of code-switching for social-/identity-/cultural-related purposes but on code-switching seen as alternation of specific and separate codes (see below). Research in this aspect has also contributed to questioning English language teaching (ELT) practices and challenging the traditional view of ELT classroom discourse as ‘English only’. The use of students’ first language/s in the English language classroom has been consistently discouraged by teachers and educational policy-makers. For many years, and still nowadays in certain contexts, code-switching is seen as a representation of students’ lack of language skills, and something to be banned from teaching practices. Researchers in ELF multilingualism from the code-switching perspective have therefore encouraged a rethink of existing ‘English-only’ policies in the light of the findings in ELF communication. In Cogo (2009) code-switching is identified as an accommodation strategy not in the sense of compensatory strategies, but in terms of speakers making the effort to bring in different linguistic resources to expand and clarify meaning. This study also points out that attention to meaning can be seen as a way of aligning to the interlocutors to ‘suggest affiliation and membership in the same community of multilingual ELF speakers’ (Cogo 2009: 259), especially when a multilingual resource believed to pertain to the linguistic background of the interlocutor/s is used to enhance meaning. Interestingly, this study also found that interactants sometimes switch not to their own or their interlocutor’s L1s but to a third shared language. Studies that explore code-switching as an expression of social and cultural background also include Klimpfinger (2009), Pietikäinen (2014), Pölzl and Seidlhofer (2006), among others. In Pölzl and Seidlhofer (2006), the authors document the use of Arabic gambits and other L1 discourse phenomena in ELF talk. Pietikäinen (2014) analyses code-switching in semi structured interviews with ELF couples as participants and focuses mainly on code-switching that 359
Alessia Cogo
is not signaled or flagged by the conversational speakers and notices that un-flagged codeswitching is not necessarily related to signaling cultural background. Instead, in her data, un-marked code-switching emphasises the flexible orientation of the participants towards linguistic variation and hybridity. Multilingual resources are also used in relation to achieving understanding and expanding on meaning. For instance, Cogo’s 2010 study explores negotiation of meaning through code-switching, which contributes to expanding the meaning of an idiomatic expression, which was provided beforehand. Example 2 1 S1 [it’s nice but it’s a bit 2 S3 =too much eh? 3 S1 =cheesy 4 S1 [YE::AH 5 S3 [YE::AH 6 S2 yeah a bit too much I think @@ 7 S1 so (.) blue flower we say (.) fleur bleue 8 S3 why? (.)[to say that it’s cheesy? 9 S1 [fleur-yeah (.) fleur bleue means (.) you know when you 10 have these pictures with little angels of 11 S2 a:::h [yeah 12 S3 [yeah 13 S1 fleur bleu 14 S2 kitsch- [kitschig 15 S1 [kitschig yeah @@@ Cogo (2010: 301) In this extract, The expression ‘cheesy’ is explained by first translating it into the French ‘fleur bleue’, and then by glossing its explanation and providing a second translation by another interlocutor. Meaning is thus co-constructed by the participants and expanded in context with the use of multilingual resources from the participants’ diverse backgrounds. However the introduction of the French expression ‘fleur bleue’, which is supposed to expand on the meaning of ‘cheesy’, is not done without some groundwork of preparation. In line 7, S1 pre-empts a possible non-understanding with a literal translation of the meaning, before introducing the term by code-switching into French. Moreover, this conversation seems to go beyond the search for meaning and negotiation of understanding. Participants bring to play their own socio-cultural background, build on the others’ contributions, while at the same time creating a sense of in-group belonging. In this example, a negotiation and expansion of meaning by using multilingual resources becomes an opportunity to display intercultural identities. This study emphasises how speakers may engage in a collaborative co-construction of meaning, while signalling their community membership and making code-switching an intrinsic part of their ELF interactions. Code-switching is not only used for constructing meaning and negotiation of understanding. From a more conversation-analytic perspective, Klimpfinger’s (2009) study identifies four main functions of code-switching in conversation, i.e. specifying an addressee, introducing another idea, appealing for assistance, and signaling culture. Though these functions
360
ELF and multilingualism
are not unambiguously separable but clearly overlap in natural communication, her data also shows how code-switching is used to reinforce group identity. Investigations of ELF multilingualism from a conversation-analytic perspective have covered various contexts. One area, which is topical at the moment and developing some interesting research, is online communication. Vettorel’s study (2014), exploring blogging practices online, focuses on plurilingual resources and shows how code-switching is a common feature of these contexts especially within young people. The framework Vettorel refers to is that of multicompetence (Cook 2002), which highlights the skillful use of various languages in conversation. This is coupled with analysis of the data from a conversation analytic perspective, which Vettorel employs to demonstrate the use of code-switching for similar functions as with Klimpfinger’s study. For instance, one aspect that Vettorel lists as a function of code-switching in blogging practices is that of specifying an addressee. For example: Example 3 Oh! And if you were wondering (of course you were **), DVDs are also equipped with Japanese subtitles, something I’d basically never seen XD, and discovered by mistakingly playing with the remote. […] A questo proposito, preferireste quindi un formato agile, leggero e leggibile, ma di minore qualita’, o il formatone definitivo e strafigo, ma piu’ pesante e difficile da visualizzare con macchine non aggiornate? (Vettorel 2014: 226) Here the blogger is using code-switching to address a specific audience, i.e. the readers who understand Italian, and with whom he can discuss the format of the DVD (the one mentioned in the English part). Interestingly, the switch into Italian is not only used to specify and addressee, but also to change topic and address a more technical aspect of the blog. The use of multilingual resources has been the focus of research on academic talk, which confirms research findings in other areas, i.e. that code-switching commonly takes place in ELF academic talk, not simply due to lack of knowledge in English, but for different communicative functions. For instance, Mauranen (2013) explores code-switching in academic discussions included in a sub-section of the ELFA corpus and shows that code-switching is used in a variety of functions, namely a) conceptual, such as bringing up concepts that are normally referred to in the language switched into or that are not easily translatable in English; b) linguistic, as in when the participants share linguistic resources, such as their L1 or other languages; c) interactional, such as reinforcing social relations. She also notices how the word-search functional category of code-switching occurs less frequently in ELF academic discourse than other functions, and calls into question deficiency models of code-switching. Similarly, House (2016) shows how code-switching is used in academic supervision meetings, in a German-speaking context. The following extract (Example 4) comes towards the end of a supervision meeting between a German professor (P) and a student. Example 4 P: okay? for this YES and erm haben sie noch was nee des is der erste Teil war fertig [anything else no this is the first part is finished] WM: ja [yes]
361
Alessia Cogo
P’s code-switching is used as a discourse organisational move, which allows P to manage the talk and the supervision session. It occurs at a critical point in the session where the supervisor asks whether the first part of the session can be considered finished. Code-switching is often used as a discourse marker to mark the beginning or the end of a conversation or the change of topic in a conversation analytic perspective. The relationship between ELF and multilingualism has also been explored in relation to specific geographical settings, especially in Europe. Here, the relation between English and other languages has tended to be rather controversial, especially from a European language policy perspective, which has resulted in a mismatch between policies and practices (cf. Cogo and Jenkins 2010). The reality of ELF communication practices in Europe, in fact, is a very multilingual affair, with all European languages potentially involved in influencing or mixing with English in communication, in a lingua franca way. The language policies in the European Union, however, still see English only as a native variety rather than a lingua franca of transnational communication, and therefore implement language separation in the various language-related practices of the EU. Dimensions of multilingual language policy, attitudes towards multilingualism and ELF discourses are also analysed as part of the LINEE1 research (cf. Cogo 2016a; Studer and Werlen 2012) and findings show that ELF speakers are perceived as multicompetent users and ELF is seen in strict relation to European multilingualism, rather than a separate tool of communication. To start with, attitudes towards ELF as a European multilingual practice have found to be quite positive among young people, but this overall positive finding is scattered with interpretations of ELF as potentially threatening other languages and ideologies of native speakerism (Cogo 2012a). In terms of use, research showed quite flexible practices of ELF and multilingualism. For instance, Kalocsai’s (2011) study of Erasmus students in Hungary explores creative uses of code-switching and emphasises its multiple socio-cultural functions and important group identity functions among the student exchange community, who used ELF as a way of understanding the local language, i.e. Hungarian. Kalocsai’s data show the use of multilingual resources as supportive strategies in moments of word search or negotiation of meaning. The study also showed that English was not seen as a threat to multilingualism: ‘English worked with, rather than against, multilingualism: it helped gain access into a multilingual environment where further languages could then be used’ (Kalocsai 2011: 133). The emphasis on ELF being a multilingual mode is also reiterated by Hülmbauer and Seidlhofer (2013) exploring the role of ELF in Europe in the DYLAN project. The paper explores the multilingual nature of ELF, in contrast to the EU assumption that ELF is about English only and therefore reinforces the idea that ELF and multilingualism in Europe are not separate. The authors’ conclusion is that ‘ELF does not undermine multilingual diversity but actually helps to sustain it’ (Hülmbauer and Seidlhofer 2013: 399). They also refer to ‘languaging’ and moving away from languages in the plural as countable objects, which also points to the latest developments in the conceptualisation of ELF as a multilingual phenomenon, to which we now turn.
ELF practices and the translanguaging perspective The translanguaging perspective implies a flexible and dynamic view of multilingual resources and, compared to code-switching, a less clearly marked change or switch into ‘another language’ and an emphasis on the permeability of languages. This perspective is not in opposition to the previous one, but as an addition to the view of static switching of languages. 362
ELF and multilingualism
In others words, this perspective does not negate code-switching, instead, in line with García and Wei’s work (e.g. 2014), includes it as one possible multilingual practice, alongside more flexible and dynamic uses of resources. ELF translanguaging practices create a social space for speakers ‘by bringing together different dimensions of their personal history, experience and environment, their attitudes, beliefs and performance’ (Wei, 2011: 1223). To a certain extent, this means that speakers are relatively free from constraints of language separation or at least would be allowed to deal with language separation when necessary to create meaning (Cogo 2016c). In this approach, ELF is seen as a dynamic resource, which, inspired by social anthropology and sociolinguistic theories of cultural flows and complexity, is mobile, context-dependent and not necessarily territorially bound. In this perspective, the focus is not on the geographical location or L1 of the speakers (as with World Englishes varieties for instance), as it is more related to the participants and community involved in discourse and communicative practices. Therefore the notion of repertoire of the individual speakers takes centre stage. This notion is important for ELF research as it moves away from an emphasis on the L1 of speakers to the whole repertoire of sociolinguistic and cultural resources participants may bring into the exchange, which may include languages that participants have learnt or encountered in their lives, which they may know or use at different proficiency levels, but are available as resources together with their L1 in their repertoire. Research from this perspective offers a holistic view of participants’ repertoire and pays attention to the use of this repertoire and constraints speakers may encounter. Cogo (2012b) explores the multilingual practices of a small business company from a super-diversity perspective, focusing on the phenomenon of translanguaging not in opposition to code-switching, but as interrelated phenomena in the specific business context. These multilingual practices show highly flexible use of resources, which prioritise efficiency over ideologies of native speaker correctness and language separation. Speakers interact in highly mixed translanguaging ways, which respond to demands of the sociocultural context and the business domain, in that ‘practices are not only highly multilingual but also profoundly responsive to the various contexts and situations in which speakers find themselves’ (Cogo 2012b: 309). For instance, the demands of the project, i.e. the setting up of a German online invoicing system, are met by an intricate and sophisticated use of German, Spanish and English resources. The business domain, characterised by the international lingua franca communication, requires the use of English for IT while flexibly incorporating multilingual resources as code-switching and/or translanguaging practices. In the following example, multilingual resources are used in a highly mixed way, to the extent that the conversation itself is not easily cut into separate languages. Furthermore, the Spanish and German resources are not used only by the Spanish and German ‘native’ speakers respectively. M and P (both of Spanish speaking background) use German in their negotiation of what is included in the invoice, and H, who speaks very little Spanish, still uses Spanish resources in the conversation with them (though not visible in this example, H uses Spanish resources later on in the same meeting). The three participants are discussing the content of the invoice: Example 5 1 P ah: ok ok yeah (aspiration) ah: (2.5) and then the 2 netto (3) pfourteen (2) one two so the position is 3 important one two (2) and then we have the euros (1) and then we 363
Alessia Cogo
4 have the the porcentage? (.) but has another name says usl 5 H u u eh u s t ist umsatzsteuer 6 P was ist dis? 7 M betrag (.) betrag? como 8 H prefieres? 9 P no betrag is whole amount Pedro 10 H ah ok 11 P betrag is amount 12 H amount ok and and taxes is u s t
(Cogo 2016c: 11)
In the first four lines P lists the different items that should appear in the invoice and how they are positioned in a list and uses German specifically to refer to how the items appear on the invoice. In lines 4 and 5, P is unsure about the acronym ‘ust’ and H spells out the acronym for him. After that, P asks for clarification, in a ‘German-Spanishy-Englishy’ way in line 6, of what the item is. German linguistic resources are part of P’s repertoire and, he seems to find them useful in the discussion of the invoice. Spanish is also part of the conversation (line 7), but all these resources are mentioned in such an intricately mixed way that it is perhaps impossible, and possibly unnecessary, to identify a specific function for every piece of multilingual resource used. From a methodological perspective, it is also rather difficult to assign a language, or tag the transcript with the language of origin, for every item used. Line 6, for example, is like an amalgamation of German, Spanish and English, and the use of the tag is a simplification of what is really happening in the exchange and what P is doing with his repertoire of resources. Studies involving business people involved in ELF communication show flexibility not only in terms of the linguistic resources used in communication, but also in relation to the attitudes and orientations towards them. International business people, using ELF for work in international contexts, have reported not only that ELF is an integral part of business knowledge, but also that communication is not only about English, as multilingual practices tend to be expected (Cogo 2016b; Kankaanranta and Planken 2010). Multilingual resources are considered part of their English communication practices both in spoken, written and online communication. However, orientations towards diversity, while generally positive, seem to be underpinned by very different ideologies. Cogo and Yanaprasart (forthcoming) show that discourses around the idea that ‘English is the language of business’ dominated in the two multinational corporations they explored. However, the study shows that multilingual practices, not only English, are actually more common in the workplace, and multinationals have to struggle with the contradiction arising from the assumed position of English as the international banking language, the multilingual corporate languages and the flexible linguistic practices. ‘They do so by constructing discourses of language equality and diversity that in effect hide ideologies of monolingualism, language hierarchy and separation’ (Cogo and Yanaprasart, forthcoming). Moreover, the professional multilingual practices, internally as well as externally, demonstrate that the languages used are not necessarily kept separate, as the companies’ policies would require. These studies show the value of using multilingual resources in ELF business exchanges. The importance of ideologies is also particularly relevant for sociolinguistic analysis of communication as demonstrated in analysis of business contexts (Cogo 2015; Cogo 2016c)
364
ELF and multilingualism
or migration contexts (Dorn et al. 2014). In business contexts, Cogo’s work with IT professionals has demonstrated not only that ELF is a translanguaging phenomenon, but how ideologies of language separation can actually be exploited in spoken discourse, to highlight moments of language selection with specific communication purposes. The following example shows how language separation choices can be made to exercise power in the conversational exchange and include or exclude certain participants. The extract shows tension between M, who wants P to have a look at another example of an invoice, and P, who wants to discuss the issue with H instead. Example 6 1 P: 2 M: 3 P: 4 M: 5 6 H: 7 8 P:
I try to adapt the the (.) the programme to that (.) okay? ya para te estoy mandando ahorita una bu-but why if it’s the same just don’t don’t bring it es si otro esta mas ordenado que el nuestro para que veas el dice he says seven percent tax on (.) the the line ninety you see that what my-yeah yeah yeah yeah I have it in front of mine I I print it so
(Cogo 2012b)
In Extract 6 the struggle between P and M is clearly emphasised by their language choices: P uses English (in lines 1, 3 and 8), while M insists on using Spanish, the language that H is less confortable with. By using Spanish, M is preventing H from actively joining the conversation, though he has a passive understanding of it, as indicated by his turn in line 8, where he manages to start with a bit of Spanish before continuing in English. The fight for including or excluding a participant is here clearly signified by choosing to use or not use the linguistic resources that make it possible for that participant to contribute to the talk. While translanguaging offers the possibility of flexible multilingualism and allows individual resistance to the monolingual ideology of language separation, using language separation, as we have seen with Example 6, is still an option for speakers and something they can use to exercise resistance to the status quo. However, not all speakers are free to choose the resources when interacting with the other speakers’ repertoires, there are situations where the institutional requirements and the societal discourses and ideologies about language as a monolingual system are prevalent and imposed on them. For instance, Dorn et al. (2014) show that current practices, which aim to ascribe citizenship of asylum seekers according to their linguistic performance, are based on ideologies of language separation and language as representations of native speakers and national identity. These ignore recent developments in understanding the diversity of English, ELF and multilingualism, as complex, dynamic and variable through process of adaptation.
Conclusion This chapter has overviewed research on multilingualism in ELF in relation to two main strands, which naturally overlap and show inter-relation with one another, but nonetheless emphasise two different approaches to the topic. These are the code-switching perspective,
365
Alessia Cogo
which emphasises linguistic separation, and the translanguaging perspective, which does not replace the previous one but emphasises the flexible use of multilingual repertoires. Overall, what these studies show is that ELF is not only about English (even when discourse seems to include English forms only, because multilingual resources can be covert), but is a multilingual practice and that there is a solid tradition of research into ELF and multilingualism that has explored the phenomenon of lingua franca multilingualism for some time now. As Jenkins (2015) emphasises, what we need now is to keep theorising ELF further, in the sense of revising and strengthening conceptualisations of ELF in relation to its multilingual nature. While English, including ELF, is usually posited as an alternative to multilingualism, this chapter and the research represented here have hopefully contributed to demonstrate that reality contradicts this claim. It is the dynamic, variable and multilingual nature of ELF that has been emphasised, developed and reclaimed by recent research in ELF as an essential part of what ELF really is.
Appendix: Transcript conventions =
latching (i.e. speech following the previous turn without a pause)
(.)
short pause (unmeasured)
(0.5)
measured pause
[ abc]
overlapping speech
[...]
omitted transcript
@ laughing utterances in the speaker’s first language (L1) are put between tags indicating the speaker’s L1, such as de = German, sp = Spanish. utterances in languages which are neither English nor the speaker’s first language are marked LN with the language indicated.
Note 1 LINEE and the later mentioned DYLAN were two European funded projects that explored multilingualism in Europe. Both projects included one work package, which investigated ELF in Europe in relation to multilingualism specifically.
Further reading Cogo, A. 2016. Conceptualizing ELF as a Translanguaging Phenomenon: Covert and Overt Resources in a Transnational Workplace. WASEDA Working Papers in ELF (English as a Lingua Franca) 5, 61–77. García, O. and Wei, L. 2014. Translanguaging. Language, Bilingualism and Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Jenkins, J. 2015. Repositioning English and Multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice 2(3), 49–85.
366
ELF and multilingualism
References Cogo, A. 2009. Accommodating Difference in ELF Conversations: A Study of Pragmatic Strategies. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings, 254–273. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Cogo, A. 2010. Strategic Use and Perceptions of English as a Lingua Franca. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 46(3), 295–312. Cogo, A. 2012a. ‘French is French, English is English’: Standard Language Ideology in ELF Debates. In P. Studer and I. Werlen (eds) Linguistic Diversity in Europe, 233–256. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Cogo, A. 2012b. ELF and Super-Diversity: A Case Study of ELF Multilingual Practices from a Business Context. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(2), 287–313. Cogo, A. 2015. Complexity, Negotiability, and Ideologies: A Response to Zhu, Pitzl, and Kankaanranta et al. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(1), 149–155. Cogo, A. 2016a. English as a Lingua Franca in Europe. In A. Linn (ed.) Investigating English in Europe. Berlin: De Gruyter, 79–89. Cogo, A. 2016b. ‘They All Take the Risk and Make the Effort’: Intercultural Accommodation and Multilingualism in a BELF Community of Practice. In L. Lopriore and E. Grazzi (eds) Intercultural Communication: New Perspectives from ELF. Rome: Roma Tre Press, 365–383. Cogo, A. 2016c. Conceptualizing ELF as a Translanguaging Phenomenon: Covert and Overt Resources in a Transnational Workplace. WASEDA Working Papers in ELF (English as a Lingua Franca), 5, 61–77. Cogo, A. and Jenkins, J. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca in Europe: A Mismatch Between Policy and Practice. European Journal of Language Policy 2(2), 271–294. Cogo, A. and Yanaprasart, P. (forthcoming) ‘English is the Language of Business’: An Exploration of Language Ideologies in Two European Corporate Contexts. In T. Sherman and J. Nekvapil (eds) English in Business and Commerce: Interactions and Policies. Berlin: De Gruyter. Cook, V. 2002. Background to the L2 User. In V. Cook (ed.) Portraits of the L2 user. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 1–28. Dorn, N., Rienzner, M., Busch, B. and Santner-Wolfartsberger, A. 2014. ‘Here I Find Myself to Be Judged’: ELF/Plurilingual Perspectives on Language Analysis for the Determination of Origin. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(2), 409–424. García, O. and Wei, L. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. House, J. 2016. Own-Language Use in Academic Discourse in English as a Lingua Franca. In K. Murata (ed.) Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts. Oxford: Routledge, 59–70. Hülmbauer, C. 2011. Old Friends? Cognates in ELF Communication. In A. Archibald, A. Cogo and J. Jenkins (eds), Latest Trends in ELF Research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 139–161. Hülmbauer, C. 2013. From Within and Without: The Virtual and the Plurilingual in ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(1), 47–73. Hülmbauer, C. and Seidlhofer, B. 2013. English as a Lingua Franca in European Multilingualism. In A.C. Berthoud, F. Grin and G. Lüdi (eds), Exploring the Dynamics of Multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 387–406. Jenkins, J. 2015. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice 2(3), 49–85. Kalocsai, K. 2011. The Show of Interpersonal Involvement and the Building of Rapport in an ELF Community of Practice. In A. Archibald, A. Cogo and J. Jenkins (eds), Latest Trends in ELF Research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 113–137. Kankaanranta, A. and Planken, B. 2010. BELF competence as business knowledge of internationally operating business professionals. Journal of Business Communication 47(3), 380–407. Klimpfinger, T. 2009. ‘She’s Mixing the Two Languages Together’: Forms and Functions of CodeSwitching in English as a Lingua Franca. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 348–371.
367
Alessia Cogo
Mauranen, A. 2013. Lingua Franca Discourse in Academic Contexts: Shaped by Complexity. In J. Flowerdew (ed.), Discourse in Context: Contemporary Applied Linguistics, Vol. 3. London: Continuum, 225–245. Pietikäinen, K. 2014. ELF Couples and Automatic Code-Switching. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(1), 1–26. Pözl, U. and Seidlhofer, B. 2006. In and On Their Own Terms: The ‘Habitat Factor’ in English as a Lingua Franca Interaction. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177, 151–176. Studer P. and Werlen I. (eds) 2012. Linguistic Diversity in Europe. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Vettorel, P. 2014. English as a Lingua in Wider Networking: Blogging Practices. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Wei, L. 2011. Moment Analysis and Translanguaging Space: Discursive Construction of Identities by Multilingual Chinese Youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1222–1235.
368
30 ELF and translation/interpreting Michaela Albl-Mikasa
Introduction Translation and interpreting (T&I), lingua francas, and active or receptive multilingualism have always co-existed as ways of dealing with language contact. The global spread of English as a lingua franca (ELF) in recent decades has led to an imbalance between the various forms of multilingualism, including T&I. This raises questions as to the relationship between ELF and T&I, the impact of ELF on T&I, and, more generally, the state of the art of research into the emerging subdiscipline of ITELF (interpreting, translating and English as a lingua franca) within the field of applied linguistics. T&I and ELF are essentially two types of communication that tackle the challenges of linguacultural differences in multilingual contexts. In ELF situations, non-native speakers of English (NNS) do so by creatively exploiting linguistic resources, and both NNS and native speakers of English (NS) employ accommodation strategies to this end (Seidlhofer, 2011). T&I is based on native or native-like linguistic competence and on T&I-specific skills. Contrary to most ELF speakers, translators and interpreters in their capacity as communication experts are professionals (not only within the context of, but) for communication across linguacultural boundaries. More specifically, they are professionally trained multilinguals, whereas (non-native) ELF speakers are usually untrained multilinguals. According to research into bilingualism, languages are generally co-activated in the bilingual mind (Green, 1998). Early bilinguals learn to switch between mono- and bilingual modes, that is, to deactivate unrequired languages or to keep all languages activated, depending on whether they communicate with monolinguals or other bilinguals. In addition to this, interpreters (and translators for that matter) are trained to control and inhibit the source language output mechanism in the interpreting task, while keeping both languages active (Grosjean, 1997). In the professional T&I context, the question of “ELF translation” (House, 2013, pp. 287) does not arise. With this term, House refers to translations into English by translators without native-speaker competence. Interpreters and translators with English as their B language1 work from English into their A language, or from that A language (or sometimes one of their other working languages) into English B, but never into ELF. For one thing, T&I could not be offered into ELF, because ELF is not an English variety. More importantly, an English B 369
Michaela Albl-Mikasa
implies the trained and professional use of non-native English in T&I settings, which is very different from the use of (non-native) English in lingua franca scenarios (Mortensen, 2013). This does not mean that T&I cannot occur in a non-professional ELF context, nor does it preclude the increasingly common practice in commerce and industry to combine translation by NNS with editing by NS. Current developments in the face of globalization, including the spread of ELF, have led to marked changes in the professional management of multilingual communication and to profound effects on professional T&I. Attitudes and professional roles are changing in the process. In addition, de-professionalization of T&I is found in settings where non-professional ELF speakers take over T&I tasks (e.g., in community interpreting in legal, medical or educational settings). At the same time, the implied threat that ELF communication may be taking over T&I, making translators and interpreters redundant, has not materialized. Instead, it can be shown that the same “globalization processes that boosted ELF use have also led to a continuing massive increase in translations worldwide” (House, 2013, p. 284), be it in international news writing, the localization industry, or e-learning and other Web-based forms of education. The same applies to interpreting: “Globalization leads to more contacts and exchange and hence an increase in the sheer number of meetings” and so does the “huge increase in the numbers of international bodies of various types” (Donovan, 2011, p. 9). Moreover, due to migration movements, community interpreting is on the rise. Although the overall numbers of T&I assignments may not be decreasing, the range of languages involved in T&I clearly is. English has become the predominant (source or target) language in T&I and, in the private interpreting sector, for instance, “markets are becoming increasingly two-way – the national language plus English, with a corresponding assumption that interpreters will cover both directions, i.e. provide a retour into their B language” (Donovan, 2011, p. 14). In other words, multilingual conferencing typical of the twentieth century with interpreting provided into and out of several languages during the same event, has given way to events involving only two languages, namely English and the language of the event’s host country. The dominance of English in T&I can be expressed in more concrete terms, as the following figures show: •• ••
••
According to statistics from the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC), English is the most frequently used conference language worldwide, with 27 per cent of all reported interpreting assignment days across 33 languages (Neff, 2011). According to the coordinator for external communication in the Directorate-General for Translation (DGT) of the European Commission, 1.6 million or 81 per cent of the 1.9 million pages translated in 2015 were drafted in English, very often by multiple authors both NS and NNS.2 According to internally published monthly statistics from the Multilingualism and External Relations Unit of the European Parliament’s DGT, almost 65 per cent of source pages submitted for translation in January 2016 were in English.3
If one compares this last figure from the European Parliament with the percentage of Members of European Parliament (MEPs) who come from native English-speaking countries, namely 11 per cent, it seems safe to say that the majority of English pages are produced by NNS in EU institutions, despite its official policy of multilingualism4 and its T&I services being the largest worldwide. More specifically, this shows that translators and interpreters are increasingly faced with non-native English source texts and speeches, which 370
ELF and translation/interpreting
has a tangible effect on their work. In an AIIC account, “the increasing use of international English” in international meetings has been identified (along with new technologies and the supposedly poor communication skills of participants) as one of the three most prominent factors impacting conference interpreting today, which “require us to refine our theoretical models. They require interpreters to be aware of them and adapt. And they need to be taken into account in our pedagogy” (Jones, 2014). “International English” is used here as a synonym of ELF. In fact, ELF used to be referred to as “English as an International Language (EIL)” (Jenkins et al., 2011, p.282). It is now generally understood as the use of English for intercultural communication by native, second and foreign language speakers in lingua franca scenarios (Seidlhofer, 2011, pp. 80–81). However, as interpreters tend to be somewhat concerned about English in international communication, they mostly refer to its non-native use. This chapter reflects their orientation. The developments related to the stark increase in NNS-produced ELF source texts and their impact on T&I work and processes have met with surprisingly little research. A bibliometric analysis of the literature dealing with the impact of ELF on T&I (see Figure 30.1) points to a research void rather than a gap. By the end of 2015, the total number of publications (written in English) on ELF and interpreting was 26 and on ELF and translation was 43.5 Of the latter, only 25 per cent were based on empirical investigations. Although the percentage is higher for interpreting-related papers (58 per cent), two thirds of these empirical investigations either concentrated on a single aspect (namely a foreign accent) or were of an introspective nature. This chapter offers a review of the research conducted in the ITELF subfield to date, focussing on empirical considerations. A major theme is the effect of (features and factors of) ELF-related source texts on target-text production. The fact that target texts depend,
ELF-Related Interpreting Papers (26 publications by 19 authors)
ELF-Related Translation Papers (43 publications by 36 authors) 2% (1)
12% (3) 27% (7) 27% (7)
23% (10) 25% 75%
58% 42% 15% (4)
14% (6)
61% (26)
19% (5)
theoretical (27%)
theoretical (61%)
theoretical, on training (15%)
theoretical, on training (14%)
empirical (19%)
empirical, corpus-based (23%)
empirical, on accent (27%)
empirical, introspective/interview -based (2%)
empirical, introspective (12%)
Figure 30.1 Bibliometric analysis as at 31 December 2015 371
Michaela Albl-Mikasa
to a large degree, on the quality of source texts underlines how significant ELF must be in T&I. The first section below deals with the impact of ELF on interpreting, the second addresses that of ELF on translation and the third considers how ITELF-related research can inform the study of ELF more generally.
ELF and interpreting The crucial question with regard to ELF and conference interpreting is: how does ELF impact professionals’ perceptions, the profession itself, and interpreter performance and processes? The following sub-sections detail specific challenges currently faced by conference interpreters. Perceptions and attitudes A notable feature of conference interpreters’ views on ELF is their critical attitude, which stands in rather stark contrast to the empirical claims of the effective and successful nature of ELF in international communication (Jenkins et al., 2011, p. 284; Mauranen, 2013, p. 243; House, 2013, p. 286). Interpreters do not speak of ELF, but of “globish” (Jones, 2014), “bad simple English” or BSE (Reithofer, 2010, p. 144), “Lego English” (Jones, 2014) or even “desesperanto” (Donovan, 2011, p. 12). In AIIC surveys, interpreting international English is described as “the challenge of trying to communicate when speakers hinder communication” (Jones, 2014) and as the “top dissatisfaction factor [. . .] that leaves many interpreters frustrated” (Donovan, 2009, p. 67). This raises the question as to whether this negative attitude is rooted in the somewhat purist language attitude of many of these highly specialized language experts and in an entrenched “native English language ideology” (Jenkins et al., 2011, p. 288; Seidlhofer, 2011, pp. 42–45). After all, NS are known to have challenging (Scottish, Texan, etc.) accents as well, and they tend to speak faster and to use highly idiomatic phrasal verbs and collocations. ELF speech, on the other hand, has been shown to be characterized by simplified lexical terms, enhanced clarity and explicitness, syntactic explicitation and metadiscourse, as well as repetitions, restarts and rephrasings (Mauranen, 2013). These features can all be assumed to relieve interpreters’ cognitive load. Interpreters claim that any purist attitudes they may have are confined to private situations and that they are highly tolerant and even empathetic to non-native speech in the context of actual interpreting assignments. They make it clear that their interest is in high-level text production quality, which premises a fully comprehensible source text, irrespective of whether or not it conforms to Standard English (SE) norms, and that any deviations are only a concern if they interrupt processing flow (Albl-Mikasa, 2010, 2014a). They insist that their apprehensions are not of an ideological nature, but are based on the more difficult working conditions caused by ELF speakers’ restricted power of expression, heightening their cognitive load (Albl-Mikasa, 2013). In a survey of professional conference interpreters (N = 32), 72 per cent of respondents reported that the increasing number of ELF speakers at conferences had adverse effects on their work, and 69 per cent of the respondents preferred NS over NNS source texts in interpreting assignments (Albl-Mikasa, 2010, p. 130). Interpreters report the need to invest additional effort to infer exactly what a NNS is trying to say. They argue that NS speech is more conducive to their task on account of word flow; more logical and differentiated 372
ELF and translation/interpreting
argumentation; the conscious, targeted and purposeful use of concepts and terms; reliable structures; and accurate expressions. There seems to be a consensus that NS tend to have a clearer vision of how to get their message across and that it is usually “easier to follow what they are getting at” (Albl-Mikasa, 2010, p. 135). Some 50 per cent of respondents in the survey explicitly mentioned that their work had become increasingly strenuous and tiring due to the “ELF factor” (Albl-Mikasa, 2010, p. 142) and complaints about declining job satisfaction were common across the spectrum of interpreters with working experience from 10 to 40 years in both the survey and in in-depth interviews (Albl-Mikasa, 2014a). Similarly, in an AIIC workload study, difficult accents were singled out by over 600 professional interpreters as a major additional stress factor (Mackintosh, 2002) and Gile (1995, p. 173) points out that it is not only strong accents, but also incorrect grammar, uncommon lexical usage and inappropriate linguistic and reasoning style that increase capacity requirements and, therefore, stress levels. Many of the difficulties arising for interpreters in ELF situations are quite obviously linked to the interpreting-specific bilingual processing conditions under which they perform their task, which, to name a few, include (predominantly) monologic speech input, tight time constraints, and the (quasi-)simultaneity of comprehension and production of different languages. Importantly, the lack of (face-to-face) interaction in conference interpreting settings reduces the strategic exploitation of pragmatic means of meaning negotiation and co-construction, and the task-specific requirement of complete and detailed rendering allows let-it-pass strategies, i.e. treating incomprehensible elements of the speaker’s discourse as inconsequential, only to a very limited degree. At the same time, observational evidence points to ELF phenomena affecting not only interpreters’ work, but ELF communication more generally. Interpreters have insisted in interviews that they regularly experience NNS conference participants “misunderstanding each other” in direct communication (Albl-Mikasa, 2014a, p. 302). Similarly, in institutional OECD conference settings, interpreters have witnessed participants switching back and forth from and to interpretation because “their understanding or expression skills are not [. . .] robust” enough to rely on the English original on all occasions (Donovan, 2009, p. 67). Many interpreters feel uniquely placed to compensate for ELF-induced difficulties and to enable or improve understanding (Reithofer, 2010, p. 151; 2013). Against this backdrop, it seems that ELF research has not yet tackled some of the more challenging aspects of ELF communication especially in non-dialogic settings. The profession, market developments and image Economic constraints and overly optimistic views of the English skills of ELF speakers at conferences (the motto on the German market being “everybody can [speak] English”) have led to a situation where potential customers are no longer prepared to contract interpreters at a high cost. Moreover, interpreter recruitment is increasingly outsourced to service suppliers who value low cost over quality. These developments go hand in hand with a decline in professional standing in times of global English and a diminishing sense of usefulness among interpreters (Donovan, 2009). As one interpreter put it: “Interpreting is something people are no longer prepared to pay for, whereas some time ago it was something that lent an international aura to their dealings” (Albl-Mikasa, 2014a, p. 294). Donovan claims that “[i]nterpreters are less likely to be admired for their language skills and they are less indispensable than in the past” (2011, p. 17). 373
Michaela Albl-Mikasa
Above and beyond the psychological consequences, this shift in interpreter status, role and self-concept involves a number of entrepreneurial challenges. Interpreters have to (proactively) market their skills and demonstrate the value they can add to multilingual communication. They have to reason well to defend good working conditions and they need to be able to maintain high professional quality standards under increasingly difficult circumstances. They need to professionalize their services and develop their business skills, communicate more closely with their clients, and improve their understanding of client needs and requirements. Existential threats or demotivating circumstances are only one way of looking at the situation. From another vantage point, this may actually be an opportunity for interpreters to reinvent themselves. Job profiles and task descriptions change over time and those of the interpreting profession are changing rapidly owing to the rise of ELF. Interpreters, once admired for the complex skill of simultaneous interpreting, may have lost their status as indispensable supporters of international relations and multilingual communication to become providers of a service that is potentially replaceable by ELF. Meanwhile, globalization, migration, and the sharp increase in linguistic and cultural diversity may offer these language professionals an opportunity to rethink their role and re-brand as multilingual communication experts (Albl-Mikasa, 2014b, p. 31). As such, they could offer consultancy for the selection of appropriate and effective multilingual communication modes and practices, and support multicultural change management. At the 2016 CIUTI Forum (www.ciuti.org), Barbara Moser-Mercer pointed out that interpreters are a special breed, bringing together all the twenty-first-century skills of not just interpreting and translating, but of handling different languages and moving between cultures. She highlighted that they are equipped with intercultural communication competence, critical skills, intellectual qualities, as well as a sensitivity towards languages and cultures, especially in times of crises. Interpreters seem to meet today’s new demands for “plurilingual, effective and adaptive speaker[s]” particularly well, displaying a “broader repertoire of skills” (Mauranen, 2012, p. 240). These include qualities such as tolerance, goodwill and empathy enabling them to accommodate today’s “imperfect multilinguals”. ELF-induced processing and performance problems These changing market conditions have resulted in changing task demands. Higher quality demands for “providing fast, accurate and clear interpretation at all times” (Donovan, 2011, p. 17) have to be fulfilled under more difficult working and processing conditions. ELF-induced performance problems have emerged as a major cause for concern among professional interpreters (Albl-Mikasa, 2014a), but have not yet been covered by corpus-based ELF research. For example, lexical and formal appropriations (Seidlhofer, 2011) and lexicogrammatical approximations (Mauranen, 2012) described to be typical of ELF can hardly serve as evidence for the stressful and disruptive effect deplored by interpreters. Anomalies, such as to financiate, increasement, to reject against (Seidlhofer, 2011, pp. 102–104), or approximated chunks, such as put the end on instead of put an end to and it stands for reason instead of it stands to reason (Mauranen, 2013, p. 241), do not seem to pose any serious problems for either interpreters or ordinary listeners. Much more problematic are the many interpreter-reported occasions when ELF speakers fail to express themselves clearly and coherently. Authentic examples are given by Jones (2014): “Our objective is that the stakeholders in the consultation all take the platform not only from the representative angle but also are implicated in the overall policy objective” and “we must be careful to do this”, 374
ELF and translation/interpreting
which is the very opposite of what is actually meant, namely, “we should be careful about doing this”. It is these manifestations rather than those described in specialist ELF literature that may justify the emerging ITELF focus on ELF-induced (interpreting) problems. One major challenge arising from ELF speech is that interlocutors’ various language resources are at times surfacing in the English they use (Mauranen, 2013). For low-proficiency speakers of English, this is often unavoidable, particularly if speakers think in their L1 and rely on L1 mediation by translating from their L1 (Pavlenko, 2005, pp. 438, 446). Even more proficient speakers will generally show traces of cross-linguistic transfer, because, contrary to professional and trained multilinguals (such as interpreters or translators), they may not feel the need to, or may not be able to, control and inhibit the source-language output mechanism. While, with translators, interference is generally confined to the performance level of the target discourse, ELF speakers can be said to exhibit both “static interferences” (which “reflect permanent traces” of one language and are linked to a person’s competence involving “all levels of linguistic knowledge”) and “dynamic interferences” (which are “the ephemeral intrusions of the other language” and are linked to performance) (Grosjean, 2012, pp. 14–15). The resulting more or less “L1-coloured” speech (Albl-Mikasa, 2013, p. 105; Jenkins (2015, p. 75) speaks of “language leakage”) is likely to affect interpreters’ comprehension processes. Examples of ELF speakers’ reliance on L1-based lexical items; on the transcoding (i.e., literal translation) of idiomatic phrases, collocational patterns, and other multiunit structures from their L1 into English, or of their use of false friends and cognates, are frequently reported by interpreters. They are confronted with expressions such as “be short and pregnant” (from German prägnant meaning concise/succinct); with “voice” to refer to an item on a balance sheet (from Italian voce meaning both voice and item on a balance sheet); with “escaped profits” (from German entgangene Gewinne); with “a mangle of approaches” for lack (from German Mangel); with “it will be sinful to” for making good sense (from German sinnvoll); or with “outreach” for scope (from German Reichweite) (Albl-Mikasa, 2014a, pp. 298, 304). The comprehension problems resulting from such L1-coloured speech, especially when the speaker’s L1 is not known, add to the interpreter’s cognitive load. Sharing ELF speakers’ L1 can clearly facilitate meaning recovery for interpreters. What I called the “shared languages benefit” (Albl-Mikasa, 2013: 105) has been confirmed not only in my introspective questionnaire and interview studies, but also by a performance-based experiment involving professional interpreters (Kurz and Basel, 2009). It is also supported by a study under Grosjean’s supervision (2012), which concludes that monolinguals, while showing the same level of comprehension of texts that contained no interference, clearly did not understand texts containing interference as well as bilinguals (who had the “embedded language” in their linguistic repertoire). The shared languages benefit “involves knowing how people of certain languages conceptualize and how this is expressed in linguistic terms” (Albl-Mikasa, 2013, p. 115). Such knowledge enables interpreters to uncover the intentions underlying non-standard patterns. Cross-linguistic influence is especially pronounced in speaker accent; one of the main problem triggers in interpreting. Accent has, in fact, been at the epicentre of ELF-related interpreting research since its early stages. Atypical accents were found to lead to comprehension problems and omissions in (mainly student) interpreter performance (e.g., Kurz, 2008), and interpreting accuracy was shown to decrease significantly with phonemic and prosodic deviations (Lin et al., 2013). However, although a foreign accent clearly influences the ability to understand spoken texts, professional interpreters have looked at it as neither difficult in principle nor ELF-specific, but as problematic when deviations are very pronounced. 375
Michaela Albl-Mikasa
Recent findings suggest that what really complicates the situation is the combination of several ELF-specific features, including unfamiliar accents and the imprecise or irregular usage of terms and concepts, often embedded in unconventional sentence structures. For example, when an ELF speaker in the context of an annual general meeting of shareholders pronounces bear trap as beer trap and, in addition, uses this technical stock market term erroneously to refer to a financial mechanism (Albl-Mikasa, 2014a, p. 300), the recovery of intended meaning will be problematic. In addition to such combinatorial complexity, there is preliminary evidence that differences in text organization may add to ELF-induced speech-comprehension and processing difficulties. In a recent study (Albl-Mikasa et al., 2017a), the same PowerPoint slides of technical content served as the basis for a presentation by a native speaker (Canadian) and two non-native speakers (Hungarian and Croatian) that was interpreted by six professional interpreters. The faster speech rate on the part of the NS (187 wpm as compared with 128 and 156 wpm) was offset by clearer text structure and presentation. The latter consisted of targeted content development in combination with an explicit outline of the superstructure of the argument and changes in the density of the presented information by means of redundant, metadiscursive, and rapport-building stretches. In addition, transparency was achieved by means of the competent and well-placed use of connectives and certainty markers. This contrasted with the NNS presenters’ unceasing concentration on factual information, the unconventional or misplaced use of markers, and, at times, incoherent logic in the micro-propositional presentation of their argument. In a similar vein, it has been found that ELF speech may be more prone to register shifts. In a study with three NNS and one student interpreter, otherwise low-register NNS speeches contained a number of highly technical terms (looked up in advance for the occasion, which is quite common for conference meetings). Without being prompted to do so, the NNS speakers explained that they had only a more colloquial command of English. The interpreter, in turn, reported that s/he had felt obliged to level out uneven registers and make things sound more homogeneous in the target text, which s/he perceived as an additional difficulty (Albl-Mikasa, 2014b, p. 27). This is in line with professional survey respondents’ preference of NS source speeches for reasons of “higher register” (Albl-Mikasa, 2010, p. 135). A similar phenomenon regarding the uneven use of technical terms has been observed in the OECD interpreting context: From personal experience and discussions with colleagues, I would postulate that nonnative speakers make more use of elements of jargon and technolect than do native speakers. They use these as short cuts to communication within a community of experts and as a way of offsetting deficiencies in creative language use. (Donovan, 2011, p. 12) Differences in text organization, content, information presentation, style and register or challenges from the combination of unconventional usages are often a function of proficiency levels, which are known to play a determining role in spoken and written ELF communication (Mauranen, 2007; Hewson, 2009). Lower proficiency levels may restrict ELF speakers’ expressive ability and capacity to consistently present their line of argument in a logical, coherent, and targeted manner. For interpreters, this is at the very root of their complaints. They claim to have to make an extra comprehension effort and think outside the box or “around two corners” in order “to be able to discern what the speaker would have said had he spoken proper English” (Albl-Mikasa, 2014a, p. 300). 376
ELF and translation/interpreting
This makes additional cognitive load the number one issue for interpreters. Incoherent, inconclusive and imprecise NNS input on the text level, as detailed above, has an effect on the knowledge-access, general processing and, ultimately, performance level. Non-standard input may hamper interpreters’ comprehension and analysis processes and impede fundamental processes of anticipation, inference and strategic decision-making (Albl-Mikasa, 2015). This is likely to result in the need for additional plausibility checks and compensation loops. More generally speaking, impaired bottom-up processing increases the likelihood of a greater reliance on top-down processing and higher-order inferences. This, in turn, would place higher demands on available capacity. In addition, unexpected and unpredictable nonstandard input can disable the activation of automatized transfer routines and retrieval of direct links between source- and targetlanguage knowledge due to a mismatch between nonstandard input and stored items. The more variable, diverse, and heterogeneous the ELF input, the less it can serve as an activation trigger prompting ready-to-hand translation equivalents and established transfer routines that are established over time and constitute the interpreter’s “mental translation memory” (Albl-Mikasa, 2015, p. 55). The resulting processual irritation helps to explain why interpreters experience ELF as a “brain stopper” (Albl-Mikasa, 2014b, p. 23) and favour “reliable structures” (Albl-Mikasa, 2010, p. 135) in NS source speeches. Last but not least, audience design to cater for non-native addressees also takes a toll on the interpreter’s mental resources. Accommodation measures, such as simplification and the suppression of sophisticated idiomatic phrases during target text production, are found to be “cognitively demanding” (Shintel and Keysar, 2009, p. 261). Moreover, they put pressure on interpreters in the form of a conflict of interest between their role as language experts versus communication facilitator (Albl-Mikasa, 2010, p. 138). When faced with NNS speakers, interpreters have to engage in compensation efforts; when faced with NNS listeners, they have to navigate between speaker fidelity and audience design. In some conference settings, the interpreter may have to cater to an NNS speaker and an NNS audience at the same time. In summary, it seems that, under the constraints of online simultaneous processing, variable combinations of foreign accent, crosslinguistic influence, register shifts and limitations in text presentation on the part of ELF speakers stretch the interpreters’ already taxed resources and make processing harder. A necessary consequence would be the introduction of ELF-specific training modules to prepare interpreters for changing working conditions and new requirements. A first systematic attempt at introducing an ELF pedagogy into interpreter training has been made (Albl-Mikasa et al., 2017b).
ELF and translation Translation processes have been undergoing major changes in recent decades (Gambier, 2016), spurred on by globalization among other things (Cronin, 2003). Revision and post-editing practices have become part and parcel of text production, and computerassisted translation tools have turned (non-literary) target-text production into an assemblage of segments rather than creative writing. In particular, the “[l]arge-scale use of ELF has altered the work of translators and text editors” in that translations may go through both an “internationalization process” geared towards international consumption and a “localization process” involving “adaptation for users in a particular region” (Mauranen, 2012, pp. 240–241). As pointed out in the introduction to this chapter, the bulk of the literature on the relationship between ELF and translation consists of theoretical considerations of related 377
Michaela Albl-Mikasa
developments. While some authors highlight commonalities between ELF and translation (Cook, 2012; Mauranen, 2012), others see translation as a “counterbalance” to “the hegemonic incursion of English” or a “form of resistance to globalization” (Chan, 2014, p. 23). Again assuming a bilingual perspective, translation and ELF are essentially forms of crosslinguistic and “constrained communication” (Chesterman, 2004, p. 10) that share similar processing constraints and are set against some original language (SE in the case of ELF, the source language in the case of translations). Gaspari and Bernardini (2010) postulate that non-native English communication and translation should be seen as forms of language mediation that share similar features (such as explicitation, normalization, levelling out and simplification) and that these features can be accounted for by the notion of mediation universals. As such, ELF-based texts and translations are sometimes “viewed as infiltrating target [or original] languages with alien influences” and as a “means of importing new linguistic trends” in a globalized world (Mauranen, 2008, p. 45). For the special case of translation from ELF-based source texts, longitudinal corpus studies by House (2013) did not produce any evidence of the contamination of other languages. While ELF-based texts and translations may be language forms of their own (Mauranen, 2008, p. 34) on account of the unique, non-interference-based features they possess, they are also hybrid texts (Mauranen, 2008, 2012) retaining traces of other languages (ELF-based texts from the text producers’ multilingual resources, translations from their source texts). At the same time, texts are more and more frequently drafted by multiple authors, both NS and NNS, of different linguacultural backgrounds. As a result, “source-text generation processes are increasingly multilingual” and source texts are likely to possess hybrid features to a much greater extent than monolingual translation outputs. Translations thus become “agents of dehybridization in the sense that they create and project the illusion of the non-hybrid text” (Pym, 2001, p. 205). What matters most for translators today is that, just like interpreters, they are confronted with an almost exponential increase in English source texts produced by NNS (see the EU figures in the introduction above). This situation leaves them with less clearly defined norms and identifiable languages, which entails a potential loss of control of source text comprehension, corresponding equivalence relations and, thus, translational quality (Hewson, 2009). As a consequence, translators have to initiate a “normalization process” (Hewson, 2009, p. 119) to produce an acceptable professional target text. In the EU institutions, where the overwhelming majority of source texts are now produced in non-native English (see above), the EU DGTs (of the Commission and Parliament) have set up so-called Editing Units. The editors’ aim is to refashion the source texts into SE versions that steer clear of ambiguous, vague, or confusing phrases to ensure that the translations of legally binding texts in the 24 different EU languages express the same thing (Wagner, 2005). In one of the few performance-based studies to date, the effect of ELF texts on translators was investigated (Albl-Mikasa et al., 2017c). In 12 texts made available by the European Parliament’s Editing Unit in their original ELF and edited SE versions, the segments marked out for editing were analyzed for potential problem triggers. In a second phase, three of the texts, in both versions, were translated by six professional translators. Both rounds of analysis produced similar results. About three-quarters of edited items were unlikely to pose potential or actual translation problems, while about one-quarter did. Across the three translated texts, the segments selected for modification by the Editing Unit gave rise to translation
378
ELF and translation/interpreting
problems in 26 per cent of cases when based on the non-edited originals. This is more than twice as often as in their edited counterparts (12 per cent). The study also showed that in the analysis of both subcorpora, most problems could be traced back to the non-standard use of lexical expressions. From the (roughly speaking 25 per cent of) non-edited segments that did cause ELFinduced translation problems it seemed that the potential for imprecisions and, consequently, misinterpretation clearly increases when source texts are produced by NNS and that they warrant greater disambiguation, clarification and normalization efforts. This may show in translational efficiency and, ultimately, in job satisfaction. At the same time, it appeared from the large majority of Editing Unit modifications that had no direct impact on source text meaning recovery or target text production that the Editing Unit’s motives and goals may be different from those of the translators in that they were geared towards precision and consistency with SE norms and inner-institutional EU jargon rather than translatability. In fact, the rather high number of stylistic modifications in the edited texts served only in some cases to decrease ambiguity and vagueness. The NS editors tended to overemphasize peripheral items and nuances that would go unnoticed by the non-native translator without adverse effects on the translation. To some extent, NS intuition seemed to be counterproductive and involve the risk for editorial over-augmentation. With an increasingly international readership in mind, multilingual English B translators may consequently have the advantage of remaining focussed on actual translation problems, taking only necessary normalization steps and going for fast ELF text reception rather than unnecessary cultural load. As with interpreting, these new complexities will have to be addressed in translator training (Taviano, 2010).
ITELF: Implications for ELF research and open questions Adopting an ITELF perspective can arguably inform ELF research. The observation and analysis of interpreting settings are potential testing grounds for empirical investigations (Albl-Mikasa, 2014a), because “interpreters are first-hand witnesses to actual language use” and observers of “numerous different communication settings from a unique viewpoint – both involved in the messages transmitted and outsiders to the interests at stake” (Donovan, 2009, pp. 62, 66). This perspective suggests redirecting ELF research attention away from mainly conversational interaction to the “wide range of encounters – bilateral meetings between politicians, business seminars, press conferences, scientific or academic symposia, general meetings of shareholders to name but a few” on the more complex and technical level of the “intellectual, legal and political [. . .] exchange of knowledge and information and [. . .] negotiation of power” (Donovan, 2009, pp. 53–54). If and since “collaborative behaviour largely accounts for the relative absence of miscommunication in ELF” (Mauranen, 2013, p. 243), such exploration is likely to challenge the current tenet of successful and effective ELF communication and qualify views of “the communicative robustness of intercultural interactions” (Seidlhofer, 2011, p. 80) or of ELF being “a fully functional means of communication” (House, 2013, p. 286). The first piece of well-founded evidence questioning the communicative effectiveness of ELF communication results from a larger-scale PhD study. Reithofer (2010, 2013) found in three experimental runs with a total of 139 participants that the listeners who followed the interpretation into their L1 achieved significantly higher scores in the comprehension tests than those who were directly exposed to the original Italian English speaker, although
379
Michaela Albl-Mikasa
they shared the same technical background as the ELF speaker. She concludes that professional interpreting provides added value in terms of the communicative effect (defined as the change in the audience’s knowledge level) of non-native speech and improves faulty originals in ELF settings. This draws attention to the fact that little is known about the consequences and extra cost involved in ineffective communication. As far as the EU multilingual regime is concerned, Grin and Gazzola (2013) find in their statistical analysis that T&I services are fairer and more effective than the sole use of ELF and only amount to two euros per year per citizen. At the same time, it remains to be defined what exactly successful communication is. Is it measured in terms of “communicative effect” (as in Reithofer above) or of speaker and listener satisfaction? According to Kohn, “[i]n authentic communication [. . .] success is first and foremost experienced as ‘perceived success’ in the form of speaker satisfaction as resulting from compliance with one’s own requirements of performance” (2015, p. 56). Similarly, in interpreting studies, the comprehensive set of well-researched quality parameters (Collados Aís and García Becerra, 2015) and its influence on comprehension, user acceptance and communicative success has been shown to apply in variable forms, depending on the angle taken by different user groups (client listeners, event organizers, colleague interpreters, etc.). It is known in the field that the importance of intonation in conveying verbal content, the link between non-verbal parameters and verbal ones (such as logical cohesion or accuracy), as well as parameters such as fluency, delivery rate, diction or style, all relate to intelligibility, satisfaction and pleasantness. They may be worth scrutinizing for their effects on ELF communication. Other open ITELF issues include ELF in community interpreting, where research results are almost nonexistent. There is only common practice evidence that migrants and asylum seekers fall back on non-native English in their dealing with authorities or aid agencies when interpreters for their first languages are not available. In light of the massive current influx of refugees and the spreading command of some English, at least among the younger generations, it can be assumed that English is increasingly used as a lingua franca in a number of community interpreting settings. Preliminary studies have been conducted for Italian (Guido 2013) and Finnish (Määttä 2015) contexts.
Conclusion According to Wilss (1999), T&I in twentieth-century Europe can be divided into the following three main phases: (1) the period from 1900 to 1919 with the dominance of French as a lingua franca in international communication; (2) the period from 1919 to 1945, characterized by English–French bilingualism; and (3) the period from 1945 to approximately 1990 with its massive trend towards multilingualism and the development of language mediation into a “translation industry”. Carrying this forward, one might say that in the twenty-first century, T&I in Europe (and beyond) has come to be dominated by non-native English used for international communication and is possibly entering a phase of adaptation to and reshaping in the face of the increasing diversification, hybridization and fuzziness of globalized ELF-implicated multilingual practices. The effects of increased social, cultural and linguistic diversity, including language mixing and translanguaging (García and Wei, 2014) on ELF-speaker output and, consequently, interpreter and translator source texts remains to be seen. It seems clear at this point that English used as a lingua franca plays a significant role in T&I and that source texts are increasingly hybrid, not least owing to phenomena such as collective drafting. 380
ELF and translation/interpreting
Consequent dehybridization, normalization and compensation represent additional effort in the T&I process and are likely to add to cognitive load. A recent trend has been to move towards a rapprochement of interpreting and translation studies. This was in fact the very topic of a 2016 conference, where “Translation and Interpreting are, therefore, presented as a binomial (T&I)” (Transint, 2016). In no T&I subfield have T&I been brought closer into line than in ITELF. ELF is the unifying common denominator, impacting translators’ and interpreters’ professional practices, strategic behaviours and cognitive processes in similar ways. At the micro-level of bilingual processing, ELF-induced phenomena can be disruptive and become brain stoppers for interpreters and (text) flow blockers for translators. For both T&I, ELF-related research topics include developments in the profession, including changing working conditions, professional profiles, status, role and self-concept, as well as consequences for processing and implications for language combinations and language versions. For both T&I and ELF, communicative success is a major issue.6
Notes 1 According to a widely accepted AIIC classification, A is the native language; B is the active, non-native but native-like language, from and into which interpreters work; and C the passive, non-native language from which interpreters work into their A language (http://aiic.net/node/6/ working-languages). This applies to translators in equal measure. 2 Tytti Granqvist, personal e-mail communication. 3 Kent Johansson, personal e-mail communication. 4 With 28 member states, 24 official languages and a total of 552 translation combinations, the EU policy of full multilingualism had to be met with pragmatism (Wagner 2005: 221). The 2004 enlargement led to “controlled full multilingualism” (multilingualisme maitrisé), and further enlargements combined with the economic crises to “cost-efficient multilingualism”, giving English a dominant role in the institutions. 5 These figures are based on a thorough search of databases such as BITRA and on a Google search, and should give a relatively complete picture. 6 I should like to thank Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow and Kurt Kohn for valuable comments on draft versions of this chapter.
Related chapters in this handbook 1 Mauranen, Conceptualising ELF 9 Sherman, ELF and the EU/wider Europe
Further reading Cook, G. (2012). ELF and translation and interpreting: Common ground, common interest, common cause. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(2), pp. 241–262. House, J. (2014). English as a global lingua franca: A threat to multilingual communication and translation? Language Teaching 47(3), pp. 363–376.
References Albl-Mikasa, M. (2010). Global English and English as a lingua franca (ELF): Implications for the interpreting profession. trans-kom 3(2), pp. 126–148. Albl-Mikasa, M. (2013). Express-ability in ELF communication. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2(1), pp. 101–122. 381
Michaela Albl-Mikasa
Albl-Mikasa, M. (2014a). The imaginary invalid: Conference interpreters and English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 24(3), pp. 293–311. Albl-Mikasa, M. (2014b). English as a lingua franca in international conferences. Interpreting and Translation Studies (Korea) 18(3), pp. 17–42. Albl-Mikasa, M. (2015). ELF speakers’ restricted power of expression: Implications for interpreters’ processing. In Ehrensberger-Dow, M., Englund Dimitrova, B., Hubscher Davidson, S. and Norberg, U. eds, Describing cognitive processes in translation: Acts and events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 43–62. Albl-Mikasa, M., Guggisberg, S. and Talirz, F. (2017a). (Source) texting ELF: Native and non-native English speaker discourse production and conference interpreters’ preference for the native speaker. In Stauder, A., Ustaszewski, M. and Zybatow, L. eds, Translation studies and translation practice. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 267–275. Albl-Mikasa, M., Bartels, L., Mohler, L. and Wick, B. (2017b). World Englishes and English as a lingua franca in interpreter training. In Hagemann, S., Kempa, T., Neu, J. and Walter, S. eds, Translationslehre und Bologna-Prozess: Unterwegs zwischen Einheit und Vielfalt. Berlin: Frank und Timme, pp. 217–240. Albl-Mikasa, M., Fontana, G., Fuchs, L.M., Studeli, L.M. and Zaugg, A. (2017c). Written ELF and translation: Professional translations of non-native English. Before and after texts from the European Parliament’s Editing Unit. The Translator [Special issue: International English and Translation], 23. Chan, L. T. (2014). Under the shadow of three lingua francae: Repositioning translation in East Asia. Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies 1(1), pp. 12–27. Chesterman, A. (2004). Hypotheses about translation universals. In Hansen, G., Malmkjær, K. and Gile, D. eds, Claims, changes and challenges in Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–13. Collados Aís, Á. and García Becerra, O. (2015). Quality. In Mikkelson, H. and Jourdenais, R. eds, The Routledge handbook of interpreting. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 368–383. Cook, G. (2012). ELF and translation and interpreting: Common ground, common interest, common cause. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(2), pp. 241–262. Cronin, M. (2003). Translation and globalization. London/New York: Routledge. Donovan, C. (2009). A study of changing patterns of language use in international conferences. In Laplace, C., Lederer, M. and Gile, D. eds, La traduction et ses métiers: aspects théoriques et pratiques. Paris: Minard, pp. 53–72. Donovan, C. (2011). The consequences of training of the growing use of English. Translator Research IX, pp. 5–20. Gambier, Y. (2016). Rapid and radical changes in translation and translation studies. International Journal of Communication 10, pp. 887–906. García, O. and Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gaspari, F. and Bernardini, S. (2010). Comparing non-native and translated language: Monolingual comparable corpora with a twist. In Xiao, R. ed., Using corpora in contrastive and translation studies. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 215–234. Gile, D. (1995). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Green, D.W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism. Language and Cognition 1, pp. 67–81. Grin, F. and Gazzola, M. (2013). Assessing efficiency and fairness in multilingual communication: theory and application through indicators. In Berthoud, A-C., Grin, F. and Lüdi, G. eds, Exploring the dynamics of multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 365–386. Grosjean, F. (1997). The bilingual individual. Interpreting 2(1), pp. 163–187. Grosjean, F. (2012). An attempt to isolate, and then differentiate, transfer and interference. International Journal of Bilingualism 16(1), pp. 11–21. Guido, M. 2013. Interpreting trauma narratives in cross-cultural immigration encounters between outer-circle and expanding-circle ELF users: Sociolinguistic issues and pedagogic implications. In Bayyurt, Y. and Akcam, S. eds, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca. Istanbul: Bogaziçi University, pp. 331–339.
382
ELF and translation/interpreting
Hewson, L. (2009). Brave new globalized world? Translation studies and English as a lingua franca. Revue française de linguistique appliquée XIV(1), pp. 109–120. House, J. (2013). English as a lingua franca and translation. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 7(2), pp. 279–298. Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice 2(3), pp. 49–85. Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching: Surveys and Studies 44(3), pp. 281–315. Jones, R. (2014). Interpreting: A communication profession in a world of non-communication. The AIIC Webzine [Online]. Available at: http://aiic.net/page/6990/interpreting-a-communicationprofession-in-a-world-of-non-communication/lang/ [Accessed: 12 October 2016]. Kohn, K. (2015). A pedagogical space for ELF in the English in the classroom. In: Bayyurt, Y. and Akcan, S. eds, Current perspectives on pedagogy for ELF. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 51–67. Kurz, I. (2008). The impact of non-native English on students’ interpreting performance. In Hansen, G., Chesterman, A. and Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. eds, Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 179–192. Kurz, I. and Basel, E. (2009). The impact of non-native English on information transfer in SI. Forum 7(2), pp. 187–212. Lin, I.I., Chang, F.L.A. and Kuo, F.L. (2013). The impact of non-native accented English on rendition accuracy in simultaneous interpreting. Translation & Interpreting 5(2), pp. 30–44. Määttä, S.K. (2015). Interpreting the discourse of reporting: The case of screening interviews with asylum seekers and police interviews in Finland. Translation & Interpreting 7(3), pp. 21–35. Mackintosh, J. (2002). Workload study: What it tells us about our job. The AIIC Webzine [Online]. Available at: http://aiic.net/page/660/workload-study-what-it-tells-us-about-our-job/lang/1 [Accessed: 12 October 2016]. Mauranen, A. (2007). Discourse reflexivity and international speakers: How is it used in English as a lingua franca? Jezik in Slovstvo 52(3–4), pp. 1–19. Mauranen, A. (2008). Universal tendencies in translation. In Anderman, G. and Rogers, M. eds, Incorporating corpora. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 32–48. Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mauranen, A. (2013). Lingua franca discourse in academic contexts: Shaped by complexity. In Flowerdew, J. ed., Discourse in context: Contemporary applied linguistics. Volume 3. London/ New York: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 225–245. Mortensen, J. (2013). English used as lingua franca as an object study. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2(1), pp. 25–46. Neff, J. (2011). A statistical portrait 2005–2009. The AIIC Webzine [Online]. Available at: http://aiic. net/page/3585/a-statistical-portrait-2005-2009/lang/1 [Accessed: 12 October 2016]. Pavlenko, A. (2005). Bilingualism and thought. In Kroll, J.F. and De Groot, A.M.B. eds, Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 433–453. Pym, A. (2001). Against praise of hybridity. Across Languages and Cultures 2(2), pp. 195–206. Reithofer, K. (2010). English as a lingua franca vs. interpreting: Battleground or peaceful co-existence. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 15, pp. 143–157. Reithofer, K. (2013). Comparing modes of communication: The effect of English as a lingua franca vs. interpreting. Interpreting 15(1), pp. 48–73. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shintel, H. and Keysar, B. (2009). Less is more: A minimalist account of joint action in communication. Topics in Cognitive Science 1, pp. 260–273. Taviano, S. (2010). Translating English as a lingua franca. Firenze: Le Monnier Università. Transint (2016). Translation and interpreting: Convergence, contact, interaction. Trieste Conference 26–28 May 2016. Available at: http://transint2016.weebly.com/call-for-papers.html [Accessed: 12 October 2016]. Wagner, E. (2005). Translation and/or editing: The way forward? In Anderman, G. and Rogers, M. eds, In and out of English, for better, for worse? Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 214–226. Wilss, W. (1999). Translation and interpreting in the 20th century: Focus on German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
383
Part V
ELF in academia
31 Beyond monolingualism in higher education A language policy account Ute Smit
Introduction Higher education (HE) has been one of the main domains in which ELF research has taken an interest. Apart from it being ‘home turf’ for us academics, it is also a prototypical ELF scenario with multilinguals fundamentally drawing on shared language resources to engage in and further their institutional endeavours. The acronym ELFA (English as a lingua franca in academic settings) bears witness to this, just like the existence of the ELFA corpus (Mauranen 2003) and the many studies that have focussed on ELF in academic settings (e.g. Björkman 2013; Hynninen 2013; Mauranen 2012; Smit 2010). At the same time and as true of ELF in general, its lingua franca nature presupposes that such academic settings come with multilingualism and multilingual repertoires and, while ELF research in general has always acknowledged the multilingual nature of ELF encounters, it has, as Jenkins (2015) points out, backgrounded rather than foregrounded the multilingual language situation. In view of the strong literature base, it seems a good time now to foreground the multilingual aspect of higher education, which is what this chapter intends to do. Before this can be done, a maybe obvious, but still important limitation must be clarified: as a mass noun, ‘higher education’ seems to imply a monolithic and potentially homogeneous phenomenon, which it surely is not; first, because education of any kind is by nature highly situated and context-specific and second, because the language policy perspective pursued here entails a focus on individual higher educational institutions (HEIs) rather than on an educational level. Apart from a generally shared mission to provide post-secondary education to (usually young) adults aiming to improve their competences, knowledge and skills, HEIs vary widely as regards their institutional size and structure, their economic setup and socio-political status, and their disciplinary anchoring and institutional visions (OECD 2015). Given such a diversity of HEIs all over the globe, this chapter does not intend to cover higher education in general, but pursues a more limited aim: by drawing on recently developed conceptual frameworks, a selection of different, but largely multilingual HE policies will be introduced, culminating in the discussion of critical concerns. In preparation of these considerations, the chapter will start by exploring the basic concepts, internationalisation and language policy. 387
Ute Smit
Language policy at the time of internationalising higher education Although universities have always oriented themselves beyond national borders (Scott 2011), the last few decades have witnessed unprecedented dynamics of HEIs ‘integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of higher education’ (Knight 2008: 21). Understood so widely, internationalisation is a multilayered process, which, even if received with mixed feelings (e.g. Bulajeva and Hogan-Brun 2014; Hughes 2008), has had a lasting effect on HE in the OECD countries and beyond (Maringe and Foskett 2010; OECD 2015). As typical of such a wide-spread socio-political development, internationalisation comes in various kinds and forms. On the institutional level, Knight (summarised in Glass 2014: 12) has recently suggested three types of ‘international universities’: the third and most recent contains the presently small number of institutes that were founded jointly by international groups of established HEIs; the second type consists of the off-shore campuses that were started by predominately Anglo-American universities in the main target areas of their international students; and the first and largest type comprises the many universities that are engaged in internationalisation on their own campuses. But even for this first type – which for reasons of prevalence and space is the focus of this chapter – internationalisation is multilayered and diverse. Staff and student mobility is the presumably best established aspect of internationalisation, as it has not only found its way into explicit HE policies at transnational (e.g. European) as well as institutional level, but has also been integrated into quality assurance schemes in terms of research collaborations, international staff and students, visiting lecturers, and temporarily mobile ‘incoming’ and ‘outgoing’ students (Coleman 2006; Knight 2008). At the same time, the quantitative developments over the last decades show that even at the most international universities student mobility is limited to a minority only (e.g. Wächter and Maiworm 2014: 38). This leaves the majority to study at their home institutions, experiencing internationalisation in the form of curricular adaptations and visiting staff and students, also known as ‘Internationalisation at Home’ (Crowther et al. 2000). Apart from incoming students and visiting staff, international measures focus on the administrative and curricular levels, offering programmes and courses that either pursue explicitly international focuses and/or are similarly structured (cp. the ‘Bologna three-cycle system (BA, MA, PhD)’ introduced in most mainland European universities since the 2000s; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2015: ch. 2.1). As already indicated in this brief account, these developments have had a lasting impact on institutional policies on various counts, of which, fitting to this handbook, the focus here is on those related to the roles, functions and use of (particular) languages, which will be approached from the point of view of language policy (LP) research. As a genuinely transdisciplinary undertaking LP research is characterised by a range of interests and aims, but also by diverse readings of ‘language’ and ‘policy’ (Ricento 2015, referring to Petrovic 2015). In an attempt to demarcate its core concerns, Hornberger (2015: 9) points out that ‘LP researchers are concerned with the creation, interpretation and appropriation of policy on language status, corpus, or acquisition in particular contexts’. The policies at stake tend to be composite and multilayered and, as Johnson’s (2013) overview of the rich LP literature reveals, combine diverse policy mechanisms: 1. Official regulations[; ... ] 2. Unofficial, covert, de facto, and implicit mechanisms, connected to language beliefs and practices that have regulating power over language use [; ... ] 3. [...] processes [...] that are driven by a diversity of language policy agents [; ...] 4. Policy texts and discourses across multiple contexts and layers of policy activity [...]. (Johnson 2013: 9) 388
Beyond monolingualism in higher education
While the last two points raised above remind us of the double-sided nature of policies as products and processes, which are furthermore interconnected with other policies and related processes, the first two points topicalise the complexity of a policy being co-constructed by various official documents and unofficial mechanisms that also draw on language practices and ideologies. In an attempt to clarify the range of thus established policy sources, Johnson (2013: 10, Table 1.1) lists eight policy types distinguished by genesis (top-down vs. bottom-up), by means and goals (overt vs. covert); documentation (explicit vs. implicit), and legal status (de jure vs. de facto). While actual language policies tend to reveal combinatory constellations rather than the ‘pure’ types, the four dimensions can be used fruitfully when describing different HE LP scenarios (see section ‘Exemplifying language policy in higher education’ below ). Before turning to illustrative examples, though, the next section is concerned with LP in HE from a conceptual perspective.
Modelling language policy for higher education By way of introducing different theoretical takes on the topic in question, the four models chosen here combine three deductively constructed frameworks with one attained inductively, which furthermore differ slightly in their scope: the first two models deal with the multilingual university, the third with English-medium education and the final one with mediums of instruction. These different foci notwithstanding, the approaches open up complementary and revealing depictions of present-day LP concerns for HEIs. Before turning to frameworks that aim to capture extant and developing multilingual scenarios, and thus the status quo of what can be found in HEIs around the globe, it seems important to take a step back and consider the ‘what’ that is at stake here, i.e. the complex roles language fulfils in HE and the contingent dynamics this implies when various languages are at play. By drawing on language and education economics, Grin (2010) sketches the complexity of institutional linguistic activities three-dimensionally, with the social actors (e.g. lecturers or students) forming the first dimension, the purposes (such as teaching or administering) the second one, and the third dimension being made up by the distinction between institutionally internal and external communication. The resulting matrix foregrounds the dependencies and long-lasting tangible and intangible effects a certain language choice will have on the system. While, for instance, English might be chosen as sole language of external research activities, this would exclude other languages and presumably potential contributors from this activity. At the same time a combination of languages might be considered more efficient for internal administrative communication, again implying the potential exclusion of some from active participation. The complex and potentially conflicting dynamics of the multilingual institutional interplay are also at the core of Cenoz and Gorter’s (2010) three ‘continua of multilingualism at the university’ (cf. also Fortanet-Gómez 2013: 53–54), viz. the linguistic, sociolinguistic and educational ones. The latter two are reminiscent of Grin’s model in that the sociolinguistic continuum combines micro- vs. macro-level variables capturing the range of individual vs. societal multilingualism and thereby including (foreign) language proficiency levels in the wider population. The educational continuum, on the other hand, pays tribute to the diversity of educational settings and domains, thus putting the institutional specificities into relief. The first continuum, however, adds a new, linguistic perspective in that it deals with the typological distance between the respective languages. While these two models reflect different theoretical takes – language economy vs. sociolinguistics – they both recognise the complexity and contingencies to be found 389
Ute Smit
between the respectively established criteria. A similar endeavour is pursued in Dafouz and Smit (2016), albeit with the explicit focus on providing a conceptual framework that allows for holistic descriptive analyses of ‘English-medium education in multilingual university settings’ (EMEMUS) of, and across HEI sites. Anchored in an ecological understanding of HE university policies and practices, the suggested ‘ROAD-MAPPING’ framework combines six dimensions that are conceptualised as overlapping, internally complex and mutually interrelating. The dimensions comprise Roles of English (and other languages), Academic Disciplines, (language) Management, Practices and Processes and Internationalisation and Glocalisation. Furthermore, the framework recognises the discursive nature of educational practices and, following discursive approaches to LP (cf. e.g. Wodak 2006), identifies discourse as conceptually central and as methodological point of access to the respective EMEMUS site (for first applications cf. Dafouz et al. 2016; Gaisch 2014). In contrast to these deductive models, large international projects have resulted in interesting inductive frameworks describing scenarios of medium of instruction encountered across different HEIs. A case in point is the recently finalised IntlUni Erasmus Academic Network Project (Lauridsen and Lillemose 2015), which among other products delivered a medium of instruction ‘spectrum of modalities’ (Millar and van Mulken n.d.). Based on a status quo survey involving 38 HEIs in 27 mainly European countries, six different modalities were identified, with the extreme points representing the mainly monolingual forms of ‘English only’, on the one end, and, on the other, the exclusive use of the respective national language or, where applicable, ‘national languages’. In-between, four multilingual variants are placed, with two of them combining the respective national language with English, either as bottom-up policy (‘programmes and modules in English’) or as top-down regulation (‘English as an academic lingua franca’). The remaining two modalities represent multilingual top-down strategies that include didactic implications: by explicitly combining English with the national language in an integrated practice of ‘parallel languages’ the aim of relatively balanced bilingualism is pursued. ‘Multilingualism’ on the other hand supports multilingual practices and summative academic proficiency across the languages involved. Not surprisingly, the six modalities were found in diverse frequencies and representations, with the category mentioned last being the rarest, and the modality of ‘national language(s)’ concentrated in Ireland and the UK. While different in theoretical approach and modelling scope, the four frameworks sketched above recognise and discuss the following fundamental aspects, which will also be relevant in the remainder of the chapter: (a) Multilingualism, in one form or another, has become an integral ingredient to most HEIs, but comes in a range of dynamic and potentially conflicting realisations. (b) These realisations make up a wide range of LP types that combine the policy mechanisms listed in the previous section above in varied ways. (c) Within such multilingual constellations, English plays a central and not uncontested role. (d) In order to do justice to the complexity, context-sensitivity and dynamics of HE multilingualism, LP accounts must pay critical attention to the respective mechanisms, but also to the interplay of, and contingencies between various socio-political, linguistic and psychological factors. (e) Such factors include the institution, its power structure, mission and vision, the stakeholders and their expectations, the wider sociocultural setting, the respective languages and the communicational practices.
390
Beyond monolingualism in higher education
Exemplifying language policy in higher education In view of the impressive number of recent publications dealing with HE language policies and practices,1 the cases reported on here are not understood as representative of the multitude of language policy scenarios. Instead, they have been picked to exemplify five different types of Johnson’s (2013) ‘official regulations’. The various unofficial mechanisms, while not dealt with systematically, will be drawn upon wherever fitting in this brief overview. Except for the first scenario, all represent multilingual regulations. Scenario 1: Monolingualism in English in inner-circle countries Given that English is unquestioningly considered as the sole educational language at most universities in Kachru’s (1992) ‘inner circle’ or in Graddol’s (2006: 76) ‘major Englishspeaking destination countries’ (MESDCs), the LP studies dealing with the language situation at such institutions do not debate the officially monolingual regulation. Instead, and facing the growing numbers of multilingual international students, they assess critically the policies and practices regarding the what and how of using English. Based on 34 unstructured interviews with international students enrolled in various master and doctoral programmes at a British university, Jenkins (2014: ch. 7) depicts vividly that monolingual native English is generally taken as yardstick by most staff members and home students, but also by many international students themselves (cf. also Sterzuk 2014). This is most obviously true for the language tests accepted as entrance requirements, but also for academic writing as, for instance, in exams and final theses. A somewhat more varied picture is painted when it comes to spoken language use and in connection with international staff members, thus hinting at stakeholders’ personal linguistic repertoire (mono- vs. multilingual) and studying experience as a possible factor supporting a more nuanced bottom-up understanding that recognises the role of English as a lingua franca as de facto policy (cf. also Dafouz et al. 2016). Scenario 2: ‘Parallel language use’ as a form of internationalised bilingualism The arguably most widely growing form of officially regulated multilingualism in HEIs is the combination of the respective national language with English; a policy that, at least in Europe, seems to have replaced the traditional monolingual ideology of higher education in the national language (Smit and Dafouz 2012). While such bilingualism, introduced as a sign and carrier of internationalisation, comes in various shapes and sizes, the focus here is placed on ‘parallel language use’ or ‘parallellingualism’ (Hultgren 2014). This policy developed in the European Nordic region about a decade ago as a counter-reaction against English medium instruction rapidly increasing in post-, but also undergraduate programmes (for a statistical overview cf. Wächter and Maiworm 2014). Revealing the political aims of ‘pragmatic protectionism’ (Airey et al. 2017: 567), the Nordic ministers agreed that the respective national languages and English should be used in parallel, ‘concurrent[ly] within one or more areas. None of the languages abolishes or replaces the other’ (Airey et al. 2017, quoting Nordic Council of Ministers 2007: 93). As a thus explicitly bilingual endeavour, the policy has been granted to be ‘intuitively appealing, [even if] somewhat fuzzy’ (Phillipson 2006: 25) or, seen more critically, as remaining an ‘unoperationalised political slogan’ (Kuteeva and
391
Ute Smit
Airey 2014: 536). The latter concern is taken up in Hultgren’s (2014) critical discourse analysis of policy and media texts. By aiming at identifying the ideologies nurturing parallel language policy discourses at different Danish universities, the study argues convincingly that the unofficial mechanisms of parallellingualism are contingent on the respectively dominant covert ideologies, furthering either more Danish or more English in their HEI practices. Scenario 3: Trilingualism (regional language, national language, English) as a sign of internationalisation At some previously bilingual HEIs, the pull factor of internationalisation, embodied in the use of English, has led to an officially trilingual medium of instruction policy (e.g. Cots et al. 2014). A well-documented case in point is the Spanish University of the Basque Country, an officially bilingual university in Spanish and Basque since its beginnings in the 1980s (e.g. Cenoz 2012; Doiz et al. 2014b). During its first 30 years, the university’s main LP focus was to develop Basque, a regional minority language with half a million speakers and less than another half million claiming some proficiency in it, into a widely employed medium of instruction and language of education. As expounded in Cenoz (2012), the LP undertakings were successful, with an increasing number of undergraduate students choosing to study, and staff able to teach in Basque. The advent of internationalisation changed the situation in the early 2000s, with the result that English emerged as third medium of instruction, particularly at the postgraduate level. While the distribution of the three languages depends on a combination of factors, such as academic discipline, staff and student language competencies, the presently enacted trilingual policy has brought an end to the previous ‘duplication bilingual policy’, offering all teaching and documents in both Spanish and Basque (Cenoz 2012: 53). Although there is still the general top-down commitment to support Basque, the present LP aims for complementary language use, favouring multilinguals. Investigations into the resulting communicational possibilities and challenges for students (local and international), staff and administration have shown that, while most stakeholders recognise the rising relevance of English and the national importance of Spanish, the position of Basque remains contested, with Basque speakers identifying it as potentially endangered, while it remains less of a concern to internationals (e.g. Doiz et al. 2014a, 2014b). Scenario 4: Bilingualism in regional and national languages Although the majority of publications on LP in HE are presently concerned with the impact or realisation of internationalisation, some noticeable studies counterbalance this onesidedness and focus on local institutional needs and their contingent language regulations and practices. As regards bilingualism, an interesting case in point is Bull’s (2012) account of two rather small HEIs in Northern Europe that, very much in contrast to the aforementioned mainstream of parallel language use in the national language and English, pursue a policy of national language and regional or minority language. In line with their respective locally focussed institutional visions, these HEIs offer locally relevant educational programmes in the respective regional languages (Faroese and Sami) and national languages (Danish and Norwegian), thus taking an active role in bringing higher education into the local communities and, at the same time, the regional languages and their socio-economic practices into the higher educational domain. Benefiting from 392
Beyond monolingualism in higher education
socio-political support in the wider society, these institutions can thus pursue their regionally focussed missions and contingent bilingual policies. Scenario 5: Multilingualism in regional and national languages The final scenario represents multilingualism including English, but in contrast to Scenario 3 above as a reflection of longstanding societal multilingualism as typical of post-colonial societies. In this context, South African HEIs represent insightful examples because they come with a long-standing tradition of official mono- or bilingualism (in English and/or Afrikaans) but are situated in, and accountable to communities whose diverse multilingual constellations have been legally recognised and supported since the end of apartheid (Mesthrie 2006). While the hegemonic position of English is undeniable, various activities have been undertaken to increase the use and development of other languages, with the overall aim to recognise and educate for the multilingual South African society (e.g. Hornberger 2015; Madiba 2013; Stroud and Kerfoot 2013; van der Walt 2013). Along such lines, the traditionally English-medium and white University of Cape Town decided on a decentralised ‘English plus language plan’ that encourages all stakeholders throughout the hierarchy to develop multilingual bottomup regulations and practices such as, for instance, compulsory language classes in the regional languages for future doctors and nurses or online discipline-specific glossaries and blogs (Madiba 2013). At the University of Limpopo, on the other hand, the regional language Sepedi has been used as medium of instruction in selected programmes, thereby proving to the generally doubtful public that African languages are helpful in facilitating advanced learning for previously disempowered groups of society (Hornberger 2014). In addition to widening the group of languages used for education, such practices and policies also underline the fluid nature of multilingual repertoires and the recently argued for need that, particularly in multilingual contexts, learners can profit most when drawing on their complete repertoire, rather than being restricted to one particular language (Stroud and Kerfoot 2013). In sum, the five scenarios sketched here, while not intended to present a representative picture of higher education language policies in general, illustrate the diversity of official language regulations and point out the increasing relevance of bi- or multilingual medium of instruction regulations, be that in response to, or furtherance of local, regional, national or international purposes. At the same time, the examples reported on here provide glimpses into the complexity of unofficial, i.e. covert, implicit and de facto policies and that all the regulations and policy mechanisms stand in complex relationships to one another, underlining the interplay of factors identified in the deductive models introduced above. Finally, the scenarios and individual cases have hinted at problematic, unresolved and contentious issues, to which we will turn in the final section.
Points of discussion When going beyond the situated nature that is an integral aspect of any language policy, the LP models and scenarios discussed above also deal with overarching concerns, of which three seem particularly topical: Englishization and internationalisation; language (learning) and the educational purpose; and the roles of language(s), in particular of English. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the first concern is centrally linked to the hegemonic position of English in HE, which has been expounded on in all aspects of (post)modern life (e.g. Graddol 2006; Phillipson 1992, 2003). Yet, as documented and critically discussed for 393
Ute Smit
quite some time (Ammon 2001; Ammon and McConnell 2002; Coleman 2006; Phillipson 2006), most changes in LP in HEIs have been strongly motivated by giving English a more central position in the institutional communicational dealings. Generally identified as a reaction to, and carrier of globalisation, this trend has not abated, but has got hold of HEIs all around the globe, irrespectively it seems of other socio-cultural and political concerns (e.g. Kagwesage 2012; Onsman 2012). This ongoing development arguably underlines a generally uncritical stance taken by HE management, buying into the marketization ideology of knowledge and higher education and at the same time ignoring the multilayered critical debate of what globalisation and the internationalisation process could mean for HEIs. While the latter has been part of universities since their inception and comes in a range of locally relevant realisations (Scott 2011), the historical process of globalisation needs to be conceptually distinguished from globalism as an underlying ideology ‘that accepts certain features of the globalized world, not least its power structures, as natural and welcome and certainly unavoidable’ (Bull 2012: 57, quoting Haberland 2009). In contrast to the many universities that still conflate the two and buy into globalism, thus also accepting English as panacea of all local shortcomings, some of the sample scenarios introduced above hint at more diversified policies and practices. The Sámi university (see Scenario 4 above), for instance, is an international institution catering for a lingua-cultural minority, thus defying globalism and globalisation. The multilingual practices with English as dominant language that have developed at some South African universities (see Scenario 5 above) on the other hand, can be interpreted as revealing a critical stance to globalism, while still subscribing to internationalisation and also globalisation. When looking at ‘Englishization’ policies from an economically informed point of view, Grin (2010) correctly criticises the lack of preparatory steps HEIs tend to take prior to a policy change. Given the crucial relevance of language to higher education and research, an institution is clearly well advised to first assess why a policy change is needed, and what the new policy is meant to do (e.g. using English for publicising research externally or, internally, for postgraduate teaching) as well as the demands it entails for the stakeholders (e.g. in terms of English language proficiency). This call for a more reflected and informed approach to policy formation and implementation reverberates with recent LP theorising that recognises the complex interrelatedness of language with the range of institutional aims and needs and understands language policies as multilayered, combining language regulations with communicational practices enacted in potentially different or even conflicting ways by the different stakeholder groups (Hornberger and Hult 2001; Ricento 2006; see also section above ‘Language policy at the time of internationalising higher education’). Without implying that the case studies introduced in the previous section represent economically sound policies (that would require explicit analyses), it is reassuring to see that, except for the first one, all go beyond a simplified ‘Englishization’ approach and require context-sensitive combinations of two or more languages. While English plays an important role in four of them, the respective LPs are multilingual, including provisions for other institutionally relevant languages and their speakers. In such cases, it is thus important to recognise that despite its name the ‘Englishization’ process can be more than enforced monolingualism in the academic ‘cuckoo’ language (Phillipson 2006) or its ‘tyrannosaurus rex’ (Swales 1997). Indirectly, a similar insight can be reached on the basis of Wächter and Maiworm’s (2008; 2014) large-scale quantitative surveys of Englishmedium teaching at European HEIs. With their explicit focus on educational programmes run exclusively in English, they render a detailed picture of ‘Englishization’ and show 394
Beyond monolingualism in higher education
that, while the number of such programmes has been rising since 2000, they actually cater for small learner groups, averaging at 1.6 per cent of all students enrolled at the respective institutions. Although we still lack more information on the distribution of multilingual teaching scenarios, these survey data allow for the conclusion that the vast majority of European students take their university education in the respective educational language(s) alone or in combination with English. With the second point of discussion we turn to learning as the presumably core purpose of any educational institution and, more precisely, to language-related learning. While explicit language learning aims are remarkably absent from the LP scenarios of the previous section, it is interesting to note that all of them reflect some language-related learning concerns. To begin with, Scenarios 3, 4, and 5 aim for the support and development of regional or minority languages. The national language, on the other hand, is at the focus of the parallel language policy implemented in Nordic universities and described in Scenario 2. At the same time, all the scenarios except for Scenario 4 identify English as an implicit, if not explicit learning aim, either as a second language for international students (Scenario 1), as a national and international lingua franca (Scenario 5), and as an academic and professional lingua franca (Scenarios 2 and 3). Assuming that these five scenarios are not completely atypical, it seems fair to conclude that official LPs in HE go beyond simply indicating communicational means and that, fitting to the wider pedagogical frame, the explicit language choice comes with some language learning potential, even if only understood as implicit and de facto policy. At the same time, top-down language regulations tend to remain relatively far removed from the educational practices themselves. This might be one of the reasons why researchers focussing on classroom practices from an LP perspective argue for flexible and loosely defined LPs that allow for context- and discipline-dependent realisations (Kuteeva and Airey 2014; Madiba 2013). Although this chapter is mainly concerned with (official) LP scenarios, it seems important not to lose sight of actual language practices that show how LPs take shape on the micro level. Seeing that the potentially conflicting dynamics of multilingual practices in and around education undoubtedly require more argumentative space, the focus here is much narrower on conceptualising the roles language(s) can take on (but see Chapters 17, 29, 32 and 34 in this volume for further discussion). As highlighted in the theoretical frameworks introduced in the second section of this chapter, multilingual LP is realised in multi-faceted practices that develop at the nexus of various factors, of which the participants’ diverse repertoires, overlapping in English and/or other languages is only one. In an attempt to capture this very complexity, a faithful analysis needs to give full credit to the multilayered and situated dynamics. As elaborated in Dafouz and Smit (2017), this can be done by applying a holistic approach. Rather than singling out particular and potentially decontextualised linguistic roles such as ‘English as a foreign language’ or ‘Basque for academic purposes’, the aim is to identify, describe and analyse (the interaction of) the relevant communicational, pedagogical, institutional and societal factors within the respective context. By way of illustration, an analysis along such lines will put into relief the dynamic interplay of, for instance, (a) the actual or expected language proficiency levels students bring along (e.g. B2 for writing English, C1 for speaking Basque, C2 for Spanish); (b) the (implicit) language-related learning objectives being pursued (e.g. writing an abstract in English, giving an academic presentation in Basque); (c) the institutional needs of contributing to international research or engaging in expert discussions; and (d) the societal requirement to further enhance trilingualism in the national language, the regional language and in English as academic lingua franca. While such a description of ‘language roles’ 395
Ute Smit
seems messy and could be considered unfinished, it remains faithful to the situated complexity of (multilingual) practices and how they realise the respective LP. Furthermore, this approach has the added advantage of integrating the process and product views of language, thus recognising, on the one hand, the institutional relevance of languages as socio-political constructs and, on the other, of (trans)languaging as relevant meaning making processes (Creese and Blackledge 2010; García and Wei 2014). Overall then, the three aspects discussed in more detail underline that the Englishisation of HE is still a strong motivator for LP developments, but that it leads to context-dependent official or unofficial multilingual language policies. A careful analysis of such policies further requires a critical evaluation of the institutional pedagogical purposes as well as the situation-dependent complex and dynamic language roles.
Conclusion When approaching higher educational institutions (HEIs) from a language policy (LP) perspective, it soon becomes evident that, outside the Anglo-American sphere, there has been a clear move away from monolingualism to forms of multilingualism. The ensuing diversified language constellations have attracted concerted applied linguistic research interests and resulted in a wealth of LP descriptions and conceptual approaches. As captured in the models introduced and illustrated in selected LP scenarios in this chapter, there is a myriad of LPs with what seems to be one constant – the fact that English is the only language that has a role to play in practically all of them. In the ‘inner-circle’ universities it largely remains the only officially recognised language, while it is a central ingredient in the language mix at most other HEIs. The two exceptional cases of HEIs not aiming for globalisation (sketched in Scenario 4 above) underline that the reason for the dominance of English is to be found in the unique position it fulfils more generally. As a leading academic lingua franca, English has made its way into the language policies of all institutions that aim to join the international ‘educational market’. While the hegemonic position of English can thus be taken as a given for some time to come, its implications for language policy developments and implementations are less clear-cut and, it is hoped, will be the topic of future applied linguistic research.
Note 1 Wilkinson (2017) reports on a Google Scholar search he has undertaken for ‘English-medium instruction/EMI’ in ‘higher education/university’, which yielded 550 scholarly articles and books having been published in this research area since 2010, while the five years before saw 50 publications only.
Related chapters in this handbook 17 Cogo and House, The pragmatics of ELF 29 Cogo, ELF and multilingualism 32 Murata and Iino, EMI in higher education: an ELF perspective 34 Wingate, Transforming higher education and literary policies: the contribution of ELF 396
Beyond monolingualism in higher education
Further reading Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, J.M. (eds) (2013) English Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Jenkins, J. (2014) English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Politics of Academic English Language Policy. London: Routledge. Slobodanka, D., Hultgren, A.K. and Jensen, C. (eds) (2015) English-Medium Instruction in European Higher Education. Boston, MA: De Gruyter. Van der Walt, C. (2013) Multilingual Higher Education: Beyond English Medium Orientations. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
References Airey, J., Lauridsen, K.M., Räsänen, A., Salö, L. and Schwach, V. (2017) The expansion of Englishmedium instruction in the Nordic countries: Can top-down university language policies encourage bottom-up disciplinary literacy goals? Higher Education, 73 (4), 561–576. Ammon, U. (ed.) (2001) The Dominance of English as a Language of Science: Effects on Other Languages and Language Communities. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ammon, U. and McConnell, G. (2002) English as an Academic Language in Europe: A Survey of its Use in Teaching. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Björkman, B. (2013) English as an Academic Lingua Franca: An Investigation of Form and Communicative Effectiveness. Boston, MA: Mouton de Gruyter. Bulajeva, T. and Hogan-Brun, G. (2014) Internationalisation of higher education and nation building: resolving language policy dilemmas in Lithuania. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35 (4), 318–331. Bull, T. (2012) Against the mainstream: universities with an alternative language policy. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 216, 55–73. Cenoz, J. (2012) Bilingual educational policy in higher education in the Basque Country. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 25 (1), 41–55. Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2010) The diversity of multilingualism in education. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 205, 37–53. Coleman, J.A. (2006) English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39 (1), 1–14. Cots, J.M., Llurda, E. and Garrett, P. (2014) Language policies and practices in the internationalisation of higher education on the European margins: an introduction. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35 (4), 311–317. Creese, A. and Blackledge, A. (2010) Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? Modern Language Journal, 94 (1), 103–115. Crowther, P., Joris, M., Otten, M., Nilsson, B., Teekens, H. and Wächter, B. (2000) Internationalisation at home: A position paper. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education. Dafouz, E., Hüttner, J. and Smit, U. (2016) University teachers’ beliefs of language and content integration in English-medium education in multilingual university settings. In Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P. and Smit, U. (eds) Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 123–143. Dafouz, E. and Smit, U. (2016) Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for English-medium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics, 37 (3), 397–415. Dafouz, E. and Smit, U. (2017) A sociolinguistic approach to the multifaceted roles of English in English medium education in multilingual university settings. In Llinares, A. and Morton, T. (eds) Applied Linguistics Perspectives on CLIL. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 291–309. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, J.M. (2014a) What does ‘international university’ mean at a European bilingual university?: The role of languages and culture. Language Awareness, 23 (1–2), 172–186. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, J.M. (2014b) Language friction and multilingual policies in higher education: the stakeholders’ view. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35 (4), 345–360. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2015) The European Higher Education Area in 2015: Bologna Process Implementation Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the Europena Union. 397
Ute Smit
Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2013) CLIL in Higher Education: Towards a Multilingual Language Policy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Gaisch, M. (2014) Affordances for Teaching in an International Classroom: A Constructivist Grounded Theory. PhD dissertation. University of Vienna. García, O. and Wei, L. (2014) Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Glass, A. (2014) The State of Higher Education 2014 (Executive Summary): OECD Higher Education Progrmme (IMHE). Available from: www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/SOHE2014-Executive%20Summary. pdf [Accessed 3 February 2016]. Graddol, D. (2006) English Next: Why Global English Might Mean the End of ‘English as a Foreign Language’. British Council, The English Company (UK) Ltd. Available from: http://englishagenda. britishcouncil.org/sites/ec/files/books-english-next.pdf [Accessed 28 October 2016]. Grin, F. (2010) Managing Languages in Academia: Pointers From Education Economics and Language Economics [Lecture] Conference ‘Professionalising multilingualism in higher education’, Luxembourg, 4 February. Available from: http://seccb.espais.iec.cat/files/2011/02/LUX-UNI-TEX-2. pdf [Accessed 27 October 2016]. Hornberger, N.H. (2014) On not taking language inequality for granted: Hymesian traces in ethnographic monitoring of South Africa’s multilingual language policy. Multilingua, 33 (5–6), 623–645. Hornberger, N.H. (2015) Selecting appropriate research methods in LPP research: Methodological rich points. In Hult, F.M. and Johnson, D.C. (eds) Research Methods in Language Policy and Planning: A Practical Guide. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 9–20. Hornberger, N.H. and Hult, F. (2001) Ecological language education policy. In Fill, A. and Muehlhäusler, P. (eds) The Ecolinguistics Reader: A Selection of Articles on Language, Ecology and Environment. London: Continuum, pp. 280–296. Hughes, R. (2008) Internationalisation of higher education and language policy: Questions of quality and equity. Higher Education Management and Policy, 20 (1), 111–128. Hultgren, A.K. (2014) Whose parallellingualism?: Overt and covert ideologies in Danish university language policies. Multilingua, 33 (1–2), 61–87. Hynninen, N. (2013) Language Regulation in English as a Lingua Franca: Exploring LanguageRegulatory Practices in Academic Spoken Discourse. PhD dissertation. Helsinki, Unigrafia. Jenkins, J. (2014) English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Politics of Academic English Language Policy. London: Routledge. Jenkins, J. (2015) Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca: Englishes in Practice, 2 (3), 49–85. Johnson, D.C. (2013) Language Policy. New York: Palgrave. Kachru, B.B. (ed.) (1992) The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kagwesage, A.-M. (2012) Higher education students’ reflections on learning in times of academic language shift. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6 (2), Art. 18. Knight, J. (2008) Higher Education in Turmoil: The Changing World of Internationalization. Rotterdam: Sense Publications. Kuteeva, M. and Airey, J. (2014) Disciplinary differences in the use of English in higher education: Reflections on recent policy developments. Higher Education, 67 (5), 533–549. Lauridsen, K.M. and Lillemose, M.K. (eds) (2015) Opportunities and Challenges in the Multilingual and Multicultural Learning Space: Final Cocument of the IntlUni Erasmus Academic Network Project 2012–2015. Aarhus: IntlUni. Madiba, M. (2013) Multilingual education in South African universities: Policies, pedagogy and practicality. Linguistics and Education, 24, 385–395. Maringe, F. and Foskett, N. (eds) (2010) Globalization and Internationalization in Higher Education: Theoretical, Strategic and Management Perspectives. London: Continuum. Mauranen, A. (2003) The corpus of English as lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL Quarterly, 37 (2), 513–527. Mauranen, A. (2012) Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mesthrie, R. (2006) Language, transformation and development: a sociolinguistic appraisal of postapartheid South African language policy and practice. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 24 (2), 151–163. 398
Beyond monolingualism in higher education
Millar, S. and van Mulken, M. (n.d.) Work Package 2: Identification of HEI Scenarios: Synthesis report. Available from: http://intluni.eu/uploads/media/WP2_Synthesis_report.pdf [Accessed 27 October 2016]. OECD. (2015) Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2015-en [Accessed 27 October 2016]. Onsman, A. (2012) Distributing the future evenly: English as the lingua franca in the Saudi Arabian higher education sector. Higher Education Policy, 25, 477–491. Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. (2003) English-Only Europe?: Challenging language Policy. London: Routledge. Phillipson, R. (2006) English, a cuckoo in the European higher education nest of languages? European Journal of English Studies, 10 (1), 13–32. Ricento, T. (ed.) (2006) An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Ricento, T. (2015) Foreword. In Hult, F.M. and Johnson, D.C. (eds) Research Methods in Language Policy and Planning: A Practical Guide. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. xii–xiv. Scott, P. (2011) The university as a global institution. In King, R., Marginson, S. and Naidoo, R. (eds) The Handbook of Globalisation and Higher Education. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 59–75. Smit, U. (2010) English as a Lingua Franca in Higher Education: A Longitudinal Study of Classroom Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Smit, U. and Dafouz, E. (2012) Integrating content and language in higher education: An introduction to English-medium policies, conceptual issues and research practices across Europe. In Smit, U. and Dafouz, E. (eds) Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education: Gaining Insights into English-Medium Instruction at European Universities. AILA Review. 25. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 1–12. Sterzuk, A. (2014) ‘The standard remains the same’: language standardisation, race and othering in higher education. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 36 (1), 53–66. Stroud, C. and Kerfoot, C. (2013) Towards rethinking multilingualism and language policy for academic literacies. Linguistics and Education, 24, 396–405. Swales, J.M. (1997) English as Tyrannosaurus rex. World Englishes, 16 (3), 373–382. Van der Walt, C. (2013) Multilingual Higher Education: Beyond English Medium Orientations. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Wächter, B. and Maiworm, F. (2008) English-Taught Programmes in European Higher Education: The Picture in 2007. Bonn: Lemmens. Wächter, B. and Maiworm, F. (eds) (2014) English-Taught Programmes in European Higher Education: The Stay of Play. Bonn: Lemmens Medien. Wilkinson, R. (2017). Trends and issues in English-medium instruction in Europe. In Akerley, K., Guarda, M. and Helm, F. (eds) Sharing Perspectives on English-Medium Instruction. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 35–76. Wodak, R. (2006) Linguistic analyses in language policies. In Ricento, T. (ed.) An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden: Blackwell, pp. 170–193.
399
32 EMI in higher education An ELF perspective Kumiko Murata and Masakazu Iino
Introduction EMI in historical contexts English-medium instruction (EMI) has recently been attracting great attention in higher education on a global scale. However, the enterprise of EMI is not completely new. For example, nearly 150 years ago in the Meiji era (1868–1912) in Japan, following its opening to the wider world after more than 200 years of the closed Edo period (1603–1868), quite a few English instructors called oyatoi gaikoku-jin kyoshi (foreign advisors hired by the then Japanese government to assist the modernization of Japan) along with specialized books written mostly in English were imported to Japan for it to catch up with the Western technology and knowledge. Teaching by these foreign instructors at university was mostly conducted in English, i.e. EMI (see, for example, Saito 2007). The students who attended these EMI courses around that time were a very small number of elites (see also Coleman 2006: 3 for the European situation with Latin as a lingua franca in ‘the Middle Ages and Renaissance’), and there was not any choice for them but to learn these subjects in English, using imported English books. The lack of choice was probably the same in the situations in the former British colonies in the past, where education, particularly at tertiary level, was conducted in English, that is, EMI. EMI is again increasing recently in many of these countries, this time, to cope with globalization, despite the fact that there were movements after the independence of these countries to introduce their own language as a medium of instruction into higher education, largely due to the rising nationalism and the domestic ethnic issues (e.g., Malaysia) (Azirah Hasim 2009; Gill 2005, 2009; Kirkpatrick 2012; Lim 2009; Lim and Low 2009). Background to the recent promotion and spread of EMI The recent surge of EMI programmes and courses around the world due to the acceleration of globalization was led first by European countries triggered by the ERASMUS project and strengthened further by the Bologna declaration (1999; Björkman 2016; Coleman 2006; Cots, Llurda and Garrett 2014; Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra 2013a, 2013b; Jenkins 2014; 400
EMI in higher education
Mauranen 2012; Smit 2010; Smit and Dafouz 2012), which clearly states the promotion of ‘citizens’ mobility and employability’ (The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999, p. 1).1 By deploying English (as a lingua franca) as a medium of instruction, some of the member states are successful in attracting not only students from other EU nations but also fee-paying students from outside the EU. Moreover, it is reported that there exist certain differences among the member states, universities located in northern Europe (or rather in the ‘north of the Alps’ (Coleman 2006: 6) ) being more successful in doing so. The tendency was reported to have accelerated in the late 1990s (Coleman 2006), which is exactly around the time research on ELF started to attract more attention (see Jenkins 2015). Nonetheless, the two were not directly discussed together at least in the initial phase despite its close relationship in that the issue of ELF in academic settings often emerges against a backdrop of EMI. Only when Smit (2010) conducted her longitudinal EMI case study from an ELF perspective, did some of the EMI researchers start to pay more attention to the nature of ‘E’ in EMI. This was made even more explicit and started to be recognized widely when Jenkins (2014) published the results of her extensive research on the status of ‘English’ in international universities the world over. She questioned the meaning of ‘international’ in relation to the understanding and interpretation of ‘English’ in the promotion of internationalization through EMI. Despite these contributions, it is still rare that the ‘E’ of EMI is explicitly discussed in relation to ELF and problematized in the context of EMI. A limited number of research projects from an ELF perspective in the EMI context mainly focus on students’ and instructors’ attitudes towards ‘English’ and their identity formation in the medium of English (see Galloway and Rose 2013; Iino and Murata 2016; Wang 2015 to list a few), but very few analyse actual EMI classroom interactions from an ELF perspective apart from Smit (2010) (see also Otsu 2014 for the description of an intensive English course in a workplace setting). EMI is also becoming popular in Asian contexts, just like in Europe. The ASEAN nations in particular, having decided their official language of communication to be English, are ahead of other nations in Asia in conducting EMI programmes, particularly in those former British colonies such as Brunei, Singapore and Malaysia, but not limited to them (Kirkpatrick 2010, 2012). East Asian countries such as China and Korea are also very responsive to the trend of globalization and the mobility of future workforce and started promoting EMI in the late 1990s (Cheng 2012; Cho 2012; Hu 2009; Hu and McKay 2012; Park 2009). In addition to the above mentioned economic reasons, the increasing competition among universities on a global scale, often in the form of world university rankings such as in the QS ( QS World University Rankings) and the THES (Times Higher Education Supplement), is also fueling the increase of EMI in the non-English speaking world (see also Coleman 2006). The rankings place heavy emphasis on research publication and international student/staff ratios, both of which cannot be achieved without having English as a lingua franca and medium of instruction. Nevertheless, there are again very few studies that investigate what is actually happening in EMI classes based on detailed qualitative studies or analyses of classroom interaction, the existing research on EMI in Asian contexts mostly focusing on language policies and to some extent, on attitudes. In the following section, as an example of the recent spread of EMI, a Japanese case will be introduced. EMI policies and practices in HE in Japan Approximately 10 years later than China and Korea, the Japanese government started promoting EMI by introducing the Global 30 Project (MEXT 2011; see also Iino and 401
Kumiko Murata and Masakazu Iino
Murata 2016), where 13 designated universities with special funding from the government started running EMI programmes and courses to attract more international students and make their home students get used to communicating in ‘English’. The policy was expanded recently by the introduction of yet another big project entitled the Top Global University Project, where in total 37 universities (13 ‘top type’ universities, i.e., world-class universities with the potential to be ranked in the top 100 in world university rankings, and 24 ‘global traction type’ universities, i.e., innovative universities that lead the internationalization of Japanese society) were selected and provided with substantial funding for the implementation of EMI programmes and courses and other related matters to ‘enhance the international compatibility and competitiveness of higher education in Japan’ (MEXT 2014: 1). Here, although the policy documents state the importance of ‘English’ to educate students to be competitive in the globalized world, the nature of ‘English’ is never explicitly discussed, it being assumed that there is just one ‘English’, which is the ‘E’ of native speakers (see Murata 2016 as well). The reality of EMI situations should, therefore, be closely examined and assessed with qualitative surveys, investigating what is actually happening in these situations, whether students are benefiting from EMI at all, and what can be done or improved to make it more student-friendly or rather to make them in a real sense globally minded citizens. In the following sections, some of the realities of EMI in a Japanese context will be illustrated after discussing some definitions of EMI and briefly reviewing the research field.
What is EMI? Definitions from an ELF perspective On the face of it, the definition of EMI appears straightforward. For example, Dearden (2014), who surveyed EMI situations in 55 countries around the world, defines it as ‘the use of the English language to teach academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions where the first language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English’ (pp. 2, 4). The definition, however, is slightly narrow, considering the increasing tendency of English being used in diverse situations as a medium of instruction the world over. It obviously includes EMI conducted in what Kachru (1985, 1992) terms outer- and expanding-circle countries, but not inner-circle ones. In fact, most of the existing research on EMI has taken place in European countries, which, if we are to use this slightly outdated but still useful classification again, belong to the expanding circle, and so do East Asian countries such as China, Korea and Japan, where EMI programmes/courses are increasingly being promoted. Some of the ASEAN nations, such as Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei, which are historically strongholds of EMI, belong to the outer circle. But if we are to consider EMI situations in ‘international universities’ (Jenkins 2014), the above definition and also discussing EMI practices according to the classification of Kachru’s three concentric circles become problematic. Self-acclaimed ‘international’ universities can be found anywhere in the world, and they usually offer EMI courses/programmes to attract international students and staff. In fact, it is often reported that the majority of students in some departments at postgraduate level in inner-circle countries are international (see, for example, Jenkins 2014). These courses/programmes should then be regarded as being placed in EMI situations, particularly, from the viewpoint of the students and English used as a lingua franca in the situations. Thus, defining EMI on the basis of the unit of ‘countries or jurisdiction’, where it is conducted, cannot hold. One of the advantages of introducing English (as a lingua franca) as a medium of instruction is that it enables students to widen their choices when they study abroad. They can 402
EMI in higher education
choose their universities without necessarily having enough proficiency in the language of their chosen target country, thus diversifying their destinations. On the other hand, there could be a possibility of missed chances for students not being required to learn the local language(s) in valuable multilingual settings. Thus, in planning EMI courses/programmes in international universities, the multilingual settings EMI is placed in – what Dafouz and Smit (2016) term EMEMUS (English-Medium Education in Multilingual University Settings) – as well as the nature of ‘E’ as ELF should be paid more attention to. Another point to note here is that EMI does not have a clear objective of language learning (Dearden 2014: 4), being different form CLIL. The latter is similar to EMI in that it focuses on content-teaching via the target language, but different in that it has simultaneously a clear language teaching/ learning objective and is not limited to English (see Smit and Dafouz 2012; Hüttner, Chapter 38 this volume for further explication of CLIL). The two, however, might not be clearly demarcated as the questionnaire result of students’ and instructors’ survey in EMI situations in the current authors’ research at a Japanese university indicates, which will be discussed later in a more detailed manner (see also Smit and Dafouz 2012, who also state the difficulty of clearly demarcating the two and use them almost interchangeably). Yet another point to note, considering the objective of this chapter, is Dearden’s research on EMI has nothing to do with ELF, her ‘E’ in EMI being solidly and without any doubt based on native speakers’ ‘E’. Nonetheless, the survey itself is useful to have factual information on what is going on with EMI around the world since the coverage of the survey, being supported by the British Council, is impressively wide. Such a survey from an ELF perspective is urgently needed.2 On the other hand, Coleman’s (2006) state-of-the art article on EMI is also an informative survey of literature on what is going on in EMI from a multilingual perspective. It specifically focuses on EMI policies and the historical background to the expansion of EMI practices in the European context. Here, ELF is also touched on briefly in relation to EMI, but since Coleman’s article was written almost a decade ago, it does not necessarily follow the recent development of ELF research and conceptualization. For example, ELF is still described as a ‘variety’ or to be established as such (Coleman 2006, pp. 3, 11), and thus the description remains at the level of what Jenkins (2015) terms ‘ELF1’. Although in principle Coleman is sympathetic to what is happening with English used as a lingua franca and also shares the same concern about the dominance of native speaker English not reflecting the reality of the increasing tendency of ELF being used in EMI in higher education the world over, it could be misleading or confusing as regards the understanding of the nature of ELF. As stated earlier, Europe is ahead in introducing EMI, promoted by the EU-wide ERASMUS programme, accelerated also by the Bologna declaration issued in 1999. Under this policy and process, a great number of research projects on EMI (and CLIL for that matter) have been carried out in Europe in the context of internationalization of higher education, in particular, in relation to language policies and multilingualism (see, for example, Cots et al. 2014; Doiz et al. 2013b; Jenkins 2014; Smit and Dafouz 2012 among many others). These scholars are concerned with both multilingualism and ELF in the EMI context. They are, however, roughly divided into either of the two camps, that is, their research being either more multilingualism-orientated or more ELF-orientated, albeit both showing understanding to the other, or some trying to combine the two equally (see, for example, Jenkins 2015). It is thus difficult to demarcate who belongs to which, and in fact doing so might be nonsensical as ELF communication in particular by its nature takes place in inherently multilingual contexts (see Cogo 2016; Hülmbauer and Seidlhofer 2013; Jenkins 2015; 403
Kumiko Murata and Masakazu Iino
Seidlhofer 2009). It is also noteworthy here that recently some ELF scholars, Jenkins (2015) in particular, are even more explicitly locating ELF in a multilingual paradigm, for example, suggesting the use of the term English as a multilingua franca (EMLF) in place of ELF (Jenkins 2015), thus trying to connect ELF to multilingualism more closely. On the other hand, some scholars who originally started with their focus on CLIL and EMI in higher education, dealing simultaneously with language issues, naturally turn their attention to ELF. Smit (2010), who investigates EMI incorporating an ELF perspective, is a good example and a leading scholar in the field (see also Dafouz and Smit 2016; Hynninen 2012; Smit and Dafouz 2012; and Smit, Chapter 31 this volume). Other scholars who have dealt with the issues of EMI in higher education particularly in Europe also deal with language issues, taking a more CLIL-based approach rather than an ELF-based one. Thus, EMI is closely related not only to ELF, but also to the fields of multilingualism, language policy, CLIL and ELT. It is therefore inevitable this chapter also touches on these fields in its discussion albeit briefly. If we now go back to the definition of EMI, taking ELF and multilingual dimensions into account, EMI in this chapter can be defined as English-medium instruction conducted in the context where English is used as a lingua franca for content-learning/teaching among students and teachers from different linguacultural backgrounds. This includes the aforementioned inner-circle situation. There are however some exceptions here, as, to be explored later, EMI is introduced widely in so-called ‘EFL (English as a foreign language)’ countries in a traditional term, where it is primarily deployed to attract international students as well as home students who want to have more exposure to globally used English as a lingua franca while residing in their own countries (MEXT 2014; see also Jenkins 2014; Smit and Dafouz 2012). In these situations, quite often teachers and a majority of students share the same linguacultural backgrounds, and that is exactly what is happening, for example, in China, Korea and Japan (see Cheng 2012; Cho 2012; D’Angelo, Chapter 13 this volume; Hu 2009; Hu and McKay 2012; Iino and Murata 2016; Park 2009; Wang 2015). Accordingly, EMI in this chapter includes both teaching in English medium in the environment where students and instructors mostly share the same linguacultural backgrounds and teaching in English medium in English-related departments. This draws a very different picture of EMI from, for example, the one in the European context (Smit 2016), but it is widely practised in East Asian countries such as China, Korea and Japan. Furthermore, it could also include research on ELF in EMI situations in ENL (English as a native language) international universities, where the majority of students are often from overseas, particularly at graduate level (e.g. Jenkins 2014). Having briefly and broadly defined what is meant by ‘EMI’ in this chapter, we now move onto specific issues emerged in research on EMI in this broader context, focusing particularly on the discrepancy between EMI policies, practices and ELF use in EMI classrooms on the basis of student interviews and questionnaires administered to both students and faculty members.
The discrepancy of EMI policies, practices and ELF use The influence of native speakerism and norms in EMI contexts This section explores the discrepancy between EMI policies and practices, focusing on the role of ELF in EMI class. According to the research the current authors have been conducting for the past five years on students enrolled in an EMI programme at a university in 404
EMI in higher education
Tokyo, Japanese students who have experienced EMI for the first time at university turn out to be most vulnerable to the assumption that English belongs to its native speakers, i.e., native speakerism, particularly in the first phase of their EMI experience. This is because they are deeply influenced by their English-learning experiences at secondary level, where English-learning/teaching is heavily orientated towards university entrance examinations, which usually predominantly assess their test-takers on the basis of correctness according to the inner-circle native speaker norms, i.e. the exonormative ones (Kachru 1985, 1992; see also Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra 2011, 2013b; Karakaş 2015; Suzuki, Liu and Yu, Chapter 39 this volume). The current authors have conducted interviews as part of their research on Japanese students who are enrolled in the aforementioned programme at the same university, where students are broadly divided into two categories of international and Japanese students. The latter are further divided into three categories by students’ own emic terms, i.e. intaa (those who graduated from international schools either in Japan or abroad), kikoku (returnees) and jun-Japa (Japanese students who were educated through the Japanese education system) (see Iino and Murata 2016). The ratio of the international and Japanese students is approximately one to three, the former being mostly from neighbouring Asian countries, such as China and Korea. Among the Japanese students or even among the whole students’ population in the programme, jun-Japa students form a majority in terms of their number. However, how they feel they are located in this community is very different, some of them explicitly stating that they are in a minority. That is to say, they feel they are placed in the periphery in this EMI community, not having enough proficiency or rather confidence in expressing their opinions in ‘English’ like native English speakers (NESs) or near-NESs such as returnees. ‘English’ here is foreign to them, or at least it being taught to them as a foreign language up to secondary level on the basis of NES norms, where ‘correctness’ according to such norms is paramount, they feel it belongs to NESs and that they are not up to using it as NESs do (see also Doiz et al. 2011). Although it is natural that they use English in their own ways not being NESs, they feel they are not well-equipped with enough competence to be legitimate members of the EMI community (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998), where the ‘E’ is naturally regarded as the ‘E’ of NESs by the majority of the participants, Japanese students inclusive. Furthermore, not only did these jun-Japa students receive the above-mentioned strictly NES-norm-based English education, but they were also usually very successful in this education system at secondary level compared to average students of the same age group in learning the prescriptive NES-based English, conforming to its norms. That is why they have managed to enter the current competitive EMI programme, which is highly esteemed at the national level together with returnee students and those graduated from international schools, where they went through EMI programmes at high school level, and quite often have NES or near-NES competence. In particular, for jun-Japa students, who usually have very little exposure to English up to high school, the latter almost sound like and appear to be NESs. For these students, it is hard enough to get used to the environment as there is no real transition period from their EFL learning situations at high school to EMI at university, where English is used as a medium of instruction as well as a lingua franca in the community. That is, they are expected to adjust to the new environment not only in terms of the language proficiency but also cultural assumptions and expectations in, for example, styles and values in classroom participation, such as asking questions and giving comments and opinions as seen in the following student comment: 405
Kumiko Murata and Masakazu Iino
At first I was completely passive in seminar and lectures after entering X (the specific EMI programme) as I had never been encouraged to give opinions in class at high school. Even in my second year I couldn’t give my opinions as I always worried about [what] my peers [thought about my English and opinions]. (Student 4-4F1, translated and emphasized by the current authors) With the cultural difference in educational practice in EMI, where broadly Anglo-American NESs’ class participation style and communicative conventions (Gumperz 1982a, 1982b; Murata 2011; Turner and Hiraga 1996) are employed and encouraged, and students are evaluated on these bases, and with lack of confidence in ‘English’, most of the jun-Japa students find themselves not participating enough in the EMI community (see also Kano 2016). The interviews with students thus have revealed that Japanese students who experience EMI for the first time in particular suffer greatly in its beginning phase, mostly because of the taken-for-granted NES-norm-based practice of and belief in the ‘E’ both by themselves and other types of students and stakeholders. Had they felt that they owned their own English as a lingua franca (Widdowson 1994) as one of their means of communication apart from their first language Japanese, the transition from JMI (Japanese-medium instruction) to EMI would have been much easier than what they experienced or are still experiencing in the EMI community. It therefore seems vital to make them feel confident enough in using their own English as it is for both transactional and interactional purposes (Brown and Yule 1983) in the EMI context. Currently it appears to be only achieved to a certain extent after their one-year study abroad experiences in the third year at university, that is, after having exposure to various Englishes in communicating with students and academics from diverse linguacultural backgrounds and also having experiences in negotiating meaning with them, using ELF. The results from a questionnaire survey In addition to the interviews, whose results are partially introduced above, a questionnaire survey has also been conducted by the authors together with one of their colleagues (Murata, Iino and Konakahara, 2016), collecting data from students.3 Thus, the survey is different from, for example, that by Doiz et al. (2011, 2013b) in that their data derives from a focusgroup discussion among teachers who conduct EMI, providing a teachers’ perspective rather than students’ (cf. Jenkins 2014; Karakaş 2015; Smit 2010). In fact, our survey also administered questionnaires to teachers, however, the number of them who responded was so small that here we mainly refer to the results obtained from the students’ questionnaires, and only where relevant, the results from the teachers’ questionnaires will also be referred to. The questionnaires were administered to two groups of students; one, those enrolled in the above-mentioned EMI ‘programme’, and the other, those enrolled in an EMI ‘course’ in a different faculty of the same university, where Japanese is mainly used as a medium of instruction in other subject areas, including English-related. In fact, most of these latter students belong to an English department, where the majority of their courses were run in Japanese at the time of the administration of the questionnaires (October 2015), and they were administered to the students who were taking one of the few available EMI courses in the department. Certain similarities and differences are observed in the results from these two groups. The main similarity is that both student groups and in fact also lecturers place the utmost importance on learning the content of the course in both the EMI programme and the course.
406
EMI in higher education
There are, however, slight differences between the two student groups in that the latter also emphasizes the aspect of language learning, although there are also a small number of students in the former who think this aspect is similarly important. Another similarity is that both student groups and lecturers value the importance of EMI courses/programmes, but again they do so for slightly different reasons. The students, particularly those on the EMI course, again tend to value the aspect of language learning more, whereas the lectures tend to focus more on students’ acquisition of subject-specific knowledge, although some of them also place importance on the acquisition of academic literacy in addition to the content, but not the language per se (see also Airey 2012). The main difference between the two student groups is, as also touched on above, that those on the EMI course tend to place more emphasis on language-learning while those on the EMI programme, tend to place more emphasis on content-learning. The latter also enjoy the diversity of students and staff in the programme, and thus, they are also more aware of the role of ELF in the globalized world and enjoy using it in communication with their peers and instructors from diverse lingua-cultural backgrounds. By contrast, the students on the EMI course value it because they have more opportunities to be exposed to English. This in turn indicates how they consider they are not sufficiently immersed with English, or rather ELF, despite their being in an English department and wanting to improve their English ability in general. They are therefore happy enough just to have more exposure to English in learning content matters, not ambitious enough to request to have more chances to actually communicate using it. However, they also simultaneously show their desire to use English, not just being satisfied with the one-sided exposure. This was shown in their answers in which they state that they want to have more discussion in EMI courses, which is also applicable to the students in the EMI programme. Although they state they enjoy actually using English, they also simultaneously explicitly state that they would like to have more opportunities for discussion, which shows that both groups are eager to actually participate in EMI courses/programmes, exchanging opinions with their peers from diverse lingua-cultural backgrounds. This then has implications for running EMI programmes/courses in that just increasing EMI courses in a traditional lecture-type manner would not be so highly appreciated by students. The method of teaching and conducting EMI courses/programmes is equally very important as also pointed out by Cots (2013) (see also Ball and Lindsay 2013; Morell 2004; Wilkinson 2013). Attitudes towards ELF: ELF-orientated or NS-norm-orientated? Another important issue emerged in relation to ‘English’ used in EMI courses/programmes is the students’ attitudes towards ELF, which are mainly divided into two types: NSEnorm-orientated and ELF-orientated. It has emerged that many of the students both in the EMI programme and course are still very much constrained by the former, ashamed of and embarrassed with, for example, their Japanese-accented pronunciation (see Jenkins 2007, 2009; also Wang 2015) as well as commenting on some lecturers’ accented English not necessarily favorably, judging the latter’s English on the basis of NES-based ‘correctness’ (see also Li 2013). On the other hand, although the number is small there are also some students who show ELF-orientated attitudes, focusing more on intelligibility and the benefit of communicating in ELF. Some of the students, particularly those in the EMI programme, more positively appreciate having chances to be exposed to diverse Englishes by their peers and faculty from different linguacultural backgrounds.
407
Kumiko Murata and Masakazu Iino
Therefore, here again, it can be said that the importance of immersing students with diverse Englishes with people from differing lingua-cultural backgrounds, where they need to negotiate meaning to understand each other, using linguistic resources available (e.g. Seidlhofer 2011; Widdowson 2003) in their academic environment should be emphasized.
Other issues emerged in EMI contexts in general There are also other issues often raised by EMI researchers and practitioners, which can be divided into student-related and teacher-related ones. The former include students’ proficiency levels (see Doiz et al. 2011; Shohamy 2013) and how to cope with them and the ones related to students’ understanding of the content of lectures (see Doiz et al. 2011, 2013b; Wilkinson 2013), which are in turn also related to their proficiency. These are also pointed out directly by the students in our research, both in the interview and questionnaire surveys. It is also shown in an indirect manner in that the jun-Japa students’ lack of confidence and inferiority originate partially in their perception of differences in the proficiency levels among the community members, which are assessed often subconsciously on the basis of NSE norms. As to the issues related to teachers’ side, their proficiency or use of accented-English is pointed out as already touched on above (Li 2013; Ljosland 2011; Wilkinson 2013). Another issue often pointed out by EMI scholars’ findings is extra effort required for preparing EMI classes (see Doiz et al., 2011, 2013b). This issue, however, has not appeared in our research partly because the limited number of the faculty members who responded to the questionnaires mostly have backgrounds in English linguistics and teaching and have also several years’ experiences of studying in English-speaking countries as postgraduate students themselves, some of them explicitly stating that it is easier for them to teach content in English, which is the language of their learning and researching this specific field and that of the textbooks they are currently using as teachers. This difference might have derived from the broader definition of EMI we have employed in our research, including those EMI courses offered in English linguistics and literature departments, while in the European context, these are not included (see Smit 2016). Finally and importantly, the issue of ELF has not been directly dealt with in most of the EMI research in the European context apart from Jenkins (2014), Mauranen (2012), Smit (2010), Dafouz and Smit (2016), and some of their colleagues’ works. Nevertheless, many of the issues raised in the existing research on EMI is directly and indirectly related to the conceptualization of the ‘E’ of EMI, where students, teachers and administrators are all subconsciously constrained by an NES paradigm, and struggle with the issue of native speakerism, such as the perception of accented English, assessment, extra effort and burden required for course preparation, etc. These issues need to be dealt with head-on to effectively run EMI programmes and courses. By introducing an ELF perspective into the ‘E’ of EMI, however, some of the burdens placed on students and teachers to conform to NES norms would be lessened. They are after all using ELF in the global context for global audiences, who will include people from diverse linguacultural backgrounds, and not be limited to NSE audiences. It is thus essential that EMI programmes and courses should be run under the firm understanding of the ‘E’ of EMI as ‘ELF’ rather than ‘ENL’ (English as a native language). In the following section, we will conclude our findings and discuss some implications for EMI language pedagogy from an ELF perspective. 408
EMI in higher education
Conclusion and pedagogical implications Our survey on the EMI courses and programme from an ELF perspective at a Japanese university has revealed that EMI is mostly welcomed by both students and academics, as also indicated in the existing research in the European context. It is also confirmed that EMI practice is a global trend, being greatly encouraged and promoted both in the European and Asian contexts, including ASEAN and East Asian countries such as China, Korea and Japan. Research on EMI practices from an ELF perspective in this region, however, is still limited in numbers compared to its European counterpart. It is therefore urgently needed to incorporate this perspective to better understand the situation and reflect the reality of what is going on in the actual context of EMI practices. As touched on in our discussion above, the importance of immersing students with a variety of Englishes and letting them have opportunities to communicate with people from diverse linguacultural backgrounds, negotiating meanings and not being constrained by NES norms, should be more valued and emphasized in EMI programmes and courses in order to heighten awareness of the communicative reality of this globalized world, and let them gain confidence in communicating via English or rather ELF. There are however other matters that can be dealt with before this stage. One of the things that could be introduced is an orientation session before actual EMI programmes and courses start, in order to raise awareness of the participants of a new academic community, that is, students and lecturers, irrespective of their linguacultural backgrounds, both NNESs and NESs, about the ‘E’ of EMI. This would enable them to notice the diversity and the fact that English to be used in the community is not the ‘E’ of NESs but that of ELF, owned equally by each member of this community as their own. This will lessen the burden on NNES students, and in fact on teachers, who usually feel vulnerable not owning ‘NESs’ English’. Another matter, one that can be dealt with during EMI classes, is that methodological issues on how to run EMI courses should be paid more attention to. That is to say, students can be given more opportunities to interact with other students and lecturers, each of whom has their own invaluable linguistic and cultural resources, in order to help the students understand the diversity of communicative values and strategies they need to survive in this increasingly globalizing world. After all, these students are most likely to communicate with these diverse people in their future career.
Notes 1 The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999, www.magna-charta.org/resources/files/text-of-thebologna-declaration, accessed 29 March 2016 2 It is worth noting here that Nicola Galloway has just started the investigation of EMI practices from an ELF perspective with the funding from the British Council (pc). 3 The questionnaires were administered to two groups of students: the EMI programme group (N, 39) and the EMI course group (N, 76), at a university in Tokyo as well as to a small number of faculty members (N, 6) for the purpose of qualitative analysis in October and November 2015.
Related chapters in this handbook 11 Kirkpatrick, The development of English as a lingua franca in ASEAN 13 D’Angelo, The status of ELF in Japan 31 Smit, Beyond monolingualism in higher education: a language policy account 409
Kumiko Murata and Masakazu Iino
38 Hüttner, ELF and content and language integrated learniing 39 Suzuki, Liu and Yu, ELT and ELF in the East Asian contexts
Further reading Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster and J.M. Sierra (eds) 2013. English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Jenkins, J. 2014. English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Politics of Academic Language Policy. Abingdon: Routledge. Mauranen, A. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smit, U. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca in Higher Education: A Longitudinal Study of Classroom Discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
References Airey, J. 2012. ‘I don’t teach language’: The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review 25: 64–79. Azirah Hasim 2009. Not plain sailing: Malaysia’s language choice in policy and education. AILA Review 22: 36–51. Ball, P. and D. Lindsay 2013. Language demands and support for English-medium instruction in tertiary education: Learning from a specific context. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster and J.M. Sierra (eds) English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 44–61. Björkman, B. 2016. English-medium instruction and English as the lingua franca in Higher Education in central and northern Europe. In M.-L. Pitzl and R. Osimk- Teasdale (eds) English as a Lingua Franca: Perspectives and Prospects. Contributions in Honour of Barbara Seidlhofer. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 57–68. Brown, G. and G. Yule 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cheng, L. 2012. The power of English and the power of Asia: English as lingua franca and in bilingual and multilingual education. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33/4: 327–330. Cho, J. 2012. Campus in English or campus in shock? English Today 28/2: 18–25. Cogo, A. 2016. Visibility and absence: Ideologies of ‘diversity’ in BELF. In M.-L. Pitzl and R. OsimkTeasdale (eds) English as a Lingua Franca: Perspectives and Prospects. Contributions in Honour of Barbara Seidlhofer. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 39–48. Coleman, J.A. 2006. English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching 39/1:1–14. Cots, J.M. 2013. Introducing English-medium instruction at the University of Lleida, Spain: Intervention, Beliefs and Practices. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster and J.M. Sierra (eds) EnglishMedium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 106–128. Cots, J.M., E. Llurda and P. Garrett 2014. Language policies and practices in the internationalization of higher education on the European margins: An introduction. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 35: 311–317. Dafouz, E. and U. Smit 2016. Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for English- medium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics 37/3: 397–413. Dearden, J. 2014. English as a Medium of Instruction: A Growing Global Phenomenon: Phase 1. London: The British Council. Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster and J.M. Sierra 2011. Internationalisaiton, multilingualism and Englishmedium instruction. World Englishes 30/3: 345–359. Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster and J.M. Sierra (eds) 2013a. English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster and J.M. Sierra 2013b. Future challenges for English-medium instruction at the tertiary level. In Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster and J.M. Sierra (eds) English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 213–221.
410
EMI in higher education
Galloway, N. and H. Rose 2013. ‘They envision going to New York, not Jakarta’: The differing attitudes toward ELF of students, teaching assistants, and instructors in an English-medium business program in Japan. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2/2: 229–253. Gill, S.K. 2005. Language policy in Malaysia: Revisiting direction. Language Policy 4/3: 241–60. Gill, S.K. 2009. Standards and linguistic realities of English in the Malaysian Workplace. In K. Murata and J. Jenkins (eds) Global Englishes in Asian Contexts: Current and Future Debates. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 131–153. Gumperz, J.J. 1982a. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, J.J. (eds) 1982b. Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hu, G. 2009. The craze for English-medium education in China: Driving forces and looming consequences. English Today 25/4: 47–54. Hu, G. and S.L. McKay. 2012. English language education in East Asia: Some recent developments. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33: 345–362. Hülmbauer, C. and B. Seidlhofer. 2013. English as a lingua franca in European multilingualism. In A.-C. Berthoud, F. Grin, and G. Lüdi (eds) Exploring the Dynamics of Multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 387–406. Hynninen, N. 2012. ICL at the micro level: L2 speakers taking on the role of language experts. AILA Review 25: 13–29. Iino, M. and K. Murata. 2016. Dynamics of ELF communication in an English-medium academic context in Japan: From EFL learners to ELF users. In K. Murata (ed.) Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts: Conceptualization, Research and Pedagogic Implications. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 111–131. Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. 2009. Exploring attitudes towards English as a lingua franca in the East Asian context. In K. Murata and J. Jenkins (eds) Global Englishes in Asian Contexts: Current and Future Debates. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 40–56. Jenkins, J. 2014. English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Politics of Academic Language Policy. Abingdon: Routledge. Jenkins, J. 2015. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice 2/3: 49–85. Kachru, B.B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk and H.G. Widdowson (eds) English in the World: Teaching and learning the language and literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–30. Kachru, B.B. (ed.) 1992. The Other Tongue: English across Cultures. 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kano, R. 2016. Research on learning experiences in an English-medium instruction (EMI) setting of a Japanese university. Waseda Working Papers in ELF 5: 153–167. Karakaş, A. 2015. Orientations towards English among English-medium instruction students. Englishes in Practice 2/1: 1–38 Kirkpatrick, A. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN: A Multilingual Model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kirkpatrick, A. 2012. English in ASEAN: Implications for regional multilingualism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33/4: 331–344. Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Li, D. C. S. 2013. Linguistic hegemony or linguistic capital? Internationalizaiton and English-medium instruction. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster and J.M. Sierra (eds) English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 65–83. Ljosland, R. 2011. English as an academic lingua franca: Language policies and multilingual practices in a Norwegian university. Journal of Pragmatics 43/4: 991–1004. Lim, L. 2009. Beyond fear and loathing in SG: The real mother tongues and language policies in multilingual Singapore. AILA Review 22: 52–71. Lim, L. and E.-L. Low 2009. Introduction. AILA Review 22: 1–4. Mauranen, A. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
411
Kumiko Murata and Masakazu Iino
MEXT. 2011. An Interim Report of the Council on Promotion of Human Resource for Globalization Development, www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/global/110622chukan_matome.pdf (Japanese) www. kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/global/1206011interim_report.pdf (English) (accessed 29 March 2016). MEXT. 2014. Press release ‘Selection for the FY 2014 top Global University Project’ www.mext. go.jp/b_menu/houdou/26/09/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/10/07/1352 218_02.pdf (accessed 29 March 2016) Morell, T. 2004. Interactive lecture discourse for university EFL students. English for Specific Purposes 23: 325–338. Murata, K. 2011. Voices from the unvoiced: A comparative study of hidden values and attitudes in opinion-giving. Language and Intercultural Communication 11/1: 6–25. Murata, K. 2016. ELF research: Its impact on language education in Japan and East Asia. In M-L. Pitzl and R. Osimk-Teasdale (eds) English as a Lingua Franca: Perspectives and Prospects. Contributions in Honour of Barbara Seidlhofer. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 77–86. Murata, K., M. Iino and M. Konakahara. 2016. English-medium instruction in a Japanese university: Exploring students and teachers’ voices from an ELF perspective. Paper presented at the 1st EMI-ELF Workshop. 27 February 2016. Waseda University, Tokyo. Otsu, A. 2014. Attitudes toward English in academic and professional settings: An analysis of talk-ininteraction from an ELF perspective. Waseda Working Papers in ELF 3:107–122. Park, J.-K. 2009. ‘English fever’ in South Korea: Its history and symptoms. English Today 25/1: 50–57 Saito, Y. 2007. Nihonjin to eigo: mou hitotsu no eigo hyakunen shi (The Japanese People and English: Another Centennial History of English). Tokyo: Kenkyusha Seidlhofer, B. 2009. Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. World Englishes 28 (2): 236–245. Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shohamy, E. 2013. A critical perspective on the use of English as a medium of instruction: Opportunities and challenges. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster and J.M. Sierra (eds) English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 196–210. Smit, U. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca in Higher Education: A Longitudinal Study of Classroom Discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Smit, U. 2016. Classroom discourse in EMI: On the dynamics of multilingual practices. Special lecture delivered at the first EMI-ELF Workshop on 27 February 2016 at Waseda University, Tokyo. Smit, U. and E. Dafouz 2012. Integrating content and language in higher education: An introduction to English-medium policies, conceptual issues and research practices across Europe. AILA Review 25: 1–12. Turner, J. and M.K. Hiraga 1996. Elaborating elaboration in academic tutorials: Changing cultural assumptions. In H. Coleman and L. Cameron (eds) Change and Language. Bristol: BAAL in association with Multilingual Matters, pp. 131–140. Wang, Y. 2015. Chinese university students’ ELF awareness: Impacts of language education in China. Englishes in Practice 2/4: 86–106. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Widdowson, H.G. 1994. The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28/2: 377–389. Widdowson, H.G. 2003. Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilkinson, R. 2013 English-medium instruction at a Dutch university: Challenges and pitfalls. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster and J.M. Sierra (eds) English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 3–24.
412
33 Written academic English as a lingua franca Bruce Horner
Introduction Written academic English as a lingua franca (hereafter ‘WAELF’) names a concept in dispute. For each of the terms and combinations of terms constituting the phrase ‘Written academic English as a lingua franca’ is increasingly being placed in question: writing, academic, academic writing, English, academic written English, lingua franca, as well as English as a lingua franca. If, conventionally, written academic English (WAE) has been understood to represent a specific, stable, discrete and internally uniform variety of written English – say, the written English of professional academics – studies of the corpus of English-medium writing by professional academics have shown that WAE is neither stable, nor discrete from other kinds of language practices, nor internally uniform (see, for example, Leki, 1995; Petraglia, 1995; Lea and Street, 1998; Thaiss and Zawacki, 2006; WrELFA 2015). And what constitutes the corpus of academic writing – even in English – has been found to include diverse genres, modes and technologies of writing, ranging from notes, emails and memoranda to university press books and the product of a broad and diverse range of kinds of writers who might likewise be understood as ‘academic’, including not only professional academics but also students at every level as well as teachers and administrators, with a wide range and diversity of ethnolinguistic as well as disciplinary and professional affiliations, backgrounds and aspirations. Further, as the various chapters in this handbook will have made clear, what constitutes English, and more specifically English as a lingua franca, is under radical scrutiny. In short, even when understood strictly as an individual entity, WAELF is wide ranging, diverse, in flux and in interdependent relation to different kinds of writing, writers, languages and language varieties. Consequently, understanding WAELF involves drawing on a comparably wide range of disciplinary areas of study. Given the value of the cultural capital represented by WAELF and any ostensible ability to produce it, work drawing on this scholarship is inevitably inflected with the politics of language, language education and knowledge production, manifested in three conceptions of WAELF. The first, and dominant, conception of WAELF conflates it with a standardized form of (written) English, understood as a relatively stable, internally uniform, and politically neutral medium affording global academics with a friction-free means of knowledge 413
Bruce Horner
exchange: WAELF as ‘culture-free code’ (see Fiedler, 2011). That this medium happens to be a standardized English rather than, say, French is, from this dominant conception, treated as a fait accompli resulting from historical accidents. While these accidents have, admittedly, made life easier for English monolinguals (those in the Kachruvian inner circle) than for the rest of us, it is assumed that standardized English is nonetheless available to all those willing to put in the effort to acquire mastery of WAELF as the standardized price of admission to and accepted coin of the realm of global academia (see Guardiano et al., 2007; Mackenzie, 2014). A second, oppositional, conception of WAELF acknowledges the presence of a standardized form of written academic English but locates it in the context of alternative forms of written academic English, such as those that might be produced by writers who are not natives of the Kachruvian inner circle. These include not only NNES students or wouldbe students seeking admission to higher education but also NNES professional academics obliged by the current dominance of English-medium academic publishing venues (journals and presses) to publish in English but hampered and obstructed in their efforts to do so by differences between the forms of English in which they write and the standardized WAE of the anglophone realm dominating global knowledge production (see Ammon, 2007; Flowerdew, 1999/2007; Lillis and Curry, 2010). In light of the threat such obstructions pose to the production and exchange of knowledge, and in light of the ethical appeal of granting equal access to all those seeking entrance to academe, those conceiving of WAELF in this way argue for greater tolerance by academic literacy brokers – e.g., manuscript reviewers and editors of academic journals and presses, as well as teachers – for forms of writing deviating from standardized WAE by those not native to the Kachruvian inner circle – ESL/EAL and EFL students and faculty. Finally, a third conception of WAELF – a conception most in line with current thinking on ELF – treats each of the terms key to that designation as fluid outcomes of ongoing processes rather than as stable, linked entities (see Jenkins et al., 2011; Baird et al., 2014). From this perspective, WAELF is the always emergent outcome of inevitably shifting and variable writing practices, and hence continuously subject to variation, revision and negotiation and, in fact, dependent on writing and reading practices for its continual (re)definition. While sharing with the second conception of WAELF an argument for tolerance, those conceiving of WAELF in this third way dispute the stability, singularity, discrete character, politicalcultural neutrality and internal uniformity of what is purported to be WAE as well as any proposed alternatives (including, of course, written forms of other languages). And rather than assuming friction-free exchange as the ideal of written academic (and other) forms of communication, those taking this perspective treat meaning as the product of ongoing practices of negotiation, and see opacity as an inevitable element of and accompaniment to all communicative practice. The emphasis is thereby placed on the necessity of the labor of readers as well as writers to the production and reproduction of meaning, understood as the always emergent outcome of such labor rather than as an entity contained and conveyed by the linguistic forms deployed.
Why written academic English as a lingua franca? The apparent need for and development of WAELF have arisen as a consequence of the globalization, a.k.a. ‘internationalization’, of higher education; the growing dominance, post-World War II, of the US in the support of research knowledge production
414
Written academic ELF
(Lillis and Curry, 2010); the concomitant rise of English as the predominant language of academic exchange in publications and conference presentations as well as, increasingly, instruction; and the status of writing as the medium of that English. The apparent need for WAELF is also attributed to changes in global migration patterns, the ‘massification’ of higher education, and the rise of global communication networks and technologies, all of which have put into crisis the language of learning, teaching and scholarly communication, for which a particular version of WAELF is posed as a resolution (for possible alternatives, see Hamel, 2007). But these calls and demands for WAELF need to be understood not so much as inevitable consequences of these phenomena but, rather, as consequences of twinned dominant ideologies of writing and language. First, as Lillis (2013: 7) has argued, there is an ideological view of writing as the codification and standardization of language. For example, Romaine (2000: 90, quoted in Lillis, 2013: 7) states that ‘[s]tandardization and literacy go hand in hand since the acquisition of literacy presupposes the existence of a codified written standard, and standardization depends on the existence of a written form of language’. Writing, so understood, is then put in binary opposition to speech. As Lillis (2013: 9) notes, those taking such a position follow what Brian Street (1984) has described as an ‘autonomous’ ideology of literacy, treating writing as permanent, formal, lexically dense, context independent, distant, detached, impersonal and set in opposition to speech, which is understood as transient, informal, grammatically complex, context dependent, dialogic, involved and personal. What should be clear from this account is that an ideology of academic writing as permanent, formal, lexically dense, context independent, distant, detached and impersonal is overlaid on and conflated with literacy per se, so that a particular conception of academic writing (‘essayist’ literacy) comes to stand in for all writing (Trimbur, 1990). This ideology ignores not only the plethora of non-academic writing but also many academic writing practices, such as emails, notes, editing comments, memoranda, etc. Further, it overlooks the ways in which even the most high status types of academic writing – e.g., the research article – fail to conform to what a dominant ideology of writing, or academic writing, claims, being, instead and in fact, context dependent, dialogic, transient, personal, etc. In the same way, the English to be found in academic writing – including the English of NES writers – does not conform to the ‘standards’ codified for such writing, despite what an ideology of standardized English might lead us to believe. Instead, readers tend to gloss over deviations from such standards in high-status writing that they would search out and condemn in low status writing – e.g., writing by students (J. Williams, 1981; Hartse and Kubota, 2014). The twinned ideologies of a standardized notion of academic writing and academic English, when aligned with a conduit model of communication and an objectivist model of knowledge, lead to a particular ideology of written academic English as the ideal, politically neutral form by which to articulate and transmit knowledge (Guardiano et al., 2007). Insofar as this particular conception of WAELF is founded on standardizations of both English and academic writing, those standardizations (a.k.a. ‘standards’) have been key points of debate about WAELF, just as notions of ‘standard’ English have been key in debates on ELF more generally. While at least some arguments persist that a standardized WAE is simply, inherently superior to other versions of WAE, more commonly defenses of such standardizations, at least for WAE as a global lingua franca, rest on their purported functionality for purposes of communication: what is needed, it is argued, is an agreed-upon standard to preclude miscommunication and confusion and to facilitate the accurate global exchange of knowledge (Guardiano et al., 2007).
415
Bruce Horner
Such arguments have prompted at least two different challenges. First, the basis for the ‘agreement’ has been challenged as an imperialist gesture: no fair agreement can be said to have been reached, nor to have been possible to reach, under the conditions of current and past asymmetrical geopolitical relations favoring the anglophone sphere (Canagarajah, 2002; Lillis and Curry, 2010). Second, it is manifestly evident that multiple, and quite different, standards of lexis, syntax, etc. obtain within academe, most obviously between the various disciplines but also among traditions within what is ostensibly the ‘same’ discipline (Lea and Street, 1998; Gotti and Guinda, 2013; Allori, 2014; Bondi and Lorés-Sanz, 2014). Even when the same terms are used to identify such standards for academic writing – e.g., clear, concise, direct, thesis-driven, well-organized, etc. – these terms are attributed to quite different linguistic, rhetorical and notational practices, producing a veneer of agreement that glosses over quite different understandings and practices (Leki, 1995; Prior, 1995; Thaiss and Zawacki, 2006). There is even lack of agreement over what counts as an ‘error’ in notational practice, despite widespread consensus that writing should be free of such errors (J. Williams, 1981; Lees, 1989; Hartse and Kubota, 2014). Such challenges have led to two alternative models for WAELF. First, recognition of the diversity of written discourse practices across disciplines has led to appeals to accept that diversity as legitimate and necessary to the quite different aims of different disciplines, genres and contexts. This is the model of teaching writing in the disciplines as a set of distinct, if stable, academic writing practices. Or, alternatively, rather than assuming the inherent functionality of a specific set of standards for all instances of WAELF, its functionality itself is understood as 1) contingent on the specific conditions of utterance, and 2) contestable as an appropriate end and effect to aim for. In other words, how an utterance functions, and what it functions as, are treated not as the guaranteed outcome of the deployment of specific linguistic and notational forms but, instead, as always emerging outcomes of readers’ and writers’ labor and the conditions of that labor, and subject to contest. This means that WAELF is best understood as a set of spatio-temporally located practices (cf. Pennycook, 2010). Just as ELF is increasingly understood as an always emerging product of its participants, so WAELF, despite the patina of timelessness that the medium of writing seems to provide, is itself also an always emergent product of the work of its participants. Writing, in short, does not merely standardize and codify language; rather, it mediates language, translating and transforming it in the process to produce, in the practices with which we are concerned, WAELF.
Disciplining WAELF Any attempt to make sense of the disciplinary study of WAELF must contend with 1) the emergent status of such work (Ingvarsdótti and Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2013; Hartse and Kubota, 2014: 75; Jenkins, 2014: 65); 2) the diversity of disciplinary research traditions and programs of study contributing to its study; and 3) differences and changes in the assumptions and methodologies these bring to that study, affecting both what is constructed as the object of study (WAELF) as well as the kinds of analyses to which it is subjected and the aims and concerns driving those analyses. Insofar as ELF itself is a relatively new field of inquiry whose defining concept remains in dispute and competition with such constructs as LFE, EIL and ESL,1 much of the work addressing what we might designate WAELF either does not distinguish WAELF from ELF or does not identify the forms or practices studied as either ELF or WAELF but in some other way, for example, EFL or ESL writing/composition. 416
Written academic ELF
This means, it bears emphasizing, that what is inferred and identified in this chapter to be scholarship on WAELF does not necessarily announce itself as such, and might well be identified (by its authors and/or other readers) as, instead, something else. Likewise, just as scholarship on ELF draws on work in such varied fields as second-language acquisition and TESOL, World Englishes and intercultural communication, scholarship on WAELF is developing at the confluence of a diverse array of disciplinary research traditions and academic institutional contexts, including not only studies in ELF per se but also English for academic purposes (EAP), second-language writing (SLW), composition, academic literacies and contrastive and intercultural rhetoric, among others. Inevitably, differences in the disciplinary research traditions and academic institutional contexts of those approaching the question of WAELF have produced differences in models for WAELF. It merits emphasis, too, that the study of WAELF arises from many of the same phenomena cited above associated with ‘globalization’. One consequence is that WAELF has often been identified primarily with the academic writing of those designated NNES students and professional academics, regardless of whether that writing is intended for either NNES or NES readers. So, for example, work in EAP is primarily focused on the teaching of English to those designated NNES, as is much (though not all) work in second-language writing. Work in academic literacies has also emerged in part in response to the increasing perception of language difference (often coded as deficit) in UK students’ writing (see Lillis and Scott, 2007: 7–8; Wingate, 2015). This impetus for work on WAELF has sometimes had the unintended effect of leaving the English of NES academic writers unquestioned as the stable norm against and by which WAELF is measured: retaining, in other words, standard written English (SWE) and NES writers and practices as the unquestioned norm for academic writing for all to emulate, whatever the writers’ language backgrounds or locations or the language backgrounds and locations of their anticipated readers. Or WAELF is understood as relevant only to the ‘new’ students admitted through the massification of institutions of higher education insofar as they are deemed to be from cultures ‘distant’ from academe. A further consequence of the histories of these disciplinary traditions on which WAELF research draws is a tension many scholars have noted between work associated with scholarship in EAP, WE and contrastive rhetoric, on the one hand, which approaches WAELF primarily in terms of its formal linguistic characteristics (see, for example, Hyland, 2014), and, on the other hand, work associated with scholarship in academic literacies and cultural studies of writing that approaches WAELF primarily as social practice (see Canagarajah, 2007: 925–926; Lillis and Scott, 2007; Turner, 2012: 19; Wingate and Tribble, 2012; Belcher, 2014; Park and Wee, 2014: 52). It is important to acknowledge that just as studies in ELF per se, while shifting in focus from the former to the latter, have retained an interest in both (Jenkins et al., 2011: 287), all WAELF scholarship likewise necessarily attends to both. That said, work emphasizing formal characteristics of WAELF must necessarily ‘freeze the frame’ of the writing to enable analysis of ‘finished’ texts. Typically such studies take as working assumptions a distinction between WAELF and non-WAELF texts, on the one hand, and, on the other, a degree of uniformity among examples of those identified as either. So, for example, Mauranen’s Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric (1993) compares textual features of professional academic writing by Finns (in English as well as Finnish) and Anglo-American academics (in English) to draw conclusions about the characteristic features of ‘Finnish’ and ‘English’ academic rhetorics, the former of which (but not the latter) might then be identified as exemplifying WAELF, though the deployment of English in both would presumably be expected to serve a lingua franca function. Likewise, Swales (1996) compares features of submission letters written by NES and NNES writers 417
Bruce Horner
and attempts to account for some of the differences between them in light of the language backgrounds and conditions obtaining for each group (cf. Fox, 1994; Čmejrková, 1996; Kubota, 1998; Diani, 2014; Hryniuk, 2015). As Canagarajah (2006: 590) observes, in such approaches, which he identifies as ‘inference’ and ‘correlation’ models, ‘the important variable [accounting for differences] is still considered to be language rather than the many other mediating factors and negotiation strategies at play’. This assumes, he notes, that ‘the writer [is] conditioned so strongly by [the first language or culture] that even when he or she writes in another language, those influences are supposed to manifest themselves in the new text’ (Canagarajah, 2006: 589; cf. Bjørge, 2007: 62–63). And as Matsuda (1997: 50), explains, this ‘static’ notion of writers, cultures and languages ‘denies the writer’s agency’ (see also Baker, 2013; Belcher, 2014). As an alternative to such approaches, Matsuda calls for a ‘dynamic’ model whereby writing ‘reflects the complexity of the process of decision-making that writers go through as they respond to their own perception of the particular context of writing’, with the context itself understood as also dynamic (1997: 52). Similarly, Canagarajah argues for what he calls a ‘negotiation’ model focusing on writers’ agency in negotiating and transforming contexts (2006: 590–591). Canagarajah’s and Matsuda’s models of negotiation and dynamism mirror a growing perspective on ELF discourse as a whole as an always emerging, always situationally specific outcome of the practices of the interlocutors in co-constitutive relation to contexts, and hence, demanding attention to those practices and contexts as dynamic creations (see Meierkord, 2004; Canagarajah, 2006, 2007; Kapp, 2012; Lu and Horner, 2013; Baird et al., 2014; Verzella and Tommaso, 2014; Bou Ayash, 2016). Writing that might appear from a monolingualist view to be either a hotchpotch of error-laden utterances or the predictable manifestation of the influence of writers’ L1 culture and literacy on their production of WAE can from a dynamic negotiation model be understood as meaningful in context, with deviations from such a stable set of standards instancing writers’ strategic choices arguably as fully appropriate and evidence of competence, albeit competence in WAELF rather than SWE. However, those who would attempt to apply that negotiation perspective to writing must also confront the dominance of the ideology of autonomous literacy treating the written text as a commodity. That ideology of autonomous literacy accounts for the inability to see in processes of writing production the kinds of interactive features that ELF scholars have identified with the production of spoken ELF, such as repair, accommodation, rephrasing, clarification, negotiation and code-switching (Firth, 1996; Seidlhofer, 2004; Cogo, 2009; Hülmbauer, 2009; Kaur, 2009; Klimpfinger, 2009; Mauranen, 2011; cf. Horner, 2011). But as scholars are increasingly acknowledging, the meaning of texts is a consequence not of the characteristics of the notations per se, operating autonomously, but, rather, with the reading practices to which they are subjected (cf. R. Williams, 1980: 47; Carrell, 1987: 48–49). Likewise, that autonomy, and its imaginary of the solo writer, is at odds with the demonstrably collaborative practices of academic (and other) writing as material social practice (see Lefevre, 1987; Bruffee, 1989; Reither and Vipond, 1989; Ede and Lunsford, 1990; Haas 1996; Horner, 2000; Turner, 2012: 20). So, for example, Swales (1996: 46) acknowledges that the ‘occluded genres’ of academic writing that ‘support and validate the manufacture of knowledge’ involve an array of participants, including not only the person identified as, say, a research article author but also editors, reviewers, colleagues, dissertation directors, etc. More specifically, Lillis and Curry (2010) identify a ‘network’ of ‘literacy brokers’
418
Written academic ELF
involved in professional academic textual production, who may include not just the author and any co-authors but also copy-editors, manuscript reviewers, translators, publishers, local and transnational colleagues, research assistants, dissertation advisors and graduate students. For NNES academics, such networks of brokers are likely to include what Lillis and Curry (2010: 93–99) deem ‘language brokers’, who attempt to insure that texts will meet publisher expectations for SWE but who may also negotiate such expectations (the reliance of NES academics on such brokers is typically ignored). But whether such brokers are available and seen as legitimate, the use of such brokers remains largely occluded from the public imaginary of writing, academic writing included. Alternatively, extending attention to the full process of writing production, including the participation of networks of brokers, as Lillis and Curry (2010) demonstrate in their analyses of the ‘text histories’ of research publications, reveals the many instances of repair, accommodation, rephrasing, clarification, negotiation and code-switching in the production of WAE. And these might well include not only those to be found in explicit interactions among authors and those deemed ‘brokers’ but also those in individual authors’ ongoing processes of drafting, revising and editing their writing, as well as the accommodations and translations effected by readers (though these are less readily accessible). In short, such analyses can reveal the negotiations in which writers (and their readers) engage as they work on producing meaningful text. The work of writing, in other words, can be freed from the ‘textualist’ bias afflicting those working in the disciplinary traditions of literary critical theory, critical literacy and discourse analysis. The insistence by those working in the tradition of ‘academic literacies’ on literacy as social practice is apposite here (see Lillis and Scott, 2007: 10–11). But in attending to the sociality of such reading and writing practices, we come to a turning point in the disciplinary treatment of WAELF. For while, as noted above, WAELF would appear from disciplinary traditions of research to be an issue only for NNES academic writers, closer inspection suggests that the negotiations such analyses reveal are comparable, though not identical, to the negotiations of all writers, NESs included (Wingate 2015: 41–43, and passim). That is to say, from this perspective of the work of academic writing as a process extending over, while located in, time and space, the concept of WAELF as a form of writing (text and process) characterizing only NNES writers no longer holds. Instead, WAELF would seem to be merely a more accurate rendering of all ‘WAE’ as the ongoing, emerging product of practices and processes of writing and reading. It is the intensity of the negotiations experienced by NNES writers in those practices and processes, rather than their need to negotiate at all, that distinguishes them from their NES colleagues (cf. Jenkins et al., 2011: 291; Horner, 2016). WAELF, in other words, is not the exception to the norm of WAE but is itself the norm. And this means that even that writing produced by NNES that would appear to be in conformity with SWE strictures could also be understood as instancing WAELF, now understood not as a set of textual features but the practices with and on these. This puts a twist on arguments that NNES writers’ deployment of forms seemingly in alignment with SWE strictures is evidence of their ‘colonization’. Instead, those writers’ deployments of forms both in alignment with and deviating from such strictures would have to be understood as engagements in WAELF (Matsuda, 1997: 51–52). This is not to dismiss differences in language and culture as factors shaping WAELF but to reconceptualise these as the always emerging outcomes of writing practices, continually re-activated (and revised) through writing. So, for example, whether a student deploys more informal or formal forms
419
Bruce Horner
of address and closings in emails to a professor can be understood not as a manifestation of the powerful sway of the student’s ‘home’ culture (as a culture of high or low power difference) on the student (Bjørge, 2007) but, instead, the student’s activation of such power relations through his/her writing, in bids to establish such relations with a professor (as distant or egalitarian).2 Likewise, those deployments (as well as those of their NES counterparts) can be seen as contributing to and shaping WAELF. If, as Bamgbose (1998: 4) has argued, the inscription of ‘non-native’ forms of English is necessary to their ultimate acceptance as valuable innovation rather than error, then the full panoply of academic writers and brokers is responsible for shaping – by experimentations with inscribing and negotiating the acceptance of specific formulations – what might at a given moment constitute WAELF. Likewise, writers’, brokers’ and readers’ decisions to iterate and accept conventional formulations also contribute to that shaping by furthering the sedimentation of those formulations. In either case, however, these can be seen as agentive actions for which all the participants are responsible. Deferring to the authority of a stable, autonomous, internally uniform SWE (or designated alternative) as justification is from this perspective not a valid argument, or excuse, but an ideological strategy.
Future directions Research on WAELF poses challenges to dominant understandings of WAE and of each of the constituent terms comprising WAE by extending the kinds of writers, readers, writing, English and activities to be considered ‘academic’. These challenges are welcome in promising to broaden the circulation of knowledge and our understandings of the conditions of its production, mobilization and circulation. But such work is by definition reactive rather than proactive: countering dominant claims that WAELF is simply deviation from an ostensible ‘norm’ for WAE. Going forward, those pursuing the study and teaching of WAELF might well take up work that moves beyond the conceptual frameworks of dominant understandings of WAE, whether in terms of pedagogy, research or policy. As the foregoing suggests, one such move is likely to entail more concerted consideration of the writing of those academic writers designated NES as well as NNES, and interactions among these as well as between NES and NNES academic writers. In so doing, work on WAELF can draw more fully on the rich body of scholarship in US composition studies (and, at least by analogy, in the study of university literacies in other languages, such as didactique de l’écrit) – especially that work focused on the writing practices of so-called ‘basic writers’ (those deemed as distant in dialect and/or culture from academe) (see, for example, Shaughnessy, 1977; Hull et al., 1991; Bartholomae, 1993; Severino et al., 1997; Sternglass 1997; Harklau et al., 1999; Horner and Lu, 1999; McNenny and Fitzgerald, 2001; Matsuda, 2003). Work on WAELF can also benefit from the growing body of scholarship identified with what is variously termed plurilinguality, translinguality, code-meshing and translanguaging (see for example Schroeder et al., 2002; Richardson, 2003; Melo-Pfeifer, 2009; Horner et al., 2011; Young and Martinez, 2011; García and Li Wei, 2014; Jeoffrion et al., 2014). Work on WAELF can also engage productively with the growing interest in and experimentation with altering WAE ‘from above’ as well as ‘below’, in the form of critical academic writing (see, for example, Annas, 1985; Tompkins, 1987/1989; Frey, 1990; Torgovnick, 1990; Gilyard, 1991; Bridwell-Bowles, 1992; Zawacki, 1992; Villanueva, 1993; Belcher, 1997; Symposium Collective, 2001; Sughrua, 2011). 420
Written academic ELF
Much research on WAELF aims at combatting policies, official and tacit, which dismiss the legitimacy of writing that appears to deviate from SWE (and those producing it) (Jenkins et al. 2011: 301), but it has focused largely on the effects of those policies on writers and on the production and circulation of knowledge (see, for example, Flowerdew 1999, 2007; Lillis and Curry, 2010; Jenkins, 2014). It would be useful for future research to complement such work with examinations of 1) how such policies might be changed; and 2) the mediation of existing and revised policies in the process of their implementation, at the level of teaching and teacher education and writing assessment as well as journal and press publication (see Matsuda et al., 2006; Lillis and Curry, 2010; Tardy, 2011; Fenwick and Farrell, 2012; Doiz et al., 2013; Dryer, 2016; Dryer and Mitchell, in press; Gallagher and Noonan, in press; Malcolm, in press). Relatedly, insofar as teaching practices are a key site for the mediation of policies on academic writing, the working conditions of those teachers, and the effect of such conditions on policy implementation, merit greater consideration not only in terms of teachers’ status as NES or NNES (and policies stipulating hiring one or the other) but also in terms of teachers’ professional development and the conditions shaping how they do and might respond to and affect the WAELF of students. Exhaustive studies of the experiences of professional writers of WAELF (Lillis and Curry, 2010) and of trends in the experiences, attitudes and official institutional policies toward WAELF (Jenkins, 2014) leave in their wake the need for more long-term ethnographic studies of student as well as professional academic writers and their writing (cf. Spack, 1997; Flowerdew, 2007; Kapp and Bangeni, 2011; Lavelle and Shima, 2014; Gunnarson et al., 2015; Bou Ayash, 2016), and of changes in institutional policies and practices with WAELF (cf. Matsuda et al., 2006; Schroeder, 2011; Tardy, 2011; Doiz et al., 2013; Zawacki and Cox, 2014). And finally, studies of WAELF can profit from new methodologies for researching writing, such as keystroke logging, in conjunction with such methodologies as think-aloud protocols and eyetracking, to enable fine-grained analyses of writers’ internal interactions and negotiations manifested in their efforts to accommodate, repair, rephrase and clarify (See Li, 2007; Leitjen and van Waes, 2013).
Conclusion The study of WAELF, prompted by the phenomena and effects on written academic English of the increasing and increasing intensity of the global mobility of higher education, faculty, students and knowledge, is forcing a rethinking, and reworking, of all academic written English in its new status as global ‘lingua franca’. This entails a revision not only to our conceptions but also to our disciplinary research traditions, and the relations among these. Like WAELF itself, the study of WAELF and the means of its study require and entail continual revision. If this is disconcerting to dominant perspectives on WAE, it is also promising in what it might enable all of us – as writers and researchers – to do, and to understand what we do, as we engage WAELF.
Notes 1 On these disputes, see for example, Jenkins, 2006: 159–162; Canagarajah, 2007; Friedrich and Matsuda, 2010; Mortensen, 2013. For an overview of the state of development of ELF as a field of inquiry, see Jenkins et al., 2011. 2 For example, my current research assistant’s insistence on addressing me as ‘Dr. Horner’ and closing emails to me with ‘cordially’ despite my own insistence in my emails on addressing the student by first name and closing with ‘best, Bruce’ are ongoing, if conflicting, efforts at changing WAELF.
421
Bruce Horner
Related chapters in this handbook 24 Canagarajah and Kumura, Translingual practice and ELF 31 Smit, Beyond monolingualism in higher education: a language policy account 34 Wingate, Transforming higher education and literacy policies: the contribution of ELF
Further reading Jenkins, J. (2014) English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Politics of Academic English Language Policy. New York: Routledge. Lillis, T. and Curry, M.J. (2010) Academic Writing in a Global Context: The Politics and Practices of Publishing in English. London and New York: Routledge. Wingate, U. (2015) Academic Literacy and Student Diversity: The Case for Inclusive Practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Zawacki, T.M. and Cox, M. (eds) (2014) WAC and Second Language Writing: Research Toward Linguistically and Culturally Inclusive Programs and Practices. Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse; Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.
References Allori, P.E. (2014) Identities in and across Cultures. Bern: Peter Lang. Ammon, U. (2007) Global scientific communication: Open questions and policy suggestions. AILA Review, 20(1), 123–133. Annas, P. J. (1985) Style as politics: A feminist approach to the teaching of writing. College English, 47(4), 360–371. Baird, R., Baker, W. and Kitazawa, M. (2014) The complexity of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(1), 171–196. Baker, W. (2013) Interpreting the culture in intercultural rhetoric: A critical perspective from English as a lingua franca studies. In D. Belcher and G. Nelson (eds), Critical and Corpus-Based Approaches to Intercultural Rhetoric (pp. 22–45). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Bamgbose, A. (1998) Torn between the norms: Innovations in World Englishes. World Englishes, 17(1), 1–14. Bartholomae, D. (1993). The tidy house: Basic writing in the American curriculum. Journal of Basic Writing, 12(1), 4–21. Belcher, D. (1997) An argument for nonadversarial argumentation: On the relevance of the feminist critique of academic discourse to L2 writing pedagogy. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(1), 1–21. Belcher, D. (2014) What we need and don’t need intercultural rhetoric for: A retrospective and prospective look at an evolving research area. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25(1), 59–67. Bjørge, A.K. (2007) Power distance in English lingua franca email communication. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 60–80. Bondi, M. and Lorés-Sanz, R. (eds) (2014) Abstracts in Academic Discourse: Variation and Change. Bern: Peter Lang. Bou Ayash, N. (2016) Conditions of (im)possibility: Postmonolingual language representations in academic literacies. College English, 78(6), 555–577. Bridwell-Bowles, L. (1992) Discourse and diversity: Experimental writing within the academy. College Composition and Communication, 43(3), 349–368. Bruffee, K. (1989) Thinking and writing as social acts. In E. Maimon, B. Nodine and F. O’Connor (eds), Thinking, Reasoning, and Writing (pp. 213–222). New York: Longman. Canagarajah, A.S. (2002) A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Canagarajah, A.S. (2006) Toward a rhetoric of shuttling between languages. College English, 68(6), 589–604. 422
Written academic ELF
Canagarajah, A.S. (2007) Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 923–939. Carrell, P. L. (1987) Text as interaction: Some implications of text analysis and reading research for ESL composition. In U. Connor and R.B. Kaplan (eds), Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text (pp. 47–56). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Cogo, A. (2009) Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A case study of pragmatic strategies. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings (pp. 254–273). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Čmejrková, S. (1996) Academic writing in Czech and English. In E. Ventola and A. Mauranen (eds), Academic Writing: Intercultural and Textual Issues (pp. 137–152). Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Diani, G. (2014) On English and Italian research article abstracts: Genre variation across cultures. In M. Bondi and R. Lorés-Sanz, R. (eds), Abstracts in Academic Discourse (pp. 65–84). Bern: Peter Lang. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, J. M. (eds) (2013) English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dryer, D.B. (2016) Appraising translingualism. College English, 78(3), 274–283. Dryer, D.B. and Mitchell, P. (in press) Seizing an opportunity for translingual FYC at the University of Maine: Provocative complexities, unexpected consequences. In B. Horner and L. Tetreault (eds), Crossing Divides: Exploring Translingual Writing Pedagogies and Programs. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. Ede, L. and Lunsford, A. (1990) Singular Texts/Plural Authors: Perspectives on Collaborative Writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Fenwick, T. and Farrell, L. (eds) (2012) Knowledge Mobilization and Educational Research: Politics, Languages and Responsibilities. London: Routledge. Fiedler, S. (2011) English as a lingua franca: A native- culture-free code? Language of communication vs. language of identification. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 5(3), 79–97. Firth, A. (1996) On the discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(2), 237–259. Flowerdew, J. (1999) Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 243–264. Flowerdew, J. (2007) The non-anglophone scholar on the periphery of scholarly publication. AILA Review, 20, 14–27. Fox, H. (1994) Listening to the World: Cultural Issues in Academic Writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Frey, O. (1990) Beyond literary Darwinism: Women’s voices and critical discourse. College English, 52(5), 507–526. Friedrich, P. and Matsuda, A. (2010) When five words are not enough: A conceptual and terminological discussion of English as a lingua franca. International Multilingual Research Journal, 4(1), 20–30. Gallagher, C. and Noonan, M. (in press) Becoming global:: Learning to ‘do’ translingualism.. In B. Horner and L. Tetreault (eds), Crossing Divides: Exploring Translingual Writing Pedagogies and Programs. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. García, O. and Li Wei (2014) Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gilyard, K. (1991) Voices of the Self: A Study of Language Competence. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Gotti, M. and Guinda, C. S. (eds) (2013) Narratives in Academic and Professional Genres. Bern: Peter Lang. Guardiano, C., Favilla, M.E. and Calaresu, E. (2007) Stereotypes about English as the language of science. AILA Review, 20(1), 28–52. Gunnarson, T., Housen, A., Weijer, J.V.D. and Källkvist, M. (2015) Multilingual students’ selfreported use of their language repertoires when writing in English. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 9(1), 1–21. Haas, C. (1996) Writing Technology: Studies in the Materiality of Literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hamel, R. (2007) The dominance of English in the international scientific periodical literature and the future of language use in science. AILA Review, 20, 53–71. 423
Bruce Horner
Harklau, L., Losey, K.M. and Siegal, M. (eds) (1999) Generation 1.5 Meets College Composition: Issues in the Teaching of Writing to U.S.-Educated Learners of ESL. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hartse, J.H. and Kubota, R. (2014) Pluralizing English? Variation in high-stakes academic texts and challenges of copy-editing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24(1), 71–82. Horner, B. (2000) Terms of Work for Composition: A Materialist Critique. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Horner, B. (2011) Writing English as a lingua franca. In A. Archibald, A. Cogo, and J. Jenkins (eds), Latest Trends in ELF Research (pp. 299–311). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Horner, B. (2016) Reflecting the translingual norm: Action-reflection, ELF, translation, and transfer. In K. B. Yancey (ed.), A Rhetoric of Reflection (pp. 105–24). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. Horner, B. and Lu, M.-Z. (1999) Representing the ‘Other’: Basic Writers and the Teaching of Basic Writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Horner, B., Lu, M.-Z., Royster, J.J. and Trimbur, J. (2011) Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English 73(3), 303–321. Hryniuk, K. (2015) Linguistics research articles written in English: Comparing native English speakers and Polish speakers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 1(1), 1–21. Hull, G., Mike, R., Fraser, K. L. and Castellano, M. (1991) Remediation as social construct: Perspectives from an analysis of classroom discourse. College Composition and Communication, 42(3), 299–329. Hülmbauer, C. (2009) ‘We don’t take the right way. We just take the way that we think you will understand’: The shifting relationship between correctness and effectiveness in ELF. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings (pp. 323–347). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Hyland, K. (2014) English for academic purposes. In C. Leung and B. Street (eds), The Routledge Companion to English Studies (pp. 392–404). London: Routledge. Ingvarsdótti, H. and Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. (2013) ELF and academic writing: A perspective from the expanding circle. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(1), 123–145. Jenkins, J. (2006) Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157–81. Jenkins, J. (2014) English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Politics of Academic English Language Policy. New York: Routledge. Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2011) Review of developments in research into English as a Lingua Franca. Language Teaching, 44(3), 218–235. Jeoffrion, C., Marcouyeux, A., Starkey-Perret, R., Narcy-Combes, M. and Birkan, I. (2014) From multilingualism to plurilingualism: University students’ beliefs about language learning in a monolingual context. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 27(1), 8–26. Kapp, R. (2012) Students’ negotiation of English and literacy in a time of social change. JAC, 32(3–4), 591–614. Kapp, R. and Bangeni, B. (2011) A longitudinal study of students’ negotiation of language, literacy and identity. South African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 29(2), 197–208. Kaur, J. (2009) Pre-empting problems of understanding in English as a Lingua Franca. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings (pp. 107–123). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Klimpfinger, T. (2009) ‘She’s mixing the two languages together’ – forms and functions of code-switching in English as a lingua franca. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings (pp. 348–371). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Kubota, R. (1998) An investigation of Ll-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 69–100. Lavelle, T. and Shima, A. (2014) Writing histories: Lingua franca English in a Swedish graduate program. In T.M. Zawacki and M. Cox (eds), WAC and Second Language Writing: Research Toward Linguistically and Culturally Inclusive Programs and Practices (pp. 439–464). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse; Anderson, SC: Parlor Press. Lea, M., and Street, B. (1998) Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–169.
424
Written academic ELF
Lees, E.O. (1989) ‘The exceptable way of the society’: Stanley Fish’s theory of reading and the task of the teacher of editing. In P. Donahue and E. Quandahl (eds), Reclaiming Pedagogy: The Rhetoric of the Classroom (pp. 144–163). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Lefevre, K.B. (1987) Invention as a Social Act. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Leijten, M., and Waes, L. V. (2013) Keystroke logging in writing research: Using inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30(3), 358–392. Leki, I. (1995) Good writing: I know it when I see it. In D. Belcher and G. Braine (eds), Academic Writing in a Second Language: Essays on Research and Pedagogy (pp. 23–46). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Li, Y. (2007) Apprentice scholarly writing in a community of practice: An ‘intraview’ of an NNES graduate student writing a research article. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 55–79. Lillis, T. (2013) The Sociolinguistics of Writing. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Lillis, T. and Curry, M. . (2010) Academic Writing in a Global Context: The Politics and Practices of Publishing in English. London and New York: Routledge. Lillis, T. and Scott, M. (2007) Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 5–32. Lu, M.-Z., and Horner, B. (2013) Translingual literacy, language difference, and matters of agency. College English, 75(6), 586–611. MacKenzie, I. (2014) ELF and the alternatives. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(2), 395–407. McNenny, G., and Fitzgerald, S. (eds) (2001) Mainstreaming Basic Writers: Politics and Pedagogies of Access. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Malcolm, K. (in press). Disrupting monolingualist ideologies in a community college: A translingual studio approach. In B. Horner and L. Tetreault (eds), Crossing Divides: Exploring Translingual Writing Pedagogies and Programs. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. Matsuda, P.K. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(1), 45–60. Matsuda, P.K. (2003) Basic writing and second language writers: Toward an inclusive definition. Journal of Basic Writing, 22(2), 67–89. Matsuda, P.K., Cox, M., Jordan, J. and Ortmeier-Hooper, C. (eds) (2006) Second-Language Writing in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook. Boston, MA: Bedford St. Martin’s. Matsuda, P.K., Fruit, M. and Lamm, T.L.B. (eds) (2006) Bridging the disciplinary divide: Integrating a second-language perspective into writing programs. Special issue of WPA: Writing Program Administration, 30(1–2). Mauranen, A. (1993) Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric: A Textlinguistic Study. Bern: Peter Lang. Mauranen, A. (2011) English as the lingua franca of the academic world. In D. Belcher, A.M. Johns, and B. Paltridge (eds), New Directions in English for Specific Purposes (pp. 94–117). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Meierkord, C. (2004) Syntactic variation in interactions across international Englishes. English WorldWide, 25(1), 109–132. Melo-Pfeifer, S. (2009) Le discours de recherche en milieu international et virtuel: analyse d’un forum de discussion plurilingue en didactique des langues. In J.-M. Defays and A. Engelbert (dirs.), Acteurs et contexts des discours universitaires (pp. 249–268). Paris: l’Harmattan. Mortensen, J. (2013) Notes on English used as a lingua franca as an object of study. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(1), 25–46. Park, J.S.-Y., and Wee, L. (2014) English as a lingua franca: Lessons for language and mobility. Multilingual Margins, 1(1), 53–73. Pennycook, A. (2010) Language as a Local Practice. London: Routledge. Petraglia, J. (ed.) (1995) Reconceiving Writing, Rethinking Writing Instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Prior, P. (1995) Redefining the task: An ethnographic examination of writing and response in graduate seminars. In D. Belcher and G. Braine (eds), Academic Writing in a Second Language: Essays on Research and Pedagogy (pp. 47–82). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Reither, J., and Vipond, D. (1989) Writing as collaboration. College English, 51(8), 855–867. Richardson, E. (2003) African American Literacies. London: Routledge. Romaine, S. (2000) Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
425
Bruce Horner
Schroeder, C. (2011) Diverse by Design: Literacy Education within Multicultural Institutions. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. Schroeder, C., Fox, H. and Bizzell, P. (eds) (2002) ALT/DIS: Alternative Discourses and the Academy. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Seidlhofer, B. (2004) Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 209–239. Severino, C., Guerra, J. C. and Butler, J.E. (eds) (1997) Writing in Multicultural Settings. New York: Modern Language Association. Shaughnessy, M.P. (1977) Errors and Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing. New York: Oxford University Press. Spack, R. (1997) The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A longitudinal case study. Written Communication, 14(1), 3–62. Sternglass, M. (1997) Time to Know Them: A Longitudinal Study of Writing and Learning at the College Level. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Street, B.V. (1984) Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sughrua, W. (2011) The pretender: A challenge to academic writing. Cultural Studies⇔Critical Methodologies, 11(5), 483–497. Swales, J. (1996). Occluded genres. In E. Ventola and A. Mauranen (eds) Academic Writing: Intercultural and Textual Issues (pp. 45–58). Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Symposium Collective (2001) The politics of the personal: Storying our lives against the grain. College English, 64(1), 41–62. Tardy, C. (2011) Enacting and transforming local language policies. College Composition and Communication, 62(4), 634–661. Thaiss, C., and Zawacki, T. (2006) Engaged Writers, Dynamic Disciplines: Research on the Academic Writing Life. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann. Tompkins, J. (1987/1989) Me and my shadow. In L. Kauffman (ed.), Gender and Theory: Dialogues on Feminist Criticism (pp. 121–39). Oxford: Blackwell. Torgovnick, M. (1990) Experimental critical writing. Profession, 90(1), 25–27. Trimbur, J. (1990) Essayist literacy and the rhetoric of deproduction. Rhetoric Review, 9(1), 72–86. Turner, J. (2012) Academic literacies: Providing a space for the socio-political dynamics of EAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11: 17–25. Verzella, M., and Tommaso, L. (2014) Learning to write for an international audience through crosscultural collaboration and text-negotiation. Changing English, 21(4), 310–321. Villanueva, V. Jr. (1993) Bootstraps: From an American of Color. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Williams, J. (1981) The phenomenology of error. College Composition and Communication, 32(2), 152–168. Williams, R. (1980) Problems in Materialism and Culture. London: Verso. Wingate, U. (2015) Academic Literacy and Student Diversity: The Case for Inclusive Practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Wingate, U. and Tribble, C. (2012). The best of both worlds? Towards an English for Academic Purposes/Academic Literacies writing pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 481–495. WrELFA (2015). The corpus of written English as a lingua franca in academic settings. A. Mauranen (dir.), R. Carey (compilation manager). www.helsinki.fi/elfa/wrelfa.html (accessed 26 October 2016). Young, V.A. and Martinez, A. (eds) (2011) Code-Meshing as World English: Policy, Pedagogy, Performance. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Zawacki, T.M. (1992) Recomposing as a woman: An essay in different voices. College Composition and Communication, 43(1), 32–38. Zawacki, T.M. and Cox, M. (eds) (2014) WAC and Second Language Writing: Research Toward Linguistically and Culturally Inclusive Programs and Practices. Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse; Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.
426
34 Transforming higher education language and literacy policies The contribution of ELF Ursula Wingate
Introduction Over the last four decades, student populations in Anglophone universities have become increasingly diverse as a result of widening participation and internationalisation. Widening participation policies have significantly enlarged the number of students from historically underrepresented groups, including a considerable number of students from ethnic minority communities who are multilingual with English as an additional language. The internationalisation of higher education has more than quadrupled in the last four decades. In 2014, 1.3 million postgraduate students studied outside their own country (OECD, 2016), and the largest influx of foreign students has been into universities in English-speaking countries. As data provided by the UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA, 2016) shows, the percentage of international students in UK universities in the year 2014–2015 was 58 per cent in full-time taught post-graduate programmes. The income from international students, who pay higher tuition fees than domestic students, is vital for universities, as state funding of higher education has decreased. These developments mean that multilingual students outnumber monolingual students in many study programmes, and that universities have become environments where English is used as a lingua franca in spoken discourses (Mauranen, 2012). In relation to formal discourses and especially written communication, however, it has been argued that the multilingual composition of the student populations is not acknowledged, and monolingual standards prevail. As Martin (2010: 9) explains, ‘UK universities reproduce the monolingual ethos common in much of society, either by ignoring the linguistic repertories of their ethnic minorities, or by treating them as problematic’. Jenkins (2014) criticises the fact that so-called ‘international’ universities require non-native English speaker students to ‘replicate the national academic English norms preferred by native English speaker (NES) staff and students‘ (p. 11) (italics in original) and accommodate to ‘standard native academic English’ (p. 12). To prepare the ground for my later discussion of the monolingual orientation in Anglophone higher education policies, I wish to express two minor reservations I have with some of these claims.
427
Ursula Wingate
Martin and a number of other scholars (e.g. Benesch, 2001; Canagarajah, 2002) see the English language policies surrounding academic writing as particularly discriminating against multilingual students. While these students may face some additional linguistic and linguacultural difficulties, I have problems when they are portrayed as the only ones who struggle with having to ‘use the preferred language practices of the academic community’ (Martin, 2010: 13). Learning the language practices of an academic discourse community1 means developing academic literacy, which is a learning need for all students, native speaker of English or not. As has been recognised long ago, academic language is ‘never anyone’s mother tongue’ (Bourdieu and Passeron 1990: 115). Related to this point, Jenkins’s notion of native academic English can also be seen as problematic. I would argue that no such phenomenon exists, and also that national norms should not be of relevance in academic genres. Genres are discipline-specific ways of communication and shaped by academic discourse communities (Swales, 1990), who work globally and include people from many first languages; therefore it is unclear by which specific national norms they should be bound. If students, because they are located in an institution in the UK or the US, are asked to comply with national norms, these, I would assume, come into play only at a superficial level, for example in questions of spelling or grammar. Being familiar with national norms may give some advantage to native-speaker students; however, in relation to the real challenge, that of developing academic literacy, this advantage is small. My argument links to that of Mauranen (2012: 69), who states that [t]he acquisition of academic literacies and ways of talking involves much more than a few surface expressions and poses challenges in students’ first languages as well … This levels the playing field for those who study in a foreign language, at least to an extent. In international study programmes, much in the way of international research groups, the contact language gets shaped by the needs and contingencies of the situation, loosening and dissolving its ties to a particular culture or origin. Research evidence (e.g. Jenkins, 2014) suggests that lecturers indeed expect the use of national norms. This is problematic when their feedback gives students the impression that these norms determine success in academic writing (Lea and Street, 1998), and when institutional policies stigmatise students who are not familiar with the norms as deficient. This occurs as the result of fundamental misconceptions about academic literacy and students’ learning needs, which underpin current higher education policies. In this chapter, I will discuss the policies and practices surrounding student admission, support and assessment, as they are based on a monolingual ideology and a deficiency view of non-native speakers of English. Next, I will consider recommendations for transformation made by scholars from the fields of academic literacies, multilingualism, critical EAP and ELF. In the final section, I discuss the theoretical and practical contribution that ELF can make towards the transformation of higher education language and literacy policies.
Existing language policies and practices Student admission To be admitted by Anglophone universities, non-native English speakers are required to achieve specific scores in standardised international tests such as IELTS (International English Language Testing System). The tests include speaking, listening, reading and 428
Higher education and literacy policies
writing, and there has been much debate particularly in relation to the writing component (e.g. Coffin and Hewings, 2004; Moore and Morton, 2005). One of the two writing tasks is an argumentative essay; however, as Coffin and Hewings (2004) have shown, the argumentative and persuasive strategies used in IELTS essays are different from those expected in academic genres. Similarly, Moore and Morton (2005: 43) point out that the writing required in IELTS tests represents ‘public non-academic genres and thus should not be thought of as an appropriate model for university writing’. Thus, the test has little predictive validity for students’ performance in academic writing, and provides inadequate preparation, as students will have to unlearn certain strategies and conventions when they write at university. Another problem with the admission system is the rigid categorisation of students into non-native speakers versus native speakers of English, categories that in UK universities are used synonymously with ‘international’ versus’ ‘home’ students. The latter distinction is only valid in economic and administrative terms, as ‘international’ students pay much higher tuition fees than home students. Using the distinction between native and non-native speakers of English to describe language competence has long been criticised (e.g. Leung et al., 1997), however, the assumptions that (1) students from non-Anglophone countries are per se non-native speakers of English, and (2) non-native speakers’ of English language competence is per se inferior to that of native speakers, continue to underpin university admission and, as I will show in the next section, the provision of language support. Requiring English language proficiency tests only from ‘international’ students from non-Anglophone countries, but not from ‘home’ students ignores the fact that many students of the latter category come from ethnic minority backgrounds with English as an additional language. Because they have taken their school-leaving certificate in the English secondary education system – although they might have spent only a relatively short time in that system – they are admitted to university on the same assumption as students whose first language is English, namely that they are linguistically fit for academic study. Although the admission policies seem to discriminate against international students, it could also be argued that it is disadvantageous to those of whom no test is required. While students who have to take the entry test are likely to be more aware of, and sensitive to, potential difficulties with academic language and literacy, home students may feel a false security and be less prepared for the challenge of having to deal with unfamiliar discourses and genres. Support provision The support offered to students at university is based on the same misconception as the admission policy, attributing too much importance to ‘native-speaker’ language proficiency. Therefore, difficulties that students encounter with the development of academic literacy are often mistaken for language problems, and typically ‘non-native’ speakers of English are seen as most needy. As a result, language support is often exclusively offered to international students, in pre-sessional courses to get them admitted and in-sessional courses once they have been admitted. These ‘English for academic purposes’ (EAP) courses are typically run by central English language units and designed for students from all disciplines. Therefore they offer little preparation for discipline-specific genres and conventions, but deal with common linguistic and rhetorical features of a hypothetical ‘general’ academic English. For home students, the support provision is less systematic, and more generally concerned with study skills, of which academic writing is one. A recent survey of 32 universities in the UK (Wingate, 2015) found that much of this support is presented on generic study skills websites. 429
Ursula Wingate
This provision trivialises the complexity and discipline-specificity of academic writing and is deficiency-oriented, targeting students who are seen to be in need of linguistic remedy (see Turner, 2011, for a discussion of the medical discourses surrounding language support in universities). The students who are prescribed treatment because they are non-native speakers of English or because they are regarded at risk of failure, are stigmatised as being less capable than others. It has also been found that the generic provision of EAP or study skills support is unpopular with students (Durkin and Main, 2002). The attrition rate on in-sessional courses is high, as Murray (2016: 4) explains, because international students quickly realise the irrelevance of these courses for their subject-specific assignments and ‘do not need or want more of the same general EAP or study skills diet’. EAP and study skills courses often represent the only support available at universities. As it targets only certain student groups and deals with general language and skills competencies, this provision does in fact fail all students by neglecting their need to develop academic literacy. Academic literacy requires the understanding of the communicative practices of the discourse community and can therefore only be developed within the community and taught by its expert members, i.e. the subject lecturers. However, there is no systematic provision of subject-embedded instruction; on the contrary, subject lecturers tend to be reluctant to deal with academic language and literacy, which they see as the responsibility of staff in the English language unit (e.g. Clark and Russell, 2014). Assessment In this section I come back to the role that Standard English or national norms play in the assessment of students’ written assignments. The generic undergraduate and postgraduate marking criteria issued by institutions2 do not suggest that they are important. The criteria typically fall into three categories, of which the first is concerned with subject knowledge, and the second with argument and analysis, use of literature and sometimes skills. The third category is usually concerned with presentation, organisation, or structure, and this may include, although mostly implicitly, accuracy of language. In terms of this relatively low weighting of language within the marking criteria, aberrations from Standard English should not affect the grade of an assignment unless they are so severe that they prevent the demonstration of subject knowledge and distort meaning. However, postgraduate students interviewed by Jenkins (2014), for instance, noted that lecturers judged them on grammar or spelling even if the meaning of their texts was not affected. This may be the case because lectures are not specifically trained to be able to recognise fundamental academic literacy problems that lead to unsuccessful student writing, and therefore focus heavily on linguistic errors to explain lower grades. Lea and Street (1998), for example, found that lecturers were unable to identify the underlying epistemological problems in student texts and instead commented on surface features such as grammar or structure. These findings show that assessment and feedback practices is a grey area in which deviations from Standard English are, in the absence of a clear policy, dealt with according to lecturers’ personal beliefs and practices. As Jenkins (2011: 927) points out, [a]t its best, the current situation may result in individual university lecturers unilaterally accepting, if not condoning, instances of English that diverge mildly from standard native use but are nevertheless intelligible to them. On the other hand, at its worst, the situation leads to assumptions that any such divergences are errors in need of remediation. 430
Higher education and literacy policies
Calls for transformation of language policies and practices The language policies and practices of Anglophone universities have long been criticised by scholars from various fields. The difficulties of non-traditional and multilingual students with the literacy requirements in higher education became the focus of the fields of academic literacies and multilingualism. The other two fields from where critique has been voiced, critical EAP and ELF, are, by contrast, mostly concerned with non-native speakers of English who want to study through the medium of English. Common to all four fields is their rejection of traditional or ‘pragmatic’ EAP, because it ‘is concerned with teaching students a set of dominant academic discourse rules, i.e. the Anglo-American type’ (Harwood and Hadley, 2004: 356). Academic literacies sees EAP instruction as normative, forcing students to adopt uncritically the norms and conventions of an assumed ‘homogeneous culture’ of the academy (Lea and Street, 1998: 159), and ignoring factors that influence student writing such as power relations and identity changes (Lillis and Scott, 2007). According to Canagarajah (2002: 32), a scholar associated with both Critical EAP and Multilingualism, ‘EAP adopts the normative attitude that the discourses of academic communities are not open to negotiation or criticism’. In addition to these critiques, critical EAP scholar Benesch (2001: 51) argues against the uncritical way in which EAP teachers prepare students to accommodate to institutional expectations and requirements. This means that ‘the traditional EAP teacher is mainly a conduit for efficient inculcation of those requirements rather than an activist who could invite students to question them’. Jenkins (2014), representing the ELF perspective, explains that EAP is underpinned by outdated second language acquisition concepts, which regard non-native English as learner language that needs to be remedied. In the following sections, I take a closer look at the four fields and their proposals for the transformation of language policies and practices. Academic literacies Academic literacies emerged as a critical voice in the UK in the 1990s and has since become an influential field of study. According to Lillis et al. (2015: 8), transformation is ‘at the heart of an Academic Literacies approach’. The plural form in the name signals the understanding that literacies are social practices, and that there is not one uniform type of academic discourse. In their seminal paper, Lea and Street (1998) showed that students’ difficulties were not caused by language deficiencies, but by conflicting disciplinary requirements they encountered in interdisciplinary programmes, unclear instructions and feedback, and the rejection of previously acquired writing styles and strategies. Several other researchers affiliated to academic literacies have highlighted the impact that the imposed regulations can have on student identities (e.g. Ivanič, 1998; Lillis, 2001). As Lillis (2006: 32) points out, academic literacies has been useful as ‘an oppositional frame to conventional approaches to student writing’, challenging deficit views of student performance, and revealing the existing limitations in writing instruction. However, as Lillis (2006), Lillis and Scott (2007) and most recently Lea (Lillis et al., 2015) admit, more work needs to be done towards a pedagogic application of academic literacies, and the research focus that has predominantly been on non-traditional students needs to be widened in order to make an impact beyond individual initiatives. Lillis and Scott (2007: 13) recommend a pedagogy that (1) explains the epistemological reasons for existing conventions; (2) elicits ‘the perspective of writers (whether students or 431
Ursula Wingate
professionals) on the ways in which such conventions impinge on their meaning making’; and (3) explores ‘alternative ways for meaning making in academia, not least by considering the resources that (student) writers bring to the academy as legitimate tools for meaning making’. More concrete suggestions on how this pedagogy can be achieved are provided by Lea (2004), who gives an example of incorporating academic literacies principles into course design, and by Lillis (2006: 34), who proposes four types of one-to-one dialogues between tutors and students to make ‘language visible’ and to give students an opportunity for expressing their feelings about the imposed conventions. In a recent edited volume, Lillis et al. (2015) present 31 case studies of transformation in literacy instruction from various institutional and geographical contexts, which will be useful for the development of a comprehensive pedagogical approach. Multilingualism Researchers in multilingualism are concerned with the mismatch between ‘the monolingual ethos and the ideology of English-medium tertiary education and the needs, identities and resources of multilingual students’ (Preece and Martin, 2010: 3). They have considered multilingual students’ access to, and progression in, higher education (e.g. Martin 2010; Stroud and Kerfoot, 2013), the way in which monolingual policies impact on their identity (e.g. Marshall, 2010; Preece, 2010), and how they can be supported in drawing on their linguistic repertoire (e.g. Canagarajah, 2011; Stroud and Kerfoot, 2013). Studies in multilingualism relate to students from ethnic and linguistic minority backgrounds, who are less privileged than ‘international’ students (who are of course also multilingual). While many international students come from privileged backgrounds that enable them to go abroad for English-medium education and to pay for the necessary linguistic preparation, multilingual students seek higher education in the countries where their families immigrated, or in ‘postracial’ societies such as South Africa where there was previously limited access for certain racial groups. They are often educationally underprepared in comparison to international students; however, at university, at least in countries like the UK, they are prevented access to support courses that are preserved for high-fee paying international students. Another research focus of multilingualism that is not considered in this chapter is on multilingual scholars who have to publish in English (e.g. Canagarajah, 2002; Lillis and Curry, 2015). Marshall (2010) gives an example of how the monolingual orientation of Anglophone higher education can impinge on students’ identity. He describes how a group of multilingual students at a Canadian university encountered ‘re-becoming ESL’. These students were redirected to the deficiency identity that they had as ESL (English as a second language) students at secondary school, because the university required them to take remedial academic literacy courses. Students are particularly stigmatised when they speak English varieties of low prestige, or languages with low status in English-speaking countries (Preece and Martin, 2010). A more drastic case of multilingual students’ disadvantage is described by Stroud and Kerfoot (2013). They examined language policy in a South-African university, in a higher education context where the participation and success rate of black and coloured students is low. The authors found that at this particular university, which has traditionally been committed to the inclusion of underprivileged students, language policies and practices have reverted from an initially transformative approach to remedial EAP, resulting in ‘substantial first year dropout and unsatisfactory overall throughput rates’ (Stroud and Kerfoot, 2013: 399). Therefore, the authors propose a radical change in
432
Higher education and literacy policies
language policy by ‘focusing on linguistic repertoires rather than languages, on practices rather than proficiency, and on translanguaging rather than codeswitching in which students use multiple, multilingual discursive resources in achieving communicative aims’ (p. 397; italics in original). The recommendations for reforming the undergraduate curriculum include opening up for students ‘new spaces of engagement’ (p. 401), allowing them to use the social media for the expression of meaning and construction of knowledge, to mix vernacular with the traditional academic genres, and to draw on multimodal resources as well as on their range of languages. These recommendations resonate with Canagarajah’s (2007, 2011), who proposes ‘codemeshing’ in academic writing, which means that students can use not only their different languages, but also different communicative modes and symbols system, thus shuttling ‘between different genres and contexts’ (2011: 415). This requires from academics a change of mind set in that ‘we must stop treating any textual difference as an unconscious error. We must consider it as a strategic and creative choice by the author to attain his or her rhetorical objectives’ (2007: 591). It also requires raising students’ awareness that rules and conventions can be negotiated according to the writer’s communicative purposes, and teaching ‘strategies for rhetorical negotiation so that they can modify, resist, or reorient themselves to the rules in a way favorable to them’ (2007: 602). Critical EAP Canagarajah’s argument that students need to develop a critical attitude towards academic conventions is much in line with those of critical EAP. This approach is underpinned by critical pedagogy and, as academic literacies, is based on the understanding that academic discourses are socially constructed, involve hierarchies and power relations and are subject to challenge and change. In her seminal book, Benesch (2001) accepts the role of traditional EAP in helping students to study successfully in the English medium, but challenges the expectation that students accommodate unquestioningly to the imposed rules and conventions. Therefore, according to Benesch, the needs analysis that is typically used in EAP to determine teaching content must be counterposed by a rights analysis that shows students they have opportunities for negotiation and the choice of resistance. Thus, ‘Critical EAP helps students articulate their resistance, to participate more democratically as members of an academic community and in the larger society’ (Benesch, 2001: 57). Critical pedagogy has been criticised for their ‘radical’ discourse, which is ‘dangerously dogmatic and judgemental, falling into the very trap it accuses mainstream pragmatist pedagogy of falling into’ (Harwood and Hadley, 2004: 365) and therefore being as prescriptive as the mainstream practices. Critical EAP, in particular, has been accused of being ‘inaccessible and over-theorised’ (Morgan, 2009: 89) and for being ‘always ready to criticise mainstream practices’ (Harwood and Hadley, 2004: 365) without offering pedagogical alternatives. This critique does not take into account that Benesch (2001) devoted one of the two parts of her book to ‘Practice’, providing four examples of implementing critical EAP. One example describes how the issue of student rights is problematised in a joined EAP/psychology lecture. In another example, Benesch (1996) shows how classroom activities assist students first to manage disciplinary requirements (i.e. traditional EAP), then to challenge their own position in the academic hierarchy, and eventually to become politically active in relation to the course’s topic, anorexia. However, these examples are not easily applicable to other contexts, and, as Jenkins (2014: 59) points out, they are more concerned
433
Ursula Wingate
with structural rather than linguistic matters. In relation to language policies and practices in Anglophone universities, the most useful message from critical EAP is the need for an EAP curriculum that does not simply make students accommodate to academic norms and for raising critical awareness of imposed norms in academics and students. From the structural perspective, however, Benesch’s approach of integrating EAP into content courses (anthropology and psychology) is instructive, as conventions and practices can only be understood and critiqued within the disciplinary context. English as an academic lingua franca (ELFA) ELFA has developed into a ‘lively research field’ (Mauranen, 2012: 66) within ELF and has seen a rapidly growing number of publications over the last decade. It is a relatively recent advocate for transformation of higher education language policies, with Jenkins (2011, 2014) being the main proponent for change. So far, work in this domain has been more focused on the description of academic ELF than on higher education language policies and their impact on ELF users. Also, research into academic ELF has been mainly concerned with spoken language, as evident from the ELFA corpus of academic English (Mauranen 2003, 2012). This corpus contains data from spoken genres such as lectures, conference and seminar presentations and only recently an additional corpus of informal written genres, called WrELFA, has been compiled (Mauranen 2015). However, I would argue that the existing research evidence from spoken and informal written genres is insufficient to inform the necessary transformation of language policies and practices, as it is formal written academic English that counts for access and assessment. The high-stake written genres pose greater difficulty for students (both native and non-native speakers of English) than spoken or informal communication. While the latter allows speakers to ‘co-construct shared understanding’ (Mauranen et al., 2010: 185) and is governed by ‘natural, or spontaneous, norms’, written discourse is subject to ‘imposed norms’ (Mauranen, 2012: 6), which are not only unfamiliar, but also largely non-negotiable for students.3 Jenkins (2014) divides the various approaches to academic English into three categories: (1) conforming approaches, including traditional EAP, as ‘they conform by default to native academic English’ (p. 49); (2) challenging approaches, including academic literacies and critical EAP, as they challenge the assumptions underpinning EAP; and (3) a paradigm-shifting approach, which is ELFA. ELFA’s ‘prime concern is with non-mother-tongue international academics (at any level in their career) who use English in intercultural communication in academic contexts anywhere in the world’ (Jenkins, 2014: 61), and a main contribution has been the corpus evidence of how English is used as a contact language in academic contexts. However, as explained above, ELFA research into formal written academic genres is still lacking, but necessary to inform policy change. If ELF scholars decided to engage with the analysis of non-native speakers’ written academic work, they could draw on corpora of academic English that consist fully or partly of work by non-native speakers (e.g. Biber, 2006; Nesi and Gardner, 2012). Jenkins’s (2014) survey of 166 university lecturers from institutions with English as the medium of instruction (EMI) from around the world and her interviews with 34 international postgraduate students in a UK university provide important evidence that clear institutional policies as well as teacher education in relation to English language requirements are needed. The majority of questionnaire respondents found their institution’s language policies useful on the grounds that they ‘demonstrate to students that “good” English is
434
Higher education and literacy policies
expected’ (Jenkins, 2014: 130), and about half of the respondents considered it important that students conform to ‘native’ English, ‘specifically “standard” North American and British academic English’ (p. 158). And even the other half, who proclaimed to be tolerant of divergences from Standard English, referred to the underlying concept of ‘good’ or ‘correct’ English; there was little understanding that variations might be acceptable. The interviews revealed that the students ‘subscribed at least to some extent to the “native English is the best” ideology’ (p. 201); however, they found inconsistencies in the language requirements imposed by their supervisors and noticed the effect of these requirements on their identities and self-esteem. Based on these findings, Jenkins puts forward some clear recommendations for ‘systemic changes’ in higher education policies and practices that ‘go far beyond the surface level tinkering that has largely taken place so far’ (p. 202). One recommendation represents a core ELF principle, namely that mutual intelligibility rather than conformity to a particular version of English should be the only criterion for spoken and written communication in the academic community within and outside institutions. If members of the academic community can understand the meaning conveyed in the student’s message, linguistic deviations from the local norms are irrelevant. Further recommendations are concerned with a better understanding of the difficulties of studying in a foreign language and subsequent enhancement of student support, by giving them more time to complete academic work and more access to advice by lecturers. This all, as Jenkins explains, would require educating home staff and students to develop their intercultural awareness and their understanding that accommodation needs to be two-directional. In other words, instead of expecting that international students adapt to the local environment, home staff and students should also learn to accept and welcome difference. And, going back to my earlier argument, they need to understand that academic communication is specific to academic discourse communities, which consist of speakers of various first languages, rather than specific to nations.
Conclusion: the role of ELF in transforming language and literacy policies All four fields discussed in the previous section recognise that current higher education policies, which favour ‘native-speaker’ language proficiency and norm-driven assessment standards, ignore the diversity of student populations and disadvantage certain student groups. In relation to academic literacy development, they fail all students, as I have argued earlier. The fields converge in their calls for language policies and practices that encourage rather than ignore multilingualism and encompass students’ linguistic, cultural and social diversity. Two main appeals come across. The first, called ‘rights analysis’ by critical EAP, is that students must be given the opportunity to negotiate and resist traditional conventions. The second appeal is that students should be allowed to draw on their ‘linguistic repertoires’ and ‘multiple, multilingual discursive resources’ (Stroud and Kerfoot, 2013: 397), use ‘code-meshing’ (Canagarajah, 2007, 2011), or ‘alternative ways of meaning making’ (Lillis and Scott, 2007: 13). This could be achieved by broadening the range of assessment formats from the dominant formal academic essay in English to assignments in different languages and modes. However, the use of different languages in assignments would create administrative difficulties and would most certainly meet resistance by university managers and academics. As English is likely to continue to be the only language allowed in assignments, it is the ELF principle of mutual intelligibility that offers the most realistic way
435
Ursula Wingate
forward. ELF scholars can offer the theoretical underpinning as well as research evidence from spoken communication to demonstrate to university staff that what is relevant is ‘accuracy and effectiveness in reporting findings and arguments’, not the ‘native-likeness’ of grammar, spelling or expression (Mauranen, 2008: 258). However, as sound as the ELF argument may be, achieving change in university policies and practices is a monumental task, as it requires dealing with entrenched monolingual beliefs and fears of ‘dumbing down’. And even if the mutual intelligibility principle was accepted, much work would need to be invested in staff development. Lecturers would require training to gain the linguistic awareness that would enable them to recognise textual features that compromise meaning and to accept non-native forms that do not. To make training of this kind possible, ELF researchers would need to conduct in-depth analyses of academic texts written by non-native speakers and provide a framework and detailed examples of mutual intelligibility in written discourse. If the principle of mutual intelligibility would make its way into higher education assessment policies and practices, this would be of benefit not only to international and multilingual students, but also to ‘home’ students with English as their first language. This is because the policy would clearly signal that academic language is not a fixed code that can be learned as a technical skill, but is the academic community’s main mode of constructing and communicating knowledge and therefore flexible, negotiable and mutable. In addition to changes in assessment, a mutual intelligibility policy would also lead to the transformation (if not rejection) of admission tests, and to a student support system that focuses on the academic literacy development of all students rather than on the language deficiencies of a few.
Notes 1 The terms ‘academic discourse community’ and ‘academic discipline’, which are often used interchangeably, have been criticised for being vague, as they suggest homogenous and static entities (e.g. Hyland, 2008). 2 It is beyond the scope of this chapter to provide a systematic analysis of universities’ assessment criteria. For my argument here, I have studied the assessment criteria of five UK universities (Anglia Ruskin, Bristol, Edinburgh, Greenwich, King’s College London) and the guidelines on assessment by the UK Quality Assurance Agency (www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/understandingassessment.pdf, accessed 20 April 2016). 3 This is of course also the case for formal oral presentations; however, these are not as widely used for assessment as written assignments.
Related chapters in this handbook 31 Smit, Beyond monolingualism in higher education: a language policy account 33 Horner, Written academic English as a lingua franca
Further reading Jenkins, J. (2014) English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Politics of Academic English Language Policy. London, New York: Routledge. Mauranen, A. (2012) Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Preece, S. and Martin, P. (2010) Guest editorial: imagining higher education as a multilingual space. Language and Education, 24, 1, 3–8. 436
Higher education and literacy policies
References Benesch, S. (1996) Needs analysis and curriculum development in EAP: an example of a critical approach. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 4, 723–738. Benesch, S. (2001) Critical English for Academic Purposes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Biber, D., 2006. University Language: A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.C. (1990) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Canagarajah, A.S. (2002) Multilingual writers and the academic community: towards a critical relationship. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1, 29–44. Canagarajah, A.S. (2007) Lingua franca English, multilingual communities and language acquisition. Modern Language Journal 95, 3, 923–939. Canagarajah, A.S. (2011) Codemeshing in academic writing: identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal 95, 3, 401–417. Clark, I. and Russell, D. (2014) US first-year composition and writing in the disciplines. In C. Leung and B. Street (eds) The Routledge Companion to English Studies (pp. 375–391). London, New York: Routledge. Coffin, C. and Hewings, A. (2004) IELTS as preparation for tertiary writing: distinctive interpersonal and textual strategies. In L. Ravelli and R. Ellis (eds) Analysing Academic Writing (pp. 153–171). London: Continuum. Durkin, K. and Main, A. (2002) Discipline-based study skills support for first-year undergraduate students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3, 1, 24–39. Harwood, N. and Hadley, G. (2004) Demystifying institutional practices: critical pragmatism and the teaching of academic writing. English for Specific Purposes 23, 355–377. Hyland, K. (2008) Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching 44 (4), 543–562. Ivanič, R. (1998) Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jenkins, J. (2011) Accommodating (to) ELF in the international university. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 926–936. Jenkins, J. (2014) English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Politics of Academic English Language Policy. London, New York: Routledge. Lea, M. (2004) Academic literacies: a pedagogy for course design. Studies in Higher Education 29, 6, 739–756. Lea, M. and Street, B. (1998) Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education 23, 2, 157–172. Leung, C., Harris, R., and Rampton, B. (1997) The idealised native speaker, reified ethnicities, and classroom realities. TESOL Quarterly 31, 3, 543–560. Lillis, T.M. (2001) Student Writing: Access, Regulation, Desire. London: Routledge. Lillis, T.M. (2006) Moving towards an ‘academic literacies’ pedagogy: dialogues of participation. In L. Ganobcsik-Williams (ed.) Teaching Academic Writing in UK Higher Education: Theories, Practice and Models (pp. 30–45). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Lillis, T.M. and Curry, M. (2015) The politics of English, language and uptake. AILA Review 28, 127– 150. Lillis, T., Harrington, K., Lea, M. and Mitchell, S. (2015) Introduction. In Lillis, T., Harrington, K., Lea, M. and Mitchell, S. (eds) Working with Academic Literacies: Case Studies towards Trans formative Practice (pp. 3–22). Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse. Lillis, T.M. and Scott, M. (2007) Defining academic literacies research: issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics 4, 1, 5–32. Marshall, S. (2010) Re-becoming ESL: multilingual university students and a deficit identity. Language and Education, 24, 1, 41–56. Martin, P. (2010) ‘They have lost their identity but not gained a British one’: non-traditional multilingual students in higher education in the United Kingdom. Language and Education, 24, 1, 9–20. Mauranen, A. (2003) The corpus of English as a lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL Quarterly 37, 3, 513–527. Mauranen, A. (2008) Hybrid voices: English as the lingua franca of academics. In K. Flottum (ed.) Language and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse (pp. 14–25). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 437
Ursula Wingate
Mauranen, A. (2012) Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mauranen, A. (2015) English as a global lingua franca: changing language in changing global academia. In Murata, K. (ed.) Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts (pp. 29–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mauranen, A., Hynninen, N. and Ranta, E. (2010) English as an academic lingua franca: the ELFA project. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 3, 183–190. Moore, T. and Morton, J. (2005) Dimensions of difference: a comparison of university writing and IELTS writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 1, 43–66. Morgan, B. (2009) Fostering transformative practitioners for critical EAP: possibilities and challenges. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 8, 2, 86–99. Murray, N. (2016) An academic literacies argument for decentralising EAP provision. ELT Journal, 70, 4, 435–443. Nesi, H. and Gardner, S. (2012) Genres across Disciplines: Student Writing in Higher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2016) Education at a Glance 2016: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-aglance-2016_eag-2016-en [accessed 28 October 2016]. Preece, S. (2010) Multilingual identities in higher education: negotiating the ‘mother tongue’, ‘posh’ and slang’. Language and Education, 24, 1, 21–39. Preece, S. and Martin, P. (2010) Guest editorial: imagining higher education as a multilingual space. Language and Education, 24, 1, 3–8. Stroud, C. and Kerfoot, C. (2013) Towards rethinking multilingualism and language policy for academic literacies. Linguistics and Education 24, 4, 396–405. Swales, J.M. (1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Turner, J. (2011) Language in the Academy: Cultural Reflexivity and Intercultural Dynamics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. UK Council for International Students Affairs (UKCISA) (2016) www.ukcisa.org.uk [accessed 28 October 2016]. Wingate, U. (2015) Academic Literacy and Student Diversity: The Case for Inclusive Practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
438
Part VI
ELF, policy and pedagogy
35 ELF and teacher education Martin Dewey and Laura Patsko
Introduction: the relevance of ELF in language teacher education First and foremost it is essential that we examine in detail what precisely is the relevance of ELF theory and research in the professional development of language teachers, for both novice and experienced practitioners. Without doubt the most important aspect of ELF research from the point of view of ELT is what it tells us about effective lingua franca interaction. The findings of ELF researchers, as has often been commented (see e.g. Jenkins 2007; Kirkpatrick 2010; Mauranen 2013; Seidlhofer 2011), have major implications for the way we model English in language learning settings. In short, the evidence from ELF corpora shows very clearly that the dynamic and variable way speakers in lingua franca interactions tend to use and adapt language resources is very different from the way pedagogic materials present ‘target’ language structures and lexis, i.e. as discrete items of largely fixed standardized language norms (see Seidlhofer, Chapter 7 this volume). This raises far-reaching questions about the way language and communication are conceptualized in ELT, with some major rethinking required on the nature of the syllabus content in professional qualifications and teaching awards. The relevance of ELF in language teacher education lies in both the language content of courses – that is, in relation to the way language awareness and language analysis are dealt with – as well as the way methodology is presented. In relation to methodology, a particular aspect of current pedagogic practice that needs some rethinking in light of ELF is the relationship between English and other languages in the students’ and teacher’s repertoires. Traditionally, in communicative language teaching and teacher education there has been a strong monolingual orientation to language in the classroom, with activities such as translation and code-switching either marginalized or even prohibited. A more plurilingual methodological approach would be far better suited to incorporating ELF in teacher education, especially in light of Jenkins’ (2015) argument that ELF requires a retheorization that properly foregrounds its fundamentally multilingual nature. Our interest in this chapter though is predominantly with the language focus work of pre-service teacher education courses and with how linguistic and pedagogic awareness can continue to develop through in-service teacher development initiatives. 441
Martin Dewey and Laura Patsko
As discussed at some length in accounts of the pedagogic impact of ELF in practice (see e.g. Dewey 2012, 2014), however, the way ELT has conventionally tended to conceive subject knowledge in teacher education is no longer relevant or appropriate when we take into account the global lingua franca role of English. This, together with continued and widespread imbalance between practical teaching skills and relevant theory (at the expense of theory) found in many initial language teaching awards (see e.g. Hobbs 2013), makes it paramount that we a) investigate current levels of awareness of ELF among practising teachers, and b) examine ways in which ELF can be better integrated in language teacher education. The number of publications focusing specifically on ELF and pedagogy has grown substantially in recent years. To date there have been several noteworthy projects that have begun to examine in depth some of the ways in which ELF can be incorporated in teacher education programmes. Bayyurt and Akcan (2015), include several contributions that report on current initiatives to integrate ELF into the teacher education curriculum (see also Bowles and Cogo, 2015; Vettorel, 2015 for recent edited volumes on ELF and language pedagogy). These are undertaken from a range of different perspectives, but each shares the objective of moving the discussion beyond the ‘implications’ of ELF for pedagogy. Many of these comment on the importance of awareness raising as an initial impetus, but increasingly scholars are turning their attention towards considering practical ways in which ELF can have more impact on pedagogy (see e.g. Sifakis, 2014 on adopting a “transformative perspective” in teacher education; see Blair, 2015 on the concept of “a post-native, multilingual model” for teacher education). In this chapter we discuss the integration of an ELF perspective in language teacher education. We focus on both initial teaching awards for novice teachers and ongoing professional development among experienced practitioners. We begin by discussing attempts to modify the syllabus content of initial teaching awards in the UK by introducing ELF in the curriculum, before then considering ways in which teachers can gain better understanding of and ultimately pedagogic insight from ELF by engaging in longer term professional development initiatives.
Closing the gap between implication and application In our view, if English language teachers are to become aware of ELF and associated implications for classroom practice, it is probably most productive to introduce all relevant concepts during pre-service training. This is essential given the current predominance for short, intensive teacher training courses, which may well have very little scope for theory and reflection, and may well be the only formal teacher preparation that teachers receive. Many English language teachers – and in fact a considerable number of trainers – do not seek or have opportunity for further formal training in linguistics or pedagogy for years after their initial qualification courses, if at all (see especially Ferguson and Donno 2003). The institutional culture in many ELT settings tends not to facilitate this: practising teachers lead very busy professional lives, with many demands on their time and resources, often with little or no financial support offered to fund further training. In addition, research is often perceived by the profession as belonging to a purely academic domain, having little to no direct relevance to the classroom. Theorists seldom make concrete recommendations that relate to teachers’ professional concerns beyond what might be considered quite broad ‘implications’. Research findings can also appear inconclusive, often contradictory, and 442
ELF and teacher education
sometimes counterintuitive, thus making it particularly difficult for teachers to integrate into their existing knowledge base and frames of reference. This in effect leads to a state in which the empirical research findings remain inaccessible to many practising teachers, with the result that many of the more recent studies are at risk of being ineffectively applied or not applied at all by large numbers of practitioners. This is of particular importance when we consider the take up of ELF in relation to pedagogic practice. For example, one recent study of several experienced London-based English language teachers’ willingness to put ELF principles into practice (Patsko 2013) revealed attitudes of mild interest but general complacence: I’d heard [the term ‘English as a lingua franca’] being used once or twice in the staffroom but not as often so I thought OK, it’s not that relevant here, I don’t hear people talking about it much, do I really need to know about this? This is probably still largely representative of many language teachers currently teaching in English language schools in the UK (this is likely also to be the case for large numbers of practising language teachers worldwide, but for our purposes we will concentrate on the current situation in the UK). Typically to date, and despite the introduction of ELF in a growing number of language teacher education curriculums, teachers are only really exposed to the concepts of ELF during Master’s degree programmes, if at all. Even where there is awareness of ELF, this is not readily translated into classroom practices (see e.g. Dewey 2012; Lopriore and Vettorel 2015).
The appearance of ELF in pre-service teaching awards In recent years the syllabus guidelines and specifications of the two main initial English language teaching awards administered in the UK (but widely available worldwide), generally referred to as CELTA and CertTESOL,1 have been updated to include specific reference to ELF and/or Global Englishes. Both schemes are ‘certificate’ qualifications, i.e. entry-level awards for novice teachers with little or no prior teaching experience. Our reasons for focusing particularly on these awards are twofold. First, both authors have been directly involved in the tutoring and administration of these courses in the past and are thus very familiar with these teacher training contexts. Second, these teaching awards are a popular way for teachers to enter the profession quickly and in theory ‘qualify’ to teach English – potentially anywhere in the world. The certificate courses are widely recognized internationally, and despite various shortcomings they continue to exert considerable (arguably disproportionate) influence on ELT globally. The principles and practices promoted on Cambridge and Trinity teaching awards have long been valued elsewhere, even if in many contexts these may be ill-suited to local educational conditions. Typical course structure We now consider in more detail the Trinity College London-accredited CertTESOL award. CertTESOL courses commonly take place within a private language school, last four weeks (full-time) and include both theoretical study and assessed teaching practice, balance of which is prescribed by Trinity in its Validation Requirements, the content of which is broadly outlined in the CertTESOL Syllabus (available at www.trinitycollege.co.uk). 443
Martin Dewey and Laura Patsko
While the criteria in these documents must be shown to be met in order for CertTESOL providers to be formally accredited, individual training centres have a large degree of freedom in how they structure their timetable, as well as how they design and assess course assignments (including the practicum element). The study reported in Patsko (2014) was carried out at a central London school. The CertTESOL course at the school comprised the following features: •• •• ••
••
Ninety hours of supervised “input sessions”. These cover language analysis, communicative methodology and, occasionally, course admin. Six hours of observed assessed teaching practice (TP). This comprises 10 individual lessons, with lessons gradually increasing in duration from 20 to 60 minutes. Mandatory guided observations of experienced and fellow novice teachers. These are included within the course timetable to encourage trainees to become critical observers of methodological principles in peers’ teaching, which could potentially also inform their own practice. Three coursework projects: {{
{{
{{
•• ••
Teaching practice portfolio and guided observation journal, comprising lesson plans, post-lesson reflections and tutors’ notes for all 10 assessed lessons, notes on other lessons they had observed, and an overall self-evaluation of progress. The learner profile, an extensive needs analysis of one student selected from the trainees’ TP classes with recommendations for the student’s future study and language development, including a five-hour course plan. The unknown language journal, in which trainees participate in four hours of lessons, studying a language completely unknown to any of them, then submitted as a record of their experience and with written commentary.
Over 45 hours of extra study. Trainees were expected to devote time outside the course schedule for independent work, preparing their lessons and course assignments. Two language awareness tests. These tested the trainees’ theoretical awareness of English grammar, vocabulary and phonology, as well as how to teach these (according to established principles of a broadly communicative approach).
On such intensive courses, there is typically a large amount of syllabus content to squeeze into a very crowded timetable, with very little time to engage in any given topic in depth. Trainees are therefore also expected to undertake a reasonable amount of autonomous work to keep up with these course demands. Integrating ELF into a CertTESOL course: a case study In June 2013, Trinity published a new Syllabus and new Validation Requirements (Trinity College London, 2013), meaning training centres had to re-evaluate and potentially amend their course structures and content to ensure continued accreditation as CertTESOL providers. One key amendment was the introduction of ELF as a sub-requirement of the Language Awareness unit, which had just been mentioned for the first time in the CertTESOL Syllabus as follows: “Successful trainees must demonstrate the following learning outcomes in the context of initial training: [. . .] awareness of geographical varieties of English, including the emergence of English as a lingua franca, and associated implications for teaching” (Trinity, 2013, p. 11; emphasis added). 444
ELF and teacher education
At the school reported on in Patsko (2014), this entailed reconfiguring the existing timetable so that some input time could be assigned to introducing ELF, as awareness of ELF would now need to be demonstrated in trainees’ TP and in their Learner Profile assignment. In principle, the inclusion of ELF in the syllabus is a good indication that ELF is beginning to generate some impact at a policy level. As a result, we might expect this to begin being reflected in practice among teacher educators. However, in the case of the CertTESOL syllabus, the appearance of ELF occurs alongside the term “geographical varieties”, with the official guidelines using the words “variation” and “variety” more or less interchangeably, with no clarification or definition. In addition, no further guidance is given in the documentation about what the “associated implications for teaching” might be. This is extremely problematic, as there is a clear risk that ELF and “geographical varieties” become conflated in the minds of practitioners. There is no way of knowing whether the syllabus writers or trainers on CertTESOL courses will approach the topic of ELF in a way that is compatible with an ELF perspective. If we take a closer look at the syllabus, this becomes even more apparent. Only very cursory, often ambiguous, mention of ELF characterizes the course documentation, which is evidently NES oriented. For example, the phonological awareness trainees are expected to demonstrate when evaluating students’ receptive and productive abilities includes “decoding natural native speech” (Trinity, 2013: 13), and “producing appropriate intonation patterns” (p. 15). Trainees are expected to use “basic contrastive analysis” to diagnose and correct “pronunciation errors”, but the syllabus does not identify (or require trainees to identify) an appropriate reference model for such analysis. The following passages are a strong indication that making reference to ELF does not, sadly, coincide with an ELF perspective on language and communication. In considering applicants for whom English is a second or foreign language, Course Providers must ascertain that the applicants’ levels of spoken and written English are of a sufficiently high standard to enable them to perform the function of role models as language teachers. [...] It is accepted that teachers from many parts of the world with English as an additional or foreign language may have distinctive features of pronunciation, grammar and/or vocabulary which conform to the model of English prevalent in their own linguistic/cultural group. (Trinity, 2013: 15–16; emphasis added) This text on the one hand legitimates NNES users, seeing them as speakers of English in their own right, but then swiftly goes on to delegitimize them by assuming that their speech poses an intelligibility risk. However, Course Providers must recognise that trainees who are to be awarded Trinity’s CertTESOL qualification are likely to be employed as teachers of English, not only within their linguistic/cultural group, but beyond it. It is essential that the trainees’ language is intelligible to a wide variety of linguistic groups. It is important that this factor is taken into consideration when setting linguistic entry requirements. Trainees can be failed by Trinity on the moderator’s recommendation if it is decided that their standard of English is significantly below that required for a teacher of English. (Trinity, 2013: 15–16; emphasis added) Note that only NNES course applicants are singled out here as being potential “sub-standard” users of English: potentially unable to “perform the function of role models as language 445
Martin Dewey and Laura Patsko
teachers”; and potentially intelligible “only within their linguistic/cultural group”. This suggests of course that the syllabus writers are entirely unaware of (or choose to ignore) ELF-related research that finds it is NS linguistic/cultural groups that most often compromise intelligibility among multilingual groups (see especially Alharbi, 2015). Introducing ELF to trainee teachers In such a short, intensive course, with so much syllabus content to be covered – awareness of which then needs to be demonstrated by trainees in TP – adding new subject matter poses an immense challenge for teacher educators. At the school described above, it was ultimately decided to change the requirements for contrastive analysis in the phonology section of the Learner Profile assignment so that trainees could, if appropriate, compare their chosen student’s pronunciation with the requirements of the lingua franca core (Jenkins, 2000) instead of with British or American accents, the reference models trainees were normally expected to use. This entailed the inclusion of and a short input session (only 45 minutes) about ELF on the penultimate morning of the course, as it was felt that no extra space could be afforded at the beginning of the course for anything other than existing sessions (a point we take up critically below). A number of considerations were taken into account when designing the ELF input session: ••
•• ••
••
Trainees were likely to be overwhelmed and tired by this stage of a very intensive course. Most would have begun the CertTESOL with no prior teaching experience. They would have just submitted their final assignments and some would be teaching their final assessed lesson later that day. A session of 45 minutes is very little time to introduce the concept of ELF to trainee teachers, or to accommodate the extent and nature of topics for discussion that would inevitably arise. It was necessary to reduce and simplify terminology used in the session, both for the trainees (who have already been introduced to dozens of new concepts, terms, abbreviations, etc.) and for the tutors, who varied in their knowledge of sociolinguistics and phonology. Not all tutors worked on all courses. Depending on which tutors were assigned to a given course, trainees might have encountered ELF concepts much earlier than in this new week 4 input session.
Given the need to be selective and succinct, PowerPoint slides were created with accompanying tasks for trainees (see Figure 35.1 below), focusing predominantly on issues of phonology, as this was the specialist area of the tutor who prepared the slides, as well as the area tutors were most likely to be familiar and comfortable with (as opposed to, say, discourse features). More tasks were prepared than it was possible to cover in a 45-minute slot in order to allow flexibility and give tutors freedom to select which would be most relevant and engaging for a particular group of trainees. The slides were designed to create interest in the concept of diversity in English, and to pose questions about the identification of a suitable model of English for pedagogy. After generating interest in the global scope and diversity of English and raising awareness of the implications of this diversity for language teachers, participants were asked to discuss how an ELF perspective would contrast with a more traditional EFL one.
446
ELF and teacher education
Figure 35.1 Example task created for the input session on ELF
The purpose here was to invite trainee teachers to reconsider their existing perceptions regarding lesson objectives, and to do so by contrasting what might be involved in adopting an ELF perspective as opposed to a traditional EFL one. Trainees were also invited to discuss what implications linguistic diversity in English and ELF research findings might have for the way we conceive teaching goals and models, the role of transfer in language learning, as well as the relationship between variation and intelligibility. Supporting the trainers A number of considerations were also taken into account regarding the trainers themselves, many of whom had completed their own training years before, and who may not have kept abreast of developments in applied linguistics. Furthermore, at least one of the five available trainers for this course reported that he was not particularly open to the implications of ELF; and those who were more open to the concept tended not to know what this might mean in practice. Given that intensive initial teacher education programmes tend to operate on largely a craft-based approach, pre-service trainees often regard their trainers as oracles and authorities (see e.g. Roberts, 1998 on the shortcomings of a craft-based model), so lack of knowledge about ELF may have made some trainers uncomfortably aware of their potential difficulty in answering trainees’ questions on the topic. To prepare the trainers before introducing the new input session to the course, several internal training sessions were held, as part of the school’s regular continuous professional development (CPD) programme. This raised the level of ELF awareness of the teaching and training staff in general; further meetings just among the CertTESOL trainers gave them the chance to discuss all changes to the course timetable, including the new ELF input session and the addition of ELF as an acceptable perspective from which to write up the Learner Profile project. In keeping with a communicative methodology the session was designed to be interactive and discursive, with trainees given chances to consider and analyse English usage around the world – past, present and future. This also entailed adopting an ‘open process’ approach, in which trainees experience materials as learners and the trainer conducts a guided reflection
447
Martin Dewey and Laura Patsko
on class procedures, a very common practice on certificate courses in ELT. The accompanying tutor notes also included the following session aims: •• ••
••
for trainees to develop appreciation of two key sociolinguistic principles: that variation is a natural feature of language, and that language evolves as a result of speakers’ innovative use; for trainees to consider the implications of these principles, specifically that the majority of English users in the world are no longer native speakers of the language, with the result that linguistic innovation in English is taking place in an unprecedented way; and that this may impact the way English is learnt and taught; to encourage trainees to consider their learners’ needs and how this relates to priorities for their English study.
Trainer and trainee responses As reported by Patsko (2014), although the new input session was generally well received by trainees, ELF was perceived by some trainers to be too esoteric. Besides the co-author, only two tutors delivered this new input session. One was generally positive, took a general interest in ELF and participated actively in the aforementioned internal CPD sessions and had also previously taught using Cutting Edge Advanced (Cunningham, Moor and Comyns Carr, 2007), a popular ELT coursebook series that features an interview with Jennifer Jenkins about ELF. The other tutor only knew of ELF what he had learned in the school’s CPD sessions and felt it “wasn’t a priority” for this course. It became clear in follow-up discussions that in his view ELF was an interesting concept but it was just “too much” for pre-service trainees. When he subsequently led a CertTESOL course as the principal tutor, he simply skipped this session. The other two course tutors avoided the session entirely and deferred to their two more ELF-aware colleagues to deliver it when it occurred in the timetable. All things considered, it is still quite innovative to include ELF in pre-service certificate courses, and there will inevitably be teething problems when a long-standing course with experienced trainers is altered in some way. Developing a more practice-oriented response to ELF in teacher education is likely to involve considerable rethinking (see Dewey, 2015). To integrate ELF more effectively in existing programmes of teacher certification, first of all any ambiguity in the syllabus will need to be resolved through far more rigorous and research-informed discussions of ELF. As in our case study, new syllabus developments on certificate courses are typically introduced towards the end of the four-week timetable, as these are generally seen as additional items to “fit in” at some point – usually after all the more “central” (i.e. traditional) syllabus content has been covered (see Hobbs, 2013, on the relative lack of substantial change to the CELTA/CertTESOL syllabus over the years). This is hugely problematic, especially given what research into teachers’ perceptions of ELF and its practice relevance has so far revealed. Dewey (2012), for example, reports that even among participants who express very favourable attitudes towards ELF in theory, these teachers can struggle to reconcile a willingness to adopt ELF in practice with the contextual restrictions of schools and education systems that continue to operate on a norm-based orientation to language and language learning. ELF has continued to provoke controversy in ELT, as it requires a conceptual departure from a long-standing belief in Standard English norms. Therefore, if novice teachers are to benefit from an introduction to ELF in their pre-service training, this needs to happen not at the end of their course, but at the very beginning. This would provide the time 448
ELF and teacher education
necessary to reflect on the implications of ELF for their teaching practice, and would give space to explore materials and tasks from an ELF perspective.
Engaging with ELF in ongoing professional development In this section we consider the value of longer term strategies that teachers may take up in order to remain informed about current developments in applied linguistics and ELT. In addition to more ‘self-contained’, pre-service training courses and formal programmes of in-service teacher education, some teachers undertake alternative forms of ongoing professional development, such as blogging and attending or giving presentations for conferences or webinars, as well as participating in online discussions via forums or live chat sessions (e.g. the weekly #eltchat and #eltchinwag events on Twitter). If teachers’ initial training does not include a focus on ELF, it may be via one of these other modes that they first encounter the concept. In doing so, awareness of ELF would not only be raised, it would then also stand some chance of becoming part of their ongoing professional reflections. In line with the broad developments in teacher education that have taken place since Freeman and Johnson’s (1998) call for a reconceptualized knowledge base for teacher learning, we view the development of professional knowledge and expertise from a sociocultural perspective. Freeman and Johnson argue that conventionally the knowledge base in language teacher education had been largely abstract, compartmentalized and decontextualized, with the beliefs and experiences of teachers (whether novice or expert) either downplayed or devalued. We feel that acknowledging teachers’ existing beliefs and prior practices is fundamental in the case of ELF. Where teachers are exposed to ELF during pre-service training courses, as we have already seen, there may be little scope for in-depth reflection. Traditionally in pre-service training (see Johnson 2009 for a critique) teaching is conceptualized as a discrete set of behaviours, which can readily be isolated and imitated. As a result the teacher training context may lack professional authenticity since the complex nature of teaching cannot be accounted for, and the impact on teacher development may ultimately be quite negligible (cf. Johnson 2009). Adopting a sociocultural perspective enables us to move beyond this more ‘technicist’ view of teacher preparation and thereby take much better account of relevant socio-contextual factors that teachers need to contend with when reflecting on new ideas. In relation to adopting a sociocultural perspective, Johnson and Arshaksaya (2011: 169) comment that socioculturally oriented teacher education has a responsibility to “present relevant scientific concepts to teachers but to do so in ways that bring these concepts to bear on concrete practical activity, connecting them to their everyday knowledge and the activities of teachers”. Instigating any kind of change in pedagogy is a complex process that must involve close consideration of teachers’ contexts and experiences. Again, for many teachers this is likely to be especially so in relation to ELF for the conceptual departure mentioned above. As reported in Suzuki (2011), for example, her attempts to promote awareness of linguistic diversity in English, while successful in relation to teachers’ cognition, resulted in very little practical take up. Suzuki’s conclusion that ‘single-shot instruction’ (2011: 151) is not sufficient to promote lasting changes in teachers’ orientations to English suggests that there is relatively little chance of an ELF perspective being adopted in practice if teachers only encounter this briefly during pre-service training. We argue here that in addition to early exposure to ELF concepts in initial teacher education, engagement in the kinds of post-qualification activities discussed below may well be crucial if teachers are to develop a working understanding of ELF and how this may inform classroom practices. 449
Martin Dewey and Laura Patsko
Blogging There is now a very active online community of English language teachers, trainers, managers and materials writers who use personal blogs as a means of promoting and engaging in professional development, benefiting not only from reading and writing blogs but also from the comments and discussion that readers post in response. At least two blogs run by ELT practitioners and dedicated specifically to ELF were set up in 2013: ELF Pronunciation (https://elfpron.wordpress.com/) and English Global Communication (https://englishglobalcom.wordpress.com/). When explaining why they engage with this medium, several benefits are frequently cited by ELT bloggers (e.g. Loras, 2013; Millin, 2016; Tekhnologic, 2015): •• •• •• •• ••
processing new experiences and insights through reflection on one’s own practice or on things one has read/heard elsewhere; sharing and receiving ideas, tips and materials with others; creating a portfolio to boost future employment opportunities; emergence and evolution of one’s personal (as well as professional) identity and views; developing a sense of support and belonging within a broader interactive community by becoming part of an informal “PLN” (personal/professional learning network).
And blogging as a means of professional development and interaction with the wider ELT community is not limited to the grassroots level – there are several high-profile published ELT authors who also blog frequently and advocate its value for reflection and development (e.g. well known ELT author, Scott Thornbury, who explains his motivations for blogging on his own blog: https://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/b-is-for-blogging/). Apparently in recognition of the importance of blogging for professional development and creating a sense of community among ELT professionals worldwide, international organisations and publishers now also have established blogs, and many encourage idea sharing via practitioners’ own blogs. For example, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press and TESOL all curate content from numerous guest writers on their blogs (see respectively www.cambridge.org/elt/blog/, https://oupeltglobalblog.com/ and http:// blog.tesol.org/). Online discussion forums In addition to personal and institutional blogs, many teachers also engage in both asynchronous and synchronous discussion through forums and online chat sessions. Forums are typically hosted, monitored and maintained by institutions, and discussion typically takes place between their logged-in members. Most notably in ELF this includes research networks such as ELFReN (The English as a Lingua Franca Research Network (www.english-lingua-franca.org/forum/index), coordinated by Alessia Cogo and Marie-Luise Pitzl. Although ELFReN members are predominantly researchers, there is a significant minority of ELT practitioners who have joined the network. In June 2015, ELFReN ran its first thematic forum discussion, with a topic focus on ELF and ELT. The discussion involved 25 forum posts and received 1,635 views. It seems striking that the first themed discussion on ELF in the ReN was related to language pedagogy. And the number of posts and views are encouraging signs that the relevance of ELF in ELT practice is continuing to establish itself as a topic of interest. 450
ELF and teacher education
There are also several websites devoted to professional development in ELT. One particularly notable example is Cambridge English Teacher (www.cambridgeenglishteacher. org/), which offers membership to individual teachers or institutions. The website provides courses, hosts forum discussions, has a panel of experts on hand to answer questions and organizes webinars and other live events. (At the time of writing the most recent of these was a question and answer session on ELF and pedagogy). In addition to dedicated research and professional online forums, there are growing numbers of online/distance MA programmes. Posts may be very short or run to a few hundred words, allowing forum participants to expand on and clarify their ideas much in the same way as a blog post invites further discussion in the comments section. Unlike teachers’ blogs, however, topics are usually set and moderated by an agreed central authority (e.g. an MA course tutor or network convenor), active only for a fixed period of time, and open to contributions and responses from all members of a particular group (e.g. the students in one cohort or members of a research network), usually without requiring prior approval by the moderators before appearing publicly in the forum for others to read. A less formally structured but increasingly popular format for online discussion is a regular Twitter chat session. Perhaps the most popular and long-standing example of a Twitter discussion among English language teachers is ELT Chat (http://eltchat.org/wordpress/), which was nominated for an ELTon Award in 2012 for Innovation in Teacher Resources (one of several categories in the annual international awards given by the British Council to recognise and celebrate innovation in ELT). To date, ELF has featured three times as a topic of the weekly ELT Chat discussion: in 2011, 2013 and 2015. We fully expect that it will continue to reappear as a topic in this and other discussion forums in the future. This is already proving to be a popular and valuable resource for ongoing professional development, and its use is likely to continue to expand for the foreseeable future. We turn our attention for now though to a more conventional means for teachers to remain informed of current thinking and recent developments. Conferences and seminar events Conferences are an invaluable, if not always accessible, means by which teachers can keep up to date with developments in theory and research. As many readers will undoubtedly be aware, the (so far) annual ELF conference began in Helsinki in 2008. At the time of writing preparations for the 10th anniversary conference, also to be held in Helsinki are well underway (www.helsinki.fi/elf10/2017/), with an 11th conference event already planned for London in 2018. This conference series is a testament to the vibrancy with which ELF has emerged as a distinct research field and paradigm. But while considerable numbers of practitioners do attend the ELF conferences, and a good many individual papers and colloquia have focused on pedagogy – notably the themes of the Istanbul (2012) and Athens (2014) conferences were respectively “Pedagogical Implications of ELF in the Expanding Circle” and “Pedagogical and Interdisciplinary Perspectives”) – for ELF to reach a wider audience of ELT professionals it needs to be present at more practice oriented conference events. We therefore need to consider to what extent ELF has become a focus of interest in conference papers in practitioner directed conferences. Numerous profession based events are held every year at both national and international levels, offering teachers and other ELT professionals opportunities to learn, share and network – providing of course there is the appropriate institutional support for teachers to attend these. A recent study by Borg (2015: 39) shows several perceived benefits for ELT professionals who attend international conferences, principally: 451
Martin Dewey and Laura Patsko
1 2 3
enhanced knowledge of ELT techniques leading to changes in practice; networking with other ELT professionals; and enhanced professional confidence and motivation.
There is clear overlap between these advantages for professional development and those of blogging cited above. These include in particular the potential for conference attendees to meet other professionals, and thus be exposed to and exchange new ideas. However, to date, conferences in which ELF is a central theme continue to be more academic than practitioner oriented. The extent to which ELF has so far appeared in ELT oriented events is lamentably still rather limited. In the past five years, out of several hundred sessions at the two largest international teachers’ conferences, IATEFL in the UK and TESOL in the US, the number with an explicit focus on ELF remains very low. Table 35.1 shows the number of papers in the most recent annual conferences in which ELF and/or English as a Lingua Franca appear in the title or abstract. It is also important to bear in mind though that of these many of the papers referring to ELF are at pre-conference events run by special interest groups (e.g. the business English and pronunciation special interest groups, respectively BESIG and PronSIG), and so are not attended by the wider conference audience It is also worth noting that even at events where the number of ELF focused papers is relatively high, this is still a very small proportion of the total number. At IATEFL 2016, for example, only 5 sessions out of a total of approximately 500 had an explicit focus on ELF. With only a handful of sessions at such major English language teachers’ conferences focusing on the use of English in lingua franca interaction, it seems that structured self-contained training courses, whether pre-service or in-service, may still be the primary place in which teachers have the opportunity to develop awareness of and engage in discussion about ELF concepts and reflect on their relevance for classroom practice. It is essential that further empirical research is carried out to determine how an ELF perspective on teacher learning and development can be more thoroughly integrated in practice.
Concluding remarks As we have seen, interest in ELF from a language learning and teaching perspective continues to grow. Many ELF researchers have turned their attention to language pedagogy, drawing on a range of terms to describe this. These include, among others, ‘ELF-aware
Table 35.1 IATEFL and TESOL conference sessions with an explicit focus on ELF Year
Conference
Number of sessions focusing on ELF
2012
IATEFL TESOL IATEFL TESOL IATEFL TESOL IATEFL TESOL IATEFL TESOL
5 (+ BESIG pre-conference event) 2 2 (+ PronSIG pre-conference event) 1 (arguably 2, though only very vaguely) 3 1 2 (+1 in the PronSIG pre-conference event) 3 (+1 that was cancelled) 5 0
2013 2014 2015 2016
452
ELF and teacher education
pedagogy’ (e.g. Bayyurt and Sifakis, 2015; Sifakis, 2014), ‘ELF-informed’ pedagogy, (e.g. Kohn, 2015, who talks about creating a pedagogical space for ELF in the classroom; Seidlhofer, 2015; and Vettorel, 2016), and an ‘ELF re-orientation’ in terms of what gets focused on in pedagogy (see e.g. Patsko and Walker, in press for a shift in emphasis for pronunciation teaching). In order that we go beyond what Seidlhofer (2015) equates with a ‘Groundhog Day’ feeling that ELF continues to be dismissed as too controversial in ELT, teacher education has to be key. It is essential therefore that we continue to explore the role of ELF in the development of knowledge and expertise among English language teachers. Our investigations into the introduction of ELF in initial teacher training courses (see also Dewey 2015 and Patsko 2014) reveal that despite reference to ELF in current syllabus guidelines, professional qualifications in ELT are still falling short when it comes to incorporating ELF in any practically relevant way. Teacher preparation in the UK continues to focus most predominantly on how ‘best’ to teach English, with considerable emphasis on methods and classroom procedures, with relatively little attention given to the nature of the subject itself. The input session on the CertTESOL course discussed in this chapter represents a promising first step in contributing to the introduction of ELF in the teacher education curriculum. However, the time-intensive nature of programmes such as this, as well as the likelihood of new sessions being timetabled late in these courses, will restrict the impact on how teachers approach language. We feel strongly that there should ideally be an early focus on ELF in the teacher education curriculum for this to have a lasting impact on teachers’ professional learning. It is our hope that by raising awareness of ELF and linguistic diversity early in the trajectory of a teacher’s professional development, the practical relevance of ELF in teachers’ perceptions of expertise will feature more prominently in their approach to language learning materials and tasks. To date teachers have tended to become exposed to ELF only during high-level in-service programmes, typically MA Applied Linguistics/TESOL modules. These generally focus on theory and debate regarding ELF, with little opportunity for teachers and educators to consider the practicalities of incorporating ELF in the classroom. It is essential that scholars researching ELF who have an interest in language pedagogy do not simply discuss the ‘implications’ of ELF for ELT. It does not suffice to say that it is the responsibility of teachers to develop a response to ELF in practice: we need further engagement between researchers and practitioners in order for ELF to figure more saliently in teachers’ professional development. Educating the educators is also paramount, since many teacher trainers in the UK do not undertake an MA degree with a focus on ELF and Global Englishes. Moving towards a more integrated approach to ELF in practice will also inevitably be facilitated by a commitment to longer term professional development, particularly where this promotes critical reflection on current thinking and practice.
Note 1 The CELTA (the full title of which is Certificate in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) is accredited and administered by Cambridge English Language Assessment, part of the University of Cambridge. According to Cambridge English, there are over 300 centres worldwide currently offering courses that lead to this qualification, resulting in more than 12,000 successful candidates taking CELTA each year (www.cambridgeenglish.org/teaching-english/teaching-qualifications/ celta/). In the case of CertTESOL, accredited by Trinity College London, over 300 courses are run worldwide annually, resulting in successful qualification for approximately 3,000 candidates (Trinity College London, 2015: 5). 453
Martin Dewey and Laura Patsko
Related chapters in this handbook 5 Leung and Lewkowicz, English language teaching: pedagogic reconnection with the social dimension 22 Hynninen and Solin, Language norms in ELF 36 Sifakis and Bayyurt, ELF-aware teaching, learning and teacher development 40 Wright and Zheng, Language as system and language as dialogic creativity: The difficulties of teaching English as a lingua franca in the classroom 41 Llurda, English language teachers and ELF
Further reading Bayyurt, Y. and S. Akcan (2015). (eds). Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Dewey, M. (forthcoming) The Pedagogy of English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Sifakis, N. (2014). ELF awareness as an opportunity for change: a transformative perspective for ESOL teacher education. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(2): 317–335. Vettorel, P. (2015) (ed.). New Frontiers in Teaching and Learning English. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
References Alharbi, N. (2015). Business English as a lingua franca in Saudi Multinational Corporations. Unpublished PhD Thesis, King’s College London. Bayyurt, Y. and S. Akcan (eds) (2015). Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Bayyurt, Y. and N. Sifakis (2015). ELF-aware in-service teacher education: a transformative perspective. In Bowles, H. and Cogo, A. (eds) International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 117–135. Blair, A. (2015). Evolving a post-native, multilingual model for ELF-aware teacher education. In Bayyurt, Y. and Akcan, S. (eds), Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 89–101. Borg, S. (2015). The benefits of attending ELT conferences. ELT Journal 69/1, pp. 35–46. Bowles, H. and A. Cogo (eds) (2015). International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Cunningham, S., P. Moor and J. Comyns Carr (2007). Cutting Edge Advanced Students’ Book. Harlow: Pearson Longman. Dewey, M. (2012). Towards a post-normative approach: learning the pedagogy of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(1): 141–170. Dewey, M. (2014). Pedagogic criticality and English as a lingua franca ATLANTIS. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 36(2): 11–30. Dewey, M. (2015). ELF, teacher knowledge and professional development. In Bowles, H. and Cogo, A. (eds) International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 176–193. Ferguson, G. and S. Donno (2003). One-month teacher training courses: time for a change”. ELT Journal, 57(1): 26–33. Freeman, D. and K. Johnson (1998) Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly 32(3): 397–417. Hobbs, V. (2013). ‘A basic starter pack’: the TESOL Certificate as a course in survival. ELT Journal 67(2): 163–174. IATEFL (2016). Calling all ELT bloggers. https://iatefl.britishcouncil.org/2016/calling-all-elt-bloggers. Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 454
ELF and teacher education
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice 2(3): 49–85. Johnson, K. (2009) Trends in second language teacher education. In Burns, A. and Richards, J.C. (eds) The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 20–29. Johnson, K. and E. Arshaksaya (2011) Strategic mediation in learning to teach: reconceptualizing the microteaching simulation in an MA TESL methodology course. In Johnson, K.E. and Golombek, P.R. (eds) Research on Second Language Teacher Education: A Sociocultural Perspective on Professional Development. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 168–185. Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a Lingua in ASEAN: A Multilingual Model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kohn, K. (2015). A pedagogical space for ELF in the English classroom. In Bayyurt, Y. and Akcan, S. (eds) Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 51–67. Lopriore, L. and P. Vettorel (2015) Promoting awareness of Englishes and ELF in the English language classroom. In Bowles, H. and Cogo, A. (eds) International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 13–34. Loras, V. (2013). Blogging – PD in focus 8. https://vickyloras.wordpress.com/2013/07/06/bloggingpd-in-focus-8/ Mauranen, A. (2013). Exploring ELF: Academic English by Non-Native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Millin, S. (2016). Making the most of blogs (Innovate ELT 2016). https://sandymillin.wordpress. com/2016/05/21/innovateelt2016/. Patsko, L. (2013). Using the Lingua Franca Core to Promote Students’ Mutual Intelligibility in the Multilingual Classroom: Five Teachers’ Experiences. Unpublished MA dissertation, King’s College London. Patsko, L. (2014). Talking to novice teachers about ELF: dealing with ELF in pre-service TESOL courses. Presentation at 7th Annual Conference of English as a Lingua Franca (Athens, 4 September 2014). Video available at http://youtu.be/LISe-AOWFQk?t=24m9s Patsko, L. and R. Walker (in press). Teaching the pronunciation of English as a lingua franca. In Murphy, J. (ed.) Teaching the Pronunciation of ESL: Focus on Whole Courses. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Roberts, J. (1998). Language Teacher Education: The Reflective Trainer. Abingdon: Routledge. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seidlhofer, B. (2015). ELF-informed pedagogy: from code-fixation towards communicative awareness. In Vettorel, P. (ed.) New Frontiers in Teaching and Learning English. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 19–30. Sifakis, N. (2014). ELF awareness as an opportunity for change: a transformative perspective for ESOL teacher education. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(2): 317–335. Suzuki, A. (2011). Introducing diversity of English into ELT: student teachers’ responses. ELT Journal 65(2): 145–153. Tekhnologic (2015). How Blogging Changed Me: Reflections on the Blogging for Professional Development webinar. https://tekhnologic.wordpress.com/2015/05/24/how-blogging-changedme-reflections-on-the-blogging-for-professional-development-webinar/ Trinity College London (2013). Certificate in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (CertTESOL): Validation Requirements from June 2013. Published online by Trinity College London. www.trinitycollege.co.uk/resource/?id=5365 Trinity College London (2015). Trinity College London TESOL Qualifications and Validated Course Providing Organisations from November 2015. Published online by Trinity College London. www. trinitycollege.com/resource/?id=5222 Vettorel, P. (2015) (ed.). New Frontiers in Teaching and Learning English. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing Vettorel, P. (2016). WE- and ELF-informed classroom practices: proposal from a pre-service teacher education programme in Italy. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 5(1): 107 133. 455
36 ELF-aware teaching, learning and teacher development Nicos Sifakis and Yasemin Bayyurt
ELF is not a thing, it is a way.
Introduction Developments in ELF research in the past several years have raised implications for many different domains surrounding the use, teaching and learning of English involving nonnative speakers. What this research has offered is a fresh way of looking at English-medium communications that include non-native users, raising serious implications about the nature of the very notion of ‘English’ (Jenkins et al., 2011; Seidlhofer, 2011, p. 105; Widdowson, 1997). In this chapter, we focus on implications of ELF research for teacher education. As ELT situations around the world abound, we put forward the notion of ELF-aware teacher learning and development (our term) and suggest ways in which it can impact teacher development through appropriate teacher education. To that end, we present a framework for teacher education programmes aiming to raise teachers’ ELF awareness.
Links between ELF and teacher education The ability to reflect critically on all aspects of teaching and learning is a central concern of all teacher education (Schön, 1996). This incorporates building up a working understanding of methods and techniques that surround teaching, learning, assessing, but also goes beyond it. It involves the ability to make informed decisions about virtually all aspects of teaching, and this means knowing extremely well not only the learners and their needs, and current and upcoming trends in language learning, teaching and use. It also involves knowing oneself as a teacher, being aware of ones’ own inclinations and preferences regarding different aspects of the teaching and learning process (Borg, 2006). Finally, it involves taking action and being in a position to evaluate, improve and learn from such action (Kumaravadivelu, 2012). The social turn in applied linguistics strengthened these aspects of the reflective component (Block 2003; Freeman and Johnson, 1998), and the emphasis that developments in teaching methodology (such as post-method pedagogy, cf. Kumaravadivelu, 1994) cast
456
ELF-aware teaching and learning
on the importance of the English-to-speakers-of-other-languages (ESOL) teacher as an autonomous decision maker emphasized the role of self-reflection even more. What ELF research has shown is that teachers hold strong perceptions about English and its functions inside and outside the ESOL classroom. Bayyurt’s (2006) study of Turkish ESOL teachers’ perceptions of culture showed little awareness of the global role of English and a prioritization of traditional EFL practices. A study of Greek state school teachers showed that being aware of the global function of English and the increasing importance of non-native users of English was not enough to persuade them to rethink their familiar EFL practices of teaching Standard, or native English (Sifakis and Sougari, 2005). Similar cases are presented in Jenkins (2007). Sifakis (2009) argued that an understanding of these perceptions should take into consideration the roles ESOL teachers play as custodians of Standard English for their learners and wider community: essentially, teachers believe they are losing face by openly acknowledging ELF practices. The situation is not different in other domains surrounding ESOL instruction. The gigantic (and very lucrative) ESOL textbook industry continues to typically prioritize learners’ exposure to Standard English (Fay et al. 2010; Song, 2013), often without concern for successful usage of non-native speaker English (Bjørge, 2012). The need for certification of proficiency through high-stakes examinations is widespread (Wall, 2005) and continues to be Standard-English-oriented (Jenkins, 2006). Similar perceptions are reflected in teacher education curricula: for example, a discussion of UK-based teacher qualification programmes in terms of their potential for ELF showcased their adherence to language accuracy and correctness (Dewey, 2012). Influential documents that define ESOL policy-making are also native-speaker-oriented (see the discussion of the Common European Framework of Reference in Pitzl, 2015). Despite these attitudes towards ELF, it seems that the current is changing from ‘below’, i.e., from learners, who seem to be increasingly cognizant of the function of English globally and their own role as non-native users of English (see Jenkins, 2011, p. 307). A study of the perceptions of 518 learners in Chile showcased the emergence of a ‘new language-learning goal [. . .]: international posture’ (Kormos et al., 2011, p. 496). Ranta’s (2010) research of Finnish primary school learners showed a growing awareness of the function of the non-native user of English. Grau’s (2009) discussion of German teenagers’ use of English outside and inside the ESOL classroom underlined the growing awareness of teachers that ‘there are other sources of foreign language contact apart from their classrooms’ and, at the same time, of the ‘lack of dialogue between students and teachers about this aspect’ (p. 171). Different perspectives about teaching and teacher education appear from ‘above’ too. There seems to be a broad consensus among researchers (in and beyond ELF), and an increasing reference to the need for change that is identified as a radical re-appreciation of teachers’ beliefs about their long-established practices that is practice-based. Widdowson argued that the usefulness of ELF is in helping us appreciate the fluidity and dynamic nature of English-medium interactions involving non-native users that does not conform to ‘a static system of rules that users conform to’ (2015, p. 359) and, as a result, it prompts us ‘to consider its effect as a catalyst for change in established ways of thinking [. . .] in the description and the teaching of English’ (Widdowson, 2012, p. 5). Seidlhofer established that, as norms are ‘continually shifting and changing’, teachers should replace their ‘normative mindset’ on that basis (2008, pp. 33–34). She subsequently put forward a series of essential ‘shifts’ in teachers’ perspectives that range from the need to make learners aware of actual language usage to the importance of making them self-confident as users (Seidlhofer, 2011). Park and
457
Nicos Sifakis and Yasemin Bayyurt
Wee (2011) argued that teachers should ‘question some of the more deeply rooted assumptions we hold about language’ (p. 368). Others stressed the need for a reexamination of ‘current methodology and practice in context-relevant ways’ (Dewey, 2012, p. 141), highlighting the importance of a ‘post-native model’ of language pedagogy in the development of multi-competent communication (Blair, 2015). These perspectives reflect a broader concern for a reorientation of the way language is understood, described and taught. Blommaert proposes a shift from a focus on structural concerns to ‘more phenomenological ones, in which language events and experiences are central rather than language as form and meaning (2010, p. 100). In a world where interactions portray a fluid and dynamic shuttling between local and global communities, cultural forms and identities are continuously reshaped (Pennycook, 2007, p. 6) and linguistic and communicative norms also need to be reexamined (Canagarajah, 2005). There is clearly a need for a comprehensive theory for educating teachers willing to find out more about ELF and its potential for their teaching context. To date there have been only a few insights from teacher training programmes that have targeted ESOL teachers. For example, Hall et al. (2013) presented an online programme that focused not so much on ELF but on making participant teachers aware of the nature and dynamics of English as a plurilithic language. Their study showed that certain of their trainees acknowledged that their involvement with the study materials had a strong, transformative effect on them. In another programme that focused on exposing participants to selected papers from the international research literature on ELF, World Englishes and English as an international language (Bayyurt and Sifakis, 2015a, 2015b), the transformative element had a more central role. Participants were asked to reflect on what they read, refer it to their own experience as learners, users and teachers of English and then develop, teach and evaluate lessons based on their readings and reflections. This engagement led to many participants (for example, see Kordia, 2014) claiming to be ‘shaken’ and some transformed.
ELF and teacher development Responding to the above discourse about change is not an easy or straightforward task, however. ELF scholars are aware of this when they claim that, as ‘ELF research findings pose substantial challenges to current beliefs and practice, it is likely that further engagement with ELF in the language classroom will be contested and hence gradual’ (Jenkins et al., 2011, p. 305). While the role of non-native teachers as models of competent and appropriate nonnative uses of English for their learners is uncontested (Llurda, 2009), there is still a long way to go for developing a comprehensive framework that would allow these teachers to integrate ELF in their teaching practices. At the same time, teaching ELF has been linked to the demand for teacher autonomy – as Kirkpatrick cautions, ‘adopting a lingua franca approach to ELT naturally has implications for the type of teacher who might be most suitable’ (2012, p. 132). However, replacing a teacher’s ‘normative mindset’ (Seidlhofer, 2008, p. 33) is easier said than done. Integrating ELF in the ESOL classroom means a lot more than simply knowing about and applying ELF, what is necessary is ‘an eclectic methodology catering to a usage-based notion of multicompetence’ (Alptekin, 2010, p. 107). Teachers should provide learners ‘with opportunities for discussion of the differences between NS–NNS interaction and ELF interaction, and on differences in ELF speakers’ accents’ (Matsumoto, 2011, p. 110). What is more, merging the need for raising learners’ intercultural communicative competence with the idiosyncrasies of the local teaching and learning context adds further complexity to the task (Fay et al., 2016). 458
ELF-aware teaching and learning
It becomes clear that ELF is in need of a comprehensive theory for educating ESOL teachers about ELF matters. However: ELF researchers have always been careful to point out that we do not believe it is our place to tell teachers what to do, but that it is for ELT practitioners to decide whether/to what extent ELF is relevant to their learners in their context. (Jenkins, 2012, p. 492) It is positive that scholars’ approach towards ELF implementation in the ESOL classroom shuns prescription, but, at the same time, teachers’ perceptions and the demand for changing their normative mindsets (as shown above) means that a structured approach to ELF teacher education is necessary. Learning about ELF means changing as teachers, and this is where knowing about ELF leads to teacher ‘growth’, ‘improvement’, or ‘development’. While there are different definitions of teacher development (Glover and Law, 1996), theorists link the term with effectiveness in producing better learner outcomes. Development means a ‘reframing of experience’ that ‘mediates between theory and practice, revealing new meanings and new strategies for practice’ (Russell and Munby, 1991, p. 166). It is a personalized yet broad and open-ended process of change, with practical implications for the classroom: an ‘indirect intervention that works on the complex aspects of teaching [that are] idiosyncratic and individual’ (Freeman, 1989, pp. 39–40). It involves critically ‘reflecting on experience, exploring the options for change, deciding what can be achieved through personal effort and setting appropriate goals’ (Head and Taylor, 1997, p. 18). Teacher development, as identified with teacher learning, is exactly what we need as a reflection of the discourse about change presented earlier and should therefore be the real focus of ELF teacher education programmes. Such programmes may be formal, informal or non-formal, but here lies a major difference between established ELT teacher development and ELF teacher development: while the former are based on established concepts and issues concerning teaching that have been already well-researched by other scholars, ELF offers a different story, one in which teachers should learn about ELF research and go on to develop, teach and evaluate their own original implementations. In other words, ELF develops together with the teachers who develop by implementing it.
ELF-aware teaching and teacher development Due to the above idiosyncrasies and complications, and as ELF research is still in the process of shaping the ELF construct, we believe that it is too early to talk about ELF teaching as such at this stage. However, this does not mean that teachers will have to wait until the ELF construct has been fully configured (Seidlhofer, 2004, p. 209). They can learn about and experiment with ELF, namely, develop as teachers through their involvement with ELF, thereby contributing to ELF research themselves. This is where the concept of ELF-aware teaching and learning comes in. We define ELF-aware teaching as the process of engaging with ELF research and developing one’s own understanding of the ways in which it can be integrated in one’s classroom context, through a continuous process of critical reflection, design, implementation and evaluation of instructional activities that reflect and localize one’s interpretation of the ELF construct. Why ELF-aware and not ELF-informed? For us, the former describes a process of becoming, the latter a process of being. Being informed is closer to passively receiving information (in the form of established, trialed and tested experience); being aware means 459
Nicos Sifakis and Yasemin Bayyurt
being actively (and more critically) involved with whatever information is received. The former is a ‘closed’ system that allows for minimal original experimentation, the latter is an ‘open’ system that necessitates experimentation, evaluation and the co-construction of the ELF teaching and learning experience through practical implementation. For these reasons, the former is better suited to EFL teacher education, the latter to ELF teacher education. ELF-aware teaching and learning has two essential characteristics: it is ecological in nature and potentially transformative. Ecological, in the sense that teachers need to be fully aware of the ecosystem around them, the constraints or problems of their teaching situation, and not just ELF theory and research. This is the type of needs analysis pioneered by Holliday and Cooke (1982) and Holliday (1984), termed ‘means analysis’, which referred to the need for teachers to be fully cognizant of their own ‘classroom culture’, i.e. learners’, sponsors’ and other stakeholders’ perceptions about language use and education that involves also knowing about the history of a country, its peoples, etc. Knowing the idiosyncrasies (or ‘local features’, according to Holliday) of each teaching situation (or ‘ecosystem’) and how these reflect ‘manifestations of wider social and institutional features’ (Holliday, 1984, p. 36) ensures that teachers are capable of developing appropriate ELF-related activities that would be integrated and accepted by their learners. If the ecological nature of ELF-aware teaching reflects teachers’ awareness of their context, the transformative element reflects the need to fully understand themselves and their deepest convictions about language use, teaching and learning. This is necessary, because the demands that ELF integration in the ESOL classroom poses to teachers are enormous. Teachers are expected to respond to the need for change discussed above and rethink, essentially re-conceptualize, core concepts such as the nature and role of Standard English in interactions involving non-native speakers, the function of feedback and correction techniques in their classroom, the role of native speakers, and so on. These core concepts are fundamental in ELF research but are considered established notions in typical EFL contexts and, research shows, are strongly favoured by EFL teachers (for a review, see Jenkins, 2007). Our transformative theoretical framework is grounded in the theory of adult educator Jack Mezirow (1991). The theory offers the tools whereby teachers can become conscious of their own ‘frames of reference’, i.e., beliefs developed by ideologies, self-perceptions and learning styles, and reinforced through training and habit, that have become convictions that guide the way we perceive teaching, learning and communication and designate what is correct, appropriate and relevant in the way that we view language. Re-framing of these frames of reference, to the extent that it is possible and desirable by individual teachers, is the aim of ELF-aware teacher education (Sifakis, 2007) and is achieved through a three-step process. The three phases of ELF-aware teacher education As described in Figure 36.1, in phase A (‘Exposure’) teachers become aware of the complexity of English-medium communication in today’s globalized world. They are prompted to engage with ELF, EIL and WE research, are provided with ‘insights into the heterogeneous nature of English as it is used in contact situations’ (Jenkins et al., 2011, p. 305) and are asked to consider the strengths (e.g., the way communication becomes more convenient on a global scale through access to a single language); weaknesses (e.g., the ways in which global English suppresses local languages, or how the tendency to learn only English minimizes the ‘need’ to learn other languages); and challenges (e.g., the limitations to so-called Standard English as a means of comprehensible communication in diverse contexts involving non-native users). At this stage, it is important for teachers to be exposed to examples of successful interactions 460
ELF-aware teaching and learning
(many of which transcend the physical space and move to online interactions – cf. Seidlhofer, 2011, p. 86) involving non-native users and to reflect on the qualitative elements of such interactions that render NNS discourse pragmatically competent (Baker, 2015; Hülmbauer, 2013). Teachers can engage with these issues by reading the literature, by considering examples from published ELF corpora (e.g., Cogo and Dewey, 2012) and by interacting with fellow teachers, native and non-native, from different contexts. What teachers are expected to learn from this phase is an awareness of the real spread of English globally and the importance of accommodation skills in interactions involving ‘skilled English users’ (Jenkins, 2011, p. 931). In phase B, teachers refer what they have learned from the previous phase to their own, immediate teaching context. This is a significantly more demanding process because they are expected to engage in a critical way with their own deeper convictions about both the global spread of English (internal critical awareness) and the implications for teaching, learning, assessing, etc. (external critical awareness). In the first place, teachers should consider their own convictions about all those things they have been taking for granted regarding English: the preponderance of native speakers, or the issue of ownership of English today. They then should engage with the implications for their teaching context, the extent to which a Standard English model is relevant or appropriate for their learners, the nature of providing feedback and correcting learner errors. What teachers should realize in this phase is not that EFL teaching is wrong but that their teaching competence can gain from integrating the ELF-aware perspective where necessary (see below for more on this). Finally, in phase C teachers are prompted to develop instructional activities that integrate their own understanding of ELF (and EIL and WE) with the needs and idiosyncrasies of their learners. Here teachers can experiment with focusing on the ability to negotiate diversity in contact encounters in terms of both English (in its lingua franca guise) and multilingualism. Logically, this means that co-construction and negotiation (regardless of any resulting difference from native English norms) should be prioritized and rewarded, that translanguaging (‘multilingualism-with-English’) should be regarded as normal language behaviour, and that the use of ‘repertoires in flux’ and ‘language leakage’ into candidates’ English should not be penalised. (Jenkins, 2015, p. 79) These activities can be anything from an improvement of an existing textbook task to a whole teaching session and should follow the ecological model described earlier, i.e., teachers should carefully consider their learners’ learning profile, previous experience with using English outside the classroom, the target situation (for example, designing an ELF-aware lesson that entirely minimizes error correction may be inappropriate for a high-stakes exam preparation class). ELF-aware activities therefore take up a wide scope, and this is where ELF-aware teachers can contribute to our growing understanding of ELF, by documenting their experimentations. This means that these action projects should involve planning the activity/ies (and justifying their relevance for this particular context), implementing them (teaching and, ideally, recording the sessions) and critically evaluating their impact (by appraising learners’ involvement during the activities and, afterwards, asking their opinion about their significance). As already mentioned, ELF-aware teacher education projects can take many forms, from informal self-study to formal seminars involving many in-service or pre-service teachers. Teachers can be engaged with the ELF/EIL/WE literature, reflect seriously about their own convictions, and experiment with their own class in a self-reflective way (as documented in 461
Nicos Sifakis and Yasemin Bayyurt
Phase A: Exposure
• Global English: strengths, weaknesses, challenges
• External critical awareness Phase B: • Internal critical awareness Critical awareness • Planning • Implementing Phase C: • Evaluating Action plan
Figure 36.1 The three phases of ELF-aware teacher education Source: adapted from Bayyurt and Sifakis, 2017, p. 8.
the ELF-aware teacher development project carried out at Bogazici University – cf. Bayyurt and Sifakis, 2015a, 2015b). These activities and practices are expected to help teachers become not only aware of current concerns in English language teaching, learning and communication, but also more autonomous practitioners and, by extension, develop themselves and their practice.
Benefits and challenges for ELF-aware teachers It is useful to see what teachers can gain from becoming ELF-aware and what obstacles or challenges they may be facing in this attempt. Benefits Teachers focus on the bigger picture They become aware of the current reality concerning the global status of English. They appreciate that English is not only a native language but also a medium of communication used by different people around the world, including their learners. They begin to make sense of the enormous complexity in using English when non-native users are involved (Baird et al., 2014), most notably, the potential strengths of non-native users and the certain weaknesses of native users. Teachers focus on themselves as users of English Teachers realize they themselves are part of the global arena of communication in English. They focus on their own attitudes about themselves as users. This means they may have to come to terms with and overcome feelings of embarrassment and perhaps shame, feelings of helplessness, as they may believe they are not allowed to really ‘own’ the language they teach. 462
ELF-aware teaching and learning
Teachers focus on their own teaching context Teachers engage with the real needs of their learners and what they can do with what they already know about the language. They also become fully aware of the ‘classroom culture’ of their immediate teaching context (ecological approach). They can therefore become more critical of curricular innovations that may or may not necessarily respond to the challenges of using English in different international communicative settings. And, they can design original lessons that deviate from the norm (if the norm means teaching the native speakers’ Standard English) and, through these experimentations, hone their skills as syllabus developers, activity designers, textbook adapters, needs analysts (of their learners’ needs, lacks and wants), feedback providers and assessors of their learners’ progress. They essentially develop the know-how and the skillset to add a significant additional dimension to their teaching, which they can implement when and if necessary. Teachers are prompted to actively engage in critical reflection Merging one’s awareness of the complex functions of English on a global scale with one’s hands-on grasp of one’s own teaching context requires serious critical reflective skills that are both outward and inward bound. Outward, because one has to fully appreciate the implications for English-medium communication, the fact that English is less a foreign language and more a familiar mode of interaction on many diverse contexts, and what that means for instruction, feedback provision and assessment. Inward, in that one has to grapple with deep convictions about one’s role in the foreign language classroom, the relevance of the teaching materials, etc., which may require substantial rewiring. In this sense, critical reflection becomes transformative, since it permeates teachers’ whole being and takes up the Foucauldian sense of ‘critical attitude’ (Foucault, 2007), i.e., a moral and political resistance to accepting the status quo while engaging with its deepest implications. Challenges Teachers’ seemingly inherent resistance to change Understanding ELF and implementing ELF-aware teaching are two different things. Teachers may appreciate ELF but may be unwilling or unable to implement it in their context. This may be due to inherent convictions about the uncontested usefulness of Standard English (Suzuki, 2011). This is where the ELF-aware approach might be useful, in that it does not dictate a specific way of teaching ELF but focuses on context sensitivity and teacher independence. Teachers’ own perceptions about their roles in the FL classroom How teachers see themselves and their job and are viewed by peers can be a powerful obstacle to ELF-aware teaching. It raises serious issues that even touch upon morality. For example, how ethical is it to be ELF-aware? To what extent is it ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ for everyone involved? And who will take the ultimate responsibility for interfering with the established curriculum, selected textbooks and specified instruction? However, understanding that ELF-aware teaching is not an either/or scenario but adds to teachers’ existing repertoire means that teachers do not have to teach ELF, they can offer their learners more choices. 463
Nicos Sifakis and Yasemin Bayyurt
Learners’ and other stakeholders’ perspectives and expectations The broader context, including learners’ expressed and hidden aims for learning English and sponsors’ (parents, companies, etc.) perspectives about what is expected and therefore ‘allowed’ in the ESOL classroom, together with a long history of pedagogy grounded in practices that prioritize the native-speaker norms create an ‘ecosystem’ of established practice that is not necessarily favourable to ELF-aware teaching and learning (Sifakis 2009). Trends in curricular innovation and the textbook-centred mentality As many typical EFL settings are focused on preparing learners for passing high-stakes examinations, their curricula tend to be primarily norm-referenced and textbook-centred, and this usually negatively impacts teaching and learning (Wall, 2005). Even when new curricula prioritize, in principle, at least, multiculturalism and the function of English for global and cosmopolitan citizenship, textbooks do not follow suit (e.g., Sifakis et al., 2012; Song, 2013). These processes make things particularly difficult for many teachers who work in prep schools and want to integrate ELF-aware activities in their classes.
Conclusion ELF-aware teaching and teacher education offers opportunities for learning about ELF and experimenting with one’s teaching context that prompt teachers to make sense of the shifting times regarding English and explore new, creative and autonomous ways of integrating ELF in their own context. Being an ELF-aware teacher means finding ways to empower one’s learners as competent non-native users of English, essentially prompting them to become ELF-aware users themselves. The ecological focus and potentially transformative nature of the ELF-aware journey has implications beyond teaching and learning and can be applied to assessment and testing, policy-making and curriculum designing. More research should be carried out on ELFaware implementations in different teaching-learning contexts to document (a) the level of critical reflection that different teachers are capable of and willing to engage in, and (b) the quality and true impact of ELF-aware activities and lessons. It is therefore necessary to develop a means of gauging (a) and (b), and in this way help ELF-aware teaching research to take a form that would be more appropriate for applying the ELF construct (in all its fluidity) in the classroom. These implementations will eventually determine the extent to which ELF is in fact teachable or whether the only realistic way of implementing ELF in the foreign language classroom is the ELF-aware way. After all, to mirror Elbert Green Hubbard’s famous definition of art, ELF is not a thing, it is a way.
Further reading Bayyurt, Y. and Sifakis, N. 2015b. ‘ELF-aware in-service teacher education: a transformative perspective’. In H. Bowles and A. Cogo (eds), International perspectives on English as a lingua franca: pedagogical insights. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 117–135. Holmes, P. and Dervin, F. (eds) 2016. The cultural and intercultural dimensions of English as a lingua franca. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mezirow, J. 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
464
ELF-aware teaching and learning
Sifakis, N.C. 2009. ‘Challenges in teaching ELF in the periphery: the Greek context’. ELT Journal, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 230–237. Widdowson, H. 2015. ‘ELF and the pragmatics of language variation’. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 359–372.
References Alptekin, C. 2010. ‘Redefining multicompetence for bilingualism and ELF’. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 95–110. Baird R., Baker W. and Kitazawa, M. 2014. ‘The complexity of ELF’. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 171–196. Baker, W. 2015. Culture and identity through English as a lingua franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Bayyurt, Y. 2006. ‘Non-native English language teachers’ perspective on culture in English as a Foreign Language classrooms’. Teacher Development, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 233–247. Bayyurt, Y. and Sifakis, N. 2015a. ‘Developing an ELF-aware pedagogy: insights from a self-education programme’. In P. Vettorel (ed.), New frontiers in teaching and learning English. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 55–76. Bayyurt, Y. and Sifakis, N. 2015b. ‘ELF-aware in-service teacher education: a transformative perspective’. In H. Bowles and A. Cogo (eds), International perspectives on English as a lingua franca: pedagogical insights. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 117–135. Bayyurt, Y. and Sifakis, N. 2017. ‘Foundations of an EIL-aware teacher education’. In A. Matsuda (ed.), Preparing to teaching English as an international language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 3–18. Bjørge, A.K. 2012. ‘Expressing disagreement in ELF business negotiations: theory and practice’. Applied Linguistics, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 406–427. Blair, A. 2015. ‘Evolving a post-native, multilingual model for ELF-aware teacher education’. In Y. Bayyurt and S. Akcan (eds), Current perspectives on pedagogy for ELF. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 89–101. Block, D. 2003. The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Blommaert, J. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Borg, S. 2006. Teacher cognition and language education. London: Continuum. Canagarajah, S. 2005. ‘Reconstructing local knowledge, reconfiguring language studies’. In S. Canagarajah (ed.), Reclaiming the local in language policy and practiceLondon: Erlbaum, pp. 3–24. Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. 2012. Analysing English as a lingua franca. London: Continuum. Dewey, M. 2012. ‘Towards a post-normative approach: learning the pedagogy of ELF’. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 141–170. Fay, R., Lytra, V. and Ntavaliagkou, M. 2010. ‘Multicultural awareness through English: a potential contribution of TESOL in Greek schools’. Intercultural Education, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 579–593. Fay, R., Sifakis N. and Lytra, V. 2016. ‘Interculturalities of English as a lingua franca: international communication and multicultural awareness in the Greek context’. In P. Holmes and F. Dervin (eds) The cultural and intercultural dimensions of English as a lingua franca. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 50–69. Foucault, M. 2007. ‘What is critique?’ In Lotringer, S. (ed.), The politics of truth. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e), pp. 41–81. Freeman, D. 1989. ‘Teacher training, development and decision-making’. TESOL Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 27–47. Freeman, D. and Johnson K.E. 1998. ‘Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education’. TESOL Quarterly, vol. 32 no. 3, pp. 397–417. Glover, D. and Law, S. 1996. The management and professional development in education: Issues in policy and practice. London: Kogan Page. Grau, M. 2009. ‘Worlds apart? English in German youth cultures and in educational settings’. World Englishes, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 160–174.
465
Nicos Sifakis and Yasemin Bayyurt
Hall, C.J., Wicaksono, R., Liu, S., Qian, Y. and Xiaoqing, X. 2013. English reconceived: raising teachers’ awareness of English as a ‘plurilithic’ resource through an online course. London: British Council. Head, K. and Taylor, P. 1997. Readings in teacher development. Oxford: Heinemann. Holliday, A. 1984. ‘Research into classroom culture as necessary input into syllabus design’. In J. Swales and H. Mustafa (eds), English for specific purposes in the Arab world, Birmingham: University of Aston, pp. 29–51. Holliday, A. and Cooke, T. 1982. ‘An ecological approach to ESP’. In Lancaster practical papers in English language education. 5, (Issues in ESP). Lancaster: University of Lancaster, pp. 123–143. Hülmbauer, C. 2013. From within and without: the virtual and the plurilingual in ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 47–73. Jenkins, J. 2006. ‘The spread of EIL: a testing time for testers’. ELT Journal, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 42–50. Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a lingua franca: attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J.. 2011. ‘Accommodating (to) ELF in the international university’. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 43, pp. 926–936. Jenkins, J. 2012. ‘English as a lingua franca from the classroom to the classroom. ELT Journal, 66: 486–94. Jenkins, J. 2015. ‘Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca’, Englishes in Practice, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 49–85. Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. 2011. ‘Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca’, Language Teaching Research, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 281–315. Kirkpatrick, A. 2012. ‘English as an Asian lingua franca: the “lingua franca approach” and implications for language education policy’. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 121–140. Kordia, S. 2014. ‘Towards an ELF-aware pedagogy: a personal transformative journey’. Paper presented at the ELF7 International Conference, Athens, Greece. Kormos J., Kiddle, T. and Csizér, K. 2011. ‘Systems of goals, attitudes, and self-related beliefs in second-language learning motivation’. Applied Linguistics, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 495–516. Kumaravadivelu, B. 1994. ‘The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies forsecond/foreign language teaching’. TESOL Quarterly, vol. 28 no. 1, pp. 27–48. Kumaravadivelu, B. 2012. Language teacher education for a global society: a modular model for knowing, analyzing, recognizing, doing, and seeing. New York: Routledge. Llurda, E. 2009. ‘Attitudes towards English as an international language: the pervasiveness of native models among L2 users and teachers’. In F. Sharifian (ed.), English as an international language: perspectives and pedagogical issues. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 119–134. Matsumoto, Y. 2011. ‘Successful ELF communications and Implications for ELT: sequential analysis of ELF pronunciation negotiation strategies’. Modern Language Journal, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 97–114. Mezirow, J 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Park, J.S.-Y. and Wee, L. 2011. ‘A practice-based critique of English as a lingua franca’. World Englishes, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 360–374. Pennycook, A. 2007. Global Englishes and transcultural flows. London: Routledge. Pitzl, M.-L. 2015. ‘Understanding and misunderstanding in the Common European Framework of Reference: what we can learn from research on BELF and Intercultural Communication’. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 91–124. Ranta, E. 2010. ‘English in the real world vs. English at school: Finnish English teachers’ and students’ views’. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 156–77. Russell, T. and Munby, H. 1991. ‘Reframing: the role of experience in developing teachers’ professional knowledge’. In D. Schön (ed.) The reflective turn. New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 164–187. Schön, D.A. 1996. Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Seidlhofer, B. 2004. ‘Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca’. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 24, pp. 209–239. Seidlhofer, B. 2008. ‘Of norms and mindsets’. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 1–7. Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sifakis, N.C. 2007. ‘The education of the teachers of English as a lingua franca: a transformative perspective’. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 355–375. 466
ELF-aware teaching and learning
Sifakis, N.C. 2009. ‘Challenges in teaching ELF in the periphery: the Greek context’. ELT Journal, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 230–237. Sifakis, N. Lytra, V. and Fay, R. 2012. ‘Curricular discourses and ELF in the Greek state school context’. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on English as a Lingua Franca, hosted by the Boðaziçi University, Faculty of Education, Department of Foreign Language Education, Istanbul, Turkey 24–26 May 2012. Sifakis, N.C. and Sougari, A.-M. 2005. ‘Pronunciation issues and EIL pedagogy in the periphery: a survey of Greek state school teachers’ beliefs’. TESOL Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 467–88. Song, H. 2013. ‘Deconstruction of cultural dominance in Korean EFL textbooks’. Intercultural Education, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 382–390. Suzuki, A. 2011. ‘Introducing diversity of English into ELT: student teachers’ responses’. ELT Journal, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 145–153. Wall, D. 2005. The impact of high-stakes examinations on classroom teaching: a case study using insights from testing and innovation theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Widdowson, H. 1997. ‘EIL, ESL, EFL: global issues and local interests’. World Englishes, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 135–146. Widdowson, H. 2012. ‘ELF and the inconvenience of established concepts’. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, vol. no. 1, pp. 5–26. Widdowson, H. 2015. ‘ELF and the pragmatics of language variation’. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 359–372.
467
37 ELF and ELT teaching materials Nicola Galloway
Introduction As previous chapters in this handbook have shown, theoretical and empirical work within the field of ELF raises crucial questions about established modes of practice in the ELT profession. Although the pedagogical implications of such research has been attracting an increasing amount of attention in recent years, as evidenced by the number of chapters in this handbook that focus on pedagogy, little attention has been placed on ELT materials specifically. In order to create pedagogical change within the field of ELT, we need to look at various aspects of the learning and teaching process: “it is not enough to simply say that ELF has implications for pedagogy” (Dewey, 2012, p. 143). ELT materials are a central part of the learning and teaching process, “often seen as being the core of a particular programme” (McDonough et al., 2013, p. 51) and serving as a major source of language input (Richards, 2001). The lack of suitable materials has been noted as being one of the key barriers in incorporating a global Englishes perspective into the ELT classroom (Galloway and Rose, 2015), and the fact that “the prevailing orientation in . . . ELT materials still remains undoubtedly towards ENL” (Jenkins 2012, p. 487), warrants serious attention. A central thesis of this chapter focuses on the need to ensure that twenty-first-century ELT is effective in preparing learners to use ELF in global contexts. It examines recent trends in the field of ELT, proposing that the on-going quest for new approaches and methods to ensure that ELT is effective be accompanied with a quest for new conceptualisations of the very subject matter in such materials; the English language. After examining recent trends, the chapter ends with a proposed framework to help ELT practitioners adopt and develop materials that reflect the growing use of ELF. What are ELT materials? ELT materials consist of a range of materials that facilitate the teaching and learning process, but it is the printed course book, the main focus of this chapter, that continues to act as the main medium between teachers and learners. The field of ELT materials development focuses on the principles and procedures of the design, implementation and evaluation of 468
ELF and ELT teaching materials
materials. One of the aims is to ensure that they provide learners with sources of relevant and useful language input, help them feel at ease and develop their confidence in using the language to stimulate output. They are designed to be aids in the teaching and learning of the English language and it is important, therefore, that they are effective. ELT materials have undergone a number of changes over the years, as writers and publishers endeavour to keep up to date with shifts in approaches and methods in the field of ELT.
Recent trends in ELT pedagogy and materials Behaviourist to communicative methods Course books that reflected the methodology of the grammar-translation, direct and audiolingual approach included things like translation activities, multiple choice questions and matching items. There was an assumption that learners everywhere had the same needs and that ‘general’ English course books, which included long lists of core vocabulary and grammatical items, would be useful for learners anywhere in the world. However, an increasing recognition of the need to focus on learners’ needs, as part of the English for specific purposes (ESP) movement in the 1960s, led to the publishing of course books designed to meet the needs of learners in specific domains. Further changes came with moves towards communicative language teaching (CLT) in the 1990s, resulting in an increased focus on the need to expose learners to authentic language and to provide opportunities to use English for communicative purposes. Communicative course books aimed to showcase ‘authentic’ language, defined as ‘real’ language not produced for teaching or learning English. This became a major selling point for ELT publishers. The back cover of Macmillan’s Move Ahead: Student’s Book 2, for example, advertises it as including “authentic and semi-authentic texts”. These course books also include ‘real’ communicative tasks that aim to replicate what will be required of the learners outside of the classroom. New Inside Out, for example, claim on their website that one of their “main objectives is to ensure that the language our students spend time rehearsing in the classroom is transferable to the real world” (www.insideout.net/new/ about/course). This series also includes downloadable checklists based on the CEFR, which is based on native English norms. The Cambridge Empower series (Doff et al., 2015) is also benchmarked to the CEFR and learners are provided with a CEFR report after the mid- and end-of-course online tests. The ‘real world’, then, appears to be a world where learners will use the target language with native English speakers. This quest for authenticity and so-called ‘real’ English also led to corpus-based approaches to ELT and many course books, such as the Touchstone series (McCarthy et al., 2005) and the Cambridge English Empower series (Doff et al., 2015), are based on these electronic databases of ‘real’ contextualised examples of ‘authentic’ language. The Touchstone series, for example, draws on the Cambridge International Corpus to build a syllabus based on how people actually use English. We use the corpus as a ‘touchstone’ to ensure that authentic and useful language is taught in each lesson. The corpus helps us to choose and to explain the grammar, vocabulary and conversation strategies that are needed to communicate successfully in English. (McCarthy et al., 2005, p. iv). Again, however, it is questionable how this series can claim to fully represent “how people actually use English” (ibid.), given that the corpus is based on a minority of native 469
Nicola Galloway
English speakers. Such materials promote native notions of correctness, where authenticity appears to be synonymous with native English. The Cambridge website notes that course book authors use the Cambridge English Corpus and the Cambridge Learner Corpus to “identify typical learner mistakes” and provide “useful, natural and fully up-to-date” (www. cambridge.org/about-us/what-we-do/cambridge-english-corpus) language. It is unfortunate that there is no recognition of the fact that such “mistakes” (ibid.) may not necessarily impede communication in ELF encounters and the provisions of “fully up-to-date”, “useful” and “natural” (ibid.) language is clearly questionable, given the use of ELF worldwide, as demonstrated in various chapters in this handbook. There is clearly a mismatch between how the language is actually used in today’s globalised world and the language presented in such materials. McGrath, a well-known scholar in the field of ELT materials design, for example, notes that it is perfectly reasonable for course books designed for use in native English speaker contexts to be orientated towards native English speaker norms and culture, but “it is difficult to justify such an emphasis in materials intended for use in contexts where most English use is between non-native English speakers of English” (2013, p. 9). The growth in ELF usage, and ELF research showcasing how it differs from native English, presents new challenges to ELT materials writers. Further, popular books on ELT used in teacher training programmes continue to be preoccupied with approaches and methods to teaching the language, giving little consideration “to the wider social, political or cultural factors relevant to English language teaching” (Cogo and Dewey, 2012, p. 170). However daunting this may be, the ELT industry needs to catch up if materials, for both teachers and students, are to meet their aims of providing effective learning resources. There is a need for materials that do, in fact, provide learners with “fully up-to-date”, “useful” and “natural” (www.cambridge.org/about-us/what-we-do/cambridge-english-corpus) language. It is important to point out, however, that ELF certainly throws a new perspective on the debate surrounding the orientation towards native English norms in ELT materials, but such discussions have been going on for some time. Questioning NES norms The dominance of native English norms and the dominance of ethnocentric values insensitive to learners’ sociocultural contexts, have been long criticised. Further, in the field of ELT, many publishers have responded to the need to be sensitive to local contexts, publishing stringent author guidelines warning authors to avoid topics that may cause offence and, consequently, have a negative impact on sales. A well-known list of ‘taboo’ topics is often referred to as PARSNIP (politics, alcohol, religion, sex, narcotics, isms (e.g. communism) and pork). The Macmillan Global series, further discussed later, has also been followed up with Global Perspectives, which has adapted the content with regard to cultural sensitivities. In the Chinese context, however, Rai and Deng (2014) note that the majority of the content in four of the most popular ELT books used in mainland China still reflect Western daily life. They refer to a lack of materials that reflect English use in Chinese local contexts and call for customised materials to meet learners’ needs. Many publishers have, in fact, responded to calls for customised materials and some global course books are being co-produced with local publishers to appeal to the ‘local’ market. Macmillan’s Inside Out series, of which over a million copies have been sold (www.insideout.net/new/1-millionbooks-in-china), was developed in partnership with Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press (SFLEP). However, a quote from a lecturer at Hunan Normal University on their website reads: “Inside Out is very different from the oral textbooks edited by Chinese 470
ELF and ELT teaching materials
teachers. Chinese teachers usually use materials from China and their thinking styles are not native enough”. Thus, despite the rhetoric of producing a locally sensitive course book to meet the needs of local students, this lecturer clearly sees the benefit of co-publishing with a Western ELT publisher because of the superiority of native English norms. This is unfortunate, given the fact that many Chinese learners are likely to use the language as a lingua franca (see Wang, Chapter 12 this volume). Insensitivity to learners’ context and the dominance of native English speaking culture in ELT have also been criticised by advocates of the intercultural approach to ELT, who emphasise the social, in addition to the communicative, functions of the language. The last few decades have witnessed increasing attention being paid to the relationship between language and culture in ELT and it was argued that learners should be prepared to interact with people from diverse cultures and develop their Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) (e.g. Byram, 1997), not strive to acquire native English speaker proficiency (see Baker, Chapter 2 this volume). Thus, rather than relying on native English speaker competence, which was often associated with the notion of communicative competence, ICC is based on the premise that learners need to learn how to interact with people form a range of lingua-cultural backgrounds. The debate surrounding the dominance of native English norms and culture in ELT materials is clearly not new to ELF. Further, concerns about the dominance of the ‘Westerncentric’ communicative approach, and its associated methods, have been debated in the field for a number of years. Nevertheless, ELF research most certainly throws a new perspective on language change, and to this debate.
A new perspective on norms and methods As is evident from various chapters in this handbook, ELF research showcases what ELF users ‘do’ with the English language, how they appropriate it when they communicate and what strategies they use to achieve successful communication, including the use of their plurilingual resources. It highlights how ELF users exploit the language creatively and push the boundaries of native English (see Larsen-Freeman, Chapter 4 this volume). In short, ELF research showcases what happens to the language when it functions as a global lingua franca. ELF corpora (e.g. the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE), the English as a lingua franca in academic settings (ELFA) corpus and the Asian Corpus of English (ACE)) clearly offer ELT materials writers, or at least those who base their course books on corpora data, a valuable insight into what ELF looks like and how detracting from the path taken by “authorized pathfinders – the educated native speakers” (Widdowson, 2012, p. 16) does not necessarily result in unsuccessful communication. ELF, then, as a different concept to native English, requires that we reconceptualise the very content of ELT materials; the English language. This clearly has numerous implications for materials writers and publishers. As Dewey states, “One potential impact of ELF research, therefore, is a reorientation of thinking about language in the curriculum, of moving beyond the singularity that typifies current approaches, in order to better encapsulate the diversity and plurality of communication” (2012, p. 164). Dewey notes that incorporating this diversity into pedagogical practice requires that we consider the learners’ context, increase their exposure to the diversity of English use worldwide, engage them in critical classroom discussion about the globalisation of the English language, do not penalise them for “innovative forms that are intelligible” (2012, p. 163) and focus more on communicative strategies. ELF research reveals the need 471
Nicola Galloway
for a poststructuralist view of language and communication that recognises the fluidity of ELF communication, as showcased in various chapters in this handbook. The role of culture in ELT has also been discussed in relation to ELF. Baker’s (2011, 2012a, 2012b) notion of Intercultural Awareness (ICA) builds on Bryam’s (1997) aforementioned concept of ICC, but takes a more dynamic and flexible perspective, moving away from a focus on how national conceptions of culture frame intercultural communication. Baker (2012a) also proposes ways to integrate culture and language into ELT in a non-essentialist manner. In fact, many proposals for change to ELT have been put forward in the literature to make ELT more sensitive to the needs of ELF users. Galloway and Rose (2015) identify six main themes: increase World Englishes and ELF exposure in language curricula; emphasise respect for multilingualism in ELT; raise awareness of Global Englishes in ELT; raise awareness of ELF strategies in language curricula; emphasise respect for diverse culture and identity in ELT, and change English teacher hiring practices. Others have also summarised the conceptual differences between ELF and the traditional English as a foreign language (EFL) approach to ELT (Jenkins, 2006, 2009a, 2009b; Seidlhofer, 2011), highlighting the monolingual bias present in the EFL approach that many ELT materials adopt. The Global Englishes for language teaching (GELT) framework (Galloway, 2011; Galloway and Rose, 2015) builds on such conceptualisations, aiming to draw practitioners’ attention to various aspects of the curriculum, including ELT materials. It aims to offer a framework for practitioners to evaluate and design curricula that reflect the use of ELF. In GELT, the target interlocutors are not necessarily native English speakers, nor are this group of speakers seen to be the owners of the language, the best teachers, the ideal role models, or cultural ambassadors. Instead, lingua-cultural norms are ad hoc and negotiated, as opposed to being fixed; the goals and objectives are mutual intelligibility and mutual understanding, as opposed to achieving native English speaker proficiency; accommodation strategies, such as code-switching, are emphasised more than imitating the NES (see Cogo and House, Chapter 17 this volume, on the pragmatics of ELF). Norms, then, are seen to be flexible and learners are encouraged to use all of their linguistic resources to achieve successful communication. This clearly requires different materials Table 37.1 Global Englishes language teaching (GELT) Traditional ELT
GELT
Target interlocutor Owners
Native English speakers
Target culture Teachers
Fixed native English culture Non-native English speaking teachers (same L1) and native English speaking teachers Native English and concept of Standard English Native English speakers Native English and native English speakers Seen as a hindrance and source of interference
Native English speakers and nonnative English speakers Native English speakers and nonnative English speakers Fluid cultures Non-native English speaking teachers (same L1 and different L1) and native English speaking teachers Diversity, flexibility and multiple forms of competence Successful ELF users Native English, non-native English, ELF and ELF communities and contexts Seen as a resource
Norms Role model Materials First language and own culture
Native English speakers
Source: Galloway and Rose, 2015, p. 208.
472
ELF and ELT teaching materials
to those that present English as a monolithic static entity. Dewey (2012) draws comparisons between this need to reconceptualise the notion of ‘norms’ and the discussion surrounding ELT methods in the post-methods movement. As noted earlier, the field of ELT has been pre-occupied with methods and the constant quest for new approaches and methods resulted in major changes to materials. However, the 1990s witnessed a shift from methods-based pedagogy to post-methods pedagogy, where ELT practitioners were encouraged to be flexible and adopt methods according to the learners’ social, linguistic and cultural context (Kumaravadivelu, 1994) and to engage critically with global textbooks. Dewey (2012) describes the need for a “postnormative” condition, in light of ELF research, which has a “capacity to ‘open up’ our conception of language” (p. 143). As discussed, in addition to the need for flexibility when considering how to teach the language, he refers to the need for context-specific theories of language and communication in accordance with the learners’ needs. GELT also highlights the need for a re-examination of the notion of the target culture in ELT materials (Table 37.1). As Baker (2012, p. 38) notes, “ELF communication is no longer tied to the cultures of the ‘inner-circle’ English speaking countries. Instead, the language and culture relationship is created in each instance of communication depending on the speakers, setting and subject”. Thus, while the debate surrounding the dominance of native English norms and native English culture in ELT materials may not be new, ELF research throws a new perspective on the role of language and culture in such materials.
ELF in ELT materials ELF and ELT materials evaluation and design An examination of the literature in the field of ELT materials design and evaluation reveals that recent years have witnessed the inclusion of sections on the global spread of English. For example, the series editor’s preface to a book entitled Using textbooks effectively (Savova, 2009, p. v) reads: “The series acknowledges the growing numbers of English speakers globally, celebrates locally relevant curricula and materials and emphasises the importance of multilingual and multicultural competencies – a primary goal in teaching English as an international language”. There is, however, no mention of ELF in this book and the first chapter, which stresses the need to expose students to real-life English usage in the business context, does not refer to the wealth of research that has been conducted on business English as a lingua franca (BELF) (see Louhiala-Salminen et al., 2005 and Chapter 25 in this volume). As with Harmer (2007), then, coverage of ELF is merely at the superficial level. This commonly used book on teacher training courses does introduce readers to Kachru’s concentric circles and other related topics, including a brief mention of ELF, but such issues are not related to the methodology to teaching the language related to discussions of methodology and approaches to teaching discussed in the remainder of the book (Cogo and Dewey, 2012). It is not enough to simply introduce readers to ELF as a phenomenon, and the pedagogical implications of research conducted within the ELF research paradigm, such as dealing with linguistic diversity or error correction, requires urgent attention. However, McDonough et al.’s (2013) Materials and Methods in ELT: A Teacher’s Guide. notes the global spread of ELF, pointing out that ELF is “currently seen as a common currency, as it were, to enable communication at a global level”, a situation that “challenges the foundations of traditional views of ‘what constitutes good English’” (p. 47), indicating an acknowledgement in this key text on ELT materials evaluation and design that ELF 473
Nicola Galloway
requires a reconceptualisation of the subject matter of current ELT materials. The authors also refer to Jenkins et al.’s (2011) point that ELF users are successful communicators, not failed native English speakers, and recognise the important use of multilingual repertoires and the use of accommodation strategies in ELF communication. They conclude that “This new perspective of English as a lingua franca” (2013, p. 47) has implications for all aspects of ELT. Similarly, in his book Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching, McGrath (2013, p. 9) notes that [s]pecifically on the level of language, the debate on the role of English (as a lingua franca/international language) may rage over the question of appropriate models and exposure to relevant varieties, but the issues are complex [...] and how this might translate into textbooks is as yet uncertain. Later in the book, referring to Ur (2009), McGrath notes that ELF requires a reconceptualisation of appropriate goals in ELT, appropriate cultural content and a change in materials design. However, he notes that the logic of the need for such change in materials is “inescapable”, yet wonders whether this will “encourage a publisher to dare to be different?” (2013, p. 198). It is unfortunate that this important question is not afforded further discussion. Nevertheless, there is some indication that a few materials writers, on a superficial level at least, are beginning to show signs of daring to be “different” (ibid.), as discussed next. ELF in ELT course books Macmillan’s six-level series, Global, includes excerpts from David Crystal and “Global Voices” audio material. The blurb on the course book (Clandfield and Robb Benne, 2010, 2013, 2014) also notes that the “ground-breaking” course enables learners “to learn English as it is used in our globalised world . . . and to learn about English as an international language”. The inside cover also includes “six quotes that inspired global”, one of which states that “The English language is nobody’s special property. It is the property of the imagination . . . Derek Walcott, Caribbean poet” (Clandfield and Robb Benne, 2010, 2013, 2014). While this may, indeed, appear “ground-breaking” (ibid.) at a first glance, a closer examination reveals that this series does, in fact, focus on native English norms (Galloway and Rose, 2015). Baker (2015) notes that the examples of literature written in English focus on the Anglophone world. Further, in the intermediate course book (Clandfield and Robbe Benne, 2014), only one of Crystal’s short passages focuses on variation in English, and mainly on native English. In this course book, Crystal notes that, “English is . . . changing as people use it to talk about their local situation” (ibid., p. 15), but he only refers to lexical innovations in some “Englishes” and makes no reference to ELF in the passage or the exercises that follow. Further, he notes that, “When businesspeople use English as a lingua franca, problems of communication often arise” (ibid., p. 87), but he introduces learners to the idea of “Basic English and Globish” (ibid.) and even asks them to consider whether they would wish to learn them. The advanced course book (Clandfield and Robbe Benne, 2013) includes passages that acknowledge different varieties of English and a passage on ‘Changing English’, yet this passage focuses on the growth in the use of the present continuous verb form in native varieties of English and Indian English. Thus, despite having the potential to be ‘groundbreaking’ (Clandfield and Robb Benne, 2010, 2013, 2014), this ‘global’ course book does not, in fact, prepare learners to use ELF in global contexts. Ironically, there is no discussion of the use of English in ‘global’ contexts and the ‘function globally’ tasks focus on topics 474
ELF and ELT teaching materials
such as describing an illness or finding things in common. However, the series does feature ‘authentic’ recordings of native and non-native speakers of English. A number of other course books also now include sample audio that contains so-called ‘non-standard’ Englishes. Cambridge University Press’s English for Business Studies (Mackenzie, 2010, p. 6) includes native and non-native English recordings, and the editors note that, “ Listening to non-native speakers of English is important as much of the English you will hear in your professional life will be spoken by people who don’t have English as their first language”. Such material is clearly promising, but a post-normative approach requires much more than simply mentioning the use of English as an international language on the back cover and including some non-native English recordings on the accompanying audio. This surface-level coverage of such issues is concerning, although it is promising that some key scholars in the field of materials evaluation and design do recognise the value of ELF research, but this clearly needs to be given more consideration in the course books themselves. Barrot (2015) lists a number of criticisms of current global course books, such as an overemphasis on linguistic forms and structure, teacher-centred pedagogy and the insensitivity to the learners’ culture and dominance of Western cultures. The failure to acknowledge the global use of ELF should also be added to this list of criticisms of major ELT course books. The mismatch between the language presented in such materials and how the language is actually used in today’s global world is a major issue in the field that needs to be addressed and it is “important that we question whether and to what extent existing published resources are suitable for the teaching of a language whose role is predominantly as a globally diffuse lingua franca” (Cogo and Dewey, 2012, p. 179).
Daring to be different: ELT materials for ELF contexts Given the importance of ELT materials in the learning and teaching process, a number of frameworks have been proposed to help practitioners evaluate materials effectively. Here, I draw on McDonough et al.’s (2013) three stage process of external, internal and overall evaluation and Tomlinson’s (2010) checklist for materials to explore how materials can be designed and evaluated to ensure that they are effective in preparing learners to use ELF. The initial, or external, evaluation involves flicking through the pages of a course book and having a quick glance at the blurb and the table of contents. When assessing a course book’s usefulness, attractiveness and suitability to the context, it clearly vital today to assess the course book’s suitability for ELF contexts. At this stage, questioning whether the blurb acknowledges the use of ELF, whether the target interlocutors and role models presented in the course book are relevant to ELF contexts, whether the book assumes native English ownership, how culture is presented, and whether the students’ own language is presented as a hindrance or as a resource (Table 37.1) is a useful starting place. The second stage involves a more in-depth examination of the content, looking at how it is graded and sequenced, whether it is suitable for different learning styles and whether the materials are engaging (McDonough et al.’s, 2013). Many checklists have been proposed for use at this stage, including Tomlinson’s (2010, p. 83), which proposes that materials should: 1 2 3
expose the learners to language in authentic use; help learners to pay attention to features of authentic input; provide the learners with opportunities to use the target language to achieve communicative purposes; 475
Nicola Galloway
4 5 6
provide opportunities for outcome feedback; achieve impact in the sense that they arouse and sustain the learners’ curiosity and attention; stimulate intellectual, aesthetic and emotional involvement.
This well-known checklist is discussed next in relation to ELF. Exposure to authentic language In an ELF context, the goal is not to acquire native English speaker proficiency (Table 37.1) and a post-normative approach requires a flexible view of linguistic norms. Needs analysis is central and learners’ contexts and their likely use of the language should be taken into account when determining whether or not something is ‘authentic’ or ‘relevant’. Course books should also provide opportunities to encourage learners to critically engage with the content, raise their awareness of the flexibility of ELF communication and that certain examples of the target language may only be one way of saying something or communicating a point. In ELF, norms are ad hoc and negotiated (Table 37.1) and authentic audio recordings of ELF exchanges, such as those on the accompanying website to Jenkins (2015), may be helpful to raise awareness of the global use of ELF, but also expose students to how the language is negotiated in situ. As Tomlinson (2010, p. 95) notes, “it is important that the English the learners are exposed to is used in ways that either represent or replicate the reality of language use in typical English discourse”. Given the fact that the majority of English learners will use ELF, course books should reflect this reality. Of course, those published materials based on ENL corpora will be of use to some, and needs analysis is crucial, but exposure to real-life ELF exchanges will raise learner motivation, raising their awareness that successful communication is not necessarily achieved by adherence to a strict set of native English speaker norms. ELF research prompts us to consider the very notion of “competence and its connection with performance” (Widdowson, 2012, p. 8) and course books should refrain from presenting non-native English speakers as being ‘incompetent’. Of course, the inclusion of ‘non-standard’ language input may be daunting to some and ELF is often subject to a lot of criticism when it is related to ELT pedagogy. Swan (2012, p. 384) states that “ELF research must, however, retain a sense of realism itself. To change attitudes to language teaching is one thing; to change its content is a less straightforward matter”. However, as noted at the start of this chapter, native English corpora has already informed the content of many ELT course books. ELF researchers have also been far more cautious, acknowledging that description should not lead to prescription. Although it has been argued repeatedly, it is important to point out again that the purpose of ELF research is not to establish a teachable model and to prescribe what should be taught in the ELT classroom. GELT simply requires that we consider the learners’ context and their needs when thinking about what target language to include. It is about increasing choice, not reducing it. Help learners pay attention to such input It is important to ensure that ELT materials help learners pay attention to the features of the input in the materials (Tomlinson, 2010). This, of course, does not necessarily mean changing all of the tasks and activities in current CLT course books. Communication strategies are central to ELF and many of the tasks in current communicative course books are suitable. What is needed, however, is a “move away from native English speaker
476
ELF and ELT teaching materials
expertise to a focus on multi-lingual and multi-cultural, or translingual and trans-cultural if you prefer, communicative practices and on negotiation and communicative strategies” (Galloway and Rose, 2015, p. 206). Research into the pragmatics of ELF has revealed the important use of accommodation strategies in ELF communication (Cogo, 2009). Furthermore, ELF research shows how use of such strategies leads to successful communication without having to depend on static, native English norms. Of course, native English speakers also use pragmatic strategies to achieve successful communication, as introduced in several CLT course books, but learners also need to be introduced to the fact that successful ELF users also draw on their plurilingual resources, such as code-switching and translation, to communicate successfully. Such activities should also acknowledge the value of the learners’ own language in helping them to communicate successfully (Table 37.1). ‘Non-standard forms’ should not be viewed as ‘errors’ or signs of incompetence and we need to ensure that ELT materials expose learners to “the communicative practices of multilingual and multicultural speakers to understand ELF communication” (Baker, 2012, p. 46). In essence, then, ELF research highlights both the need for a more pragmatics orientated approach (House, 2012). Materials writers should also be wary of essentialism when designing cultural input and foster learners’ understanding of the fact that culture in intercultural communication is a fluid concept. Opportunities to use the target language to achieve communicative purposes As noted above, incorporating an ELF perspective into ELT materials does not necessarily mean abandoning communicative tasks. Course book writers are encouraged to build on the advancements of methods such as task-based language teaching (TBLT). Task accomplishment, however, should be measured according to how successfully they communicated and not whether they accomplished the task in the way that a native English speaker would. The growth in mobile learning, game-based learning, Skype, social networking sites and online blended learning provides a wealth of opportunities for learners to engage in real-life ELF communication with speakers from all over the world. Materials writers are encouraged to draw on such opportunities and to encourage learners to reflect on their encounters, considering what communication strategies they found useful, and also reflecting on how communication between those from diverse lingua-cultural backgrounds differs to static predetermined NES native English speaker. Such reflection tasks will enable them to understand that pragmatic and lexicogrammatical patterns may vary depending on who they are talking to, or what they are talking about. In essence, it will raise their awareness that ELF is a rather fluid phenomenon and that there is not one correct way of communicating in English. Such activities can be of particular use in linguistically homogenous classrooms. ELF is about communication and, thus, we need to ensure that materials offer students opportunities to use the language, and also reflect on this communication. In the business context, for example, Louhiala-Salminen et al. (2005, p. 419) note that “learners should be trained to see themselves as communicators, with real jobs to perform and needs to fulfill; it is these jobs and needs that should be emphasised, not the language they use to carry them out”. The authors also emphasise listening skills and making future BELF users aware of their own and their interlocutors’ discourse practices, conventions and cultural preferences to help them appreciate the need to be flexible. In order to prepare students to use ELF, materials should help them adapt and apply communicative practices in situ, instead of promoting the idea that successful communication is achieved by adhering to a rigid code. 477
Nicola Galloway
Arouse the learners’ curiosity and attention One way to arouse learners’ curiosity and attention is to encourage them to engage critically with the content (McGrath 2013). As noted above, there is some acknowledgement of the global use of ELF in some key texts in the field of ELT materials design and evaluation, but we need to go further to encourage learners to engage with the discourses that dominate the field, such as standard language ideology. Many current course books cover topics such as racial and cultural diversity and include reading passages on sensitive topics such as the Civil Rights’ movement. However, today, multilingualism, not monolingualism, is the norm and, given the politics associated with the global spread of English, it is important for students to consider the role of English in their own context, the issues that surround this, and issues connected with having a global lingua franca in general. Thus, materials writers and textbook evaluators are urged to consider the content of reading passages and the opportunities afforded for critical discussion of the topics presented. McDonough et al.’s (2013) third stage, the overall evaluation, includes an examination of the course book’s suitability, including consideration of its usability (a core or supplementary text?), generalisability (how much of the material will be useful?) and flexibility (how rigid is the sequencing and grading?). They provide a long list of reasons for adapting materials (2013, pp. 67–68), if the course book does not include enough authentic listening material, for example. When making an overall judgement about whether a course book is suitable for a group of learners, materials writers and ELT practitioners alike are also encouraged to consider its overall suitability for ELF contexts, where learners are preparing to use the language as a global lingua franca.
Conclusion Overall, it is clear from this chapter that the field of ELT materials design and evaluation needs to acknowledge the flourishing research within the ELF paradigm. Headway has certainly been made, and while the growth in locally produced materials is helpful, this chapter concludes with a call for more dialogue between ELF researchers, ELT practitioners and ELT materials writers and publishers. It is hoped that such dialogue would facilitate the movement away from the focus on accuracy and native English towards a more realistic and representative view of how English functions as an international lingua franca. ELT materials writers may fear that daring to be ‘different’ will harm sales, but it is hoped that they will soon realise that offering something groundbreaking and cutting edge, something that equips learners to function in today’s globalised world, will lead to improved sales in the long term. An estimated one billion people are learning English around the globe (Dearden, 2014) and the ELT materials industry is clearly lucrative. The rapid movement towards English medium instruction (EMI) and the fact that the lack of suitable materials is increasingly being highlighted in the literature (Dearden, 2014) are also likely to attract the attention of ELT publishers in years to come. ELF also has implications for teacher education and it is imperative that those materials designed for use on teacher training programmes move beyond a mere coverage of the surface-level issues, particularly given the growing number of postgraduate programmes that include modules on the diversity of English. It is clearly time to act and address this mismatch between the language presented in current ELT course books and how the language actually functions today as a global lingua franca.
478
ELF and ELT teaching materials
Related chapters in this handbook 2 Baker, English as a lingua franca and intercultural communication 4 Larsen-Freeman, Complexity and ELF 12 Wang, Chinese English as a lingua franca: an ideological inquiry 17 Cogo and House, The pragmatics of ELF
Further reading Dewey, M. (2012). Towards a post-normative approach: learning the pedagogy of ELF, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1 (1), pp. 141–170. Galloway, N. and Rose, H. (2015). Introducing Global Englishes. Abingdon: Routledge.
References Baker, W. (2011). Global cultures and identities: refocusing the aims of ELT in Asiathrough intercultural awareness. In Muller, T., Herder, S., Adamson, J. and Brown, P.S. (eds), Innovating EFL Education in Asia. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 23–34. Baker, W. (2012a). From cultural awareness to intercultural awareness: culture in ELT. ELT Journal, 66 (1), pp. 62–70. Baker, W. (2012b). Using e-learning to develop intercultural awareness in ELT: a critical evaluation in a Thai higher education setting. ELT Research Papers, 12 (3), pp. 1–43. Baker, W. (2015). Research into practice: cultural and intercultural awareness. Language Teaching, 48 (1), pp. 130–141. Barrot, J.S. (2015). A sociocognitive-transformative instructional materials design model for second language (L2) pedagogy in the Asia Pacific: development and validation. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24 (2), pp. 283–297. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cambridge English [online] Available at: www.cambridge.org/empower/ [Accessed 2 April 2015]. Cambridge English Corpus. [online] Available at: www.cambridge.org/about-us/what-we-do/ cambridge-english-corpus [Accessed 2 April 2015] and www.cambridge.org/gb/cambridgeenglish/ about-cambridge-english/cambridge-english-corpus [Accessed 2 April 2015]. Clandfield, L. and Robb Benne, R. (2010). Global (Pre-Intermediate). Basingstoke: Macmillan. Clandfield, L. and Robb Benne, R. (2013). Global (Advanced). Basingstoke: Macmillan. Clandfield, L. and Robb Benne, R. (2014). Global (Intermediate). Basingstoke: Macmillan. Cogo, A. (2009). Accommodating difference in ELF Conversations: a study of pragmatic strategies. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. eds, English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press, pp. 254–273. Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a Lingua Franca: Corpus-Driven Investigation. London: Continuum. Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction: a growing global phenomenon. The British Council Research Papers, [online] Available at: www.britishcouncil.org/education/ihe/knowl edge-centre/english-language-higher-education/report-english-medium-instruction [Accessed 2 April 2015]. Dewey, M. (2012). Towards a post-normative approach: learning the pedagogy of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1 (1), pp. 141–170. Doff, A., Thaine, C., Puchta, H., Stranks, J. and Lewis-Jones, P. (2015). Cambridge English Empower: Pre-Intermediate Student’s Book. B1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Galloway, N. (2011). An Investigation of Japanese Students’ Attitudes Towards English. PhD thesis. University of Southampton. Galloway, N. and Rose, H. (2015). Introducing Global Englishes. Abingdon: Routledge.
479
Nicola Galloway
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching (4th edn). Harlow: Longman. House, J. (2012). Teaching oral skills in English as a lingua franca. In Alsagoff, L., McKay, S.L., Hu, G. and Renandya, W.A. (eds), Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language. Routledge: New York, pp. 186–205. Inside Out. New Inside Out. 1 million books in China. [online] Available at: www.insideout.net/ new/1-million-books-in-china and www.insideout.net/new/about/course [Accessed 2 April 2015]. Jenkins, J. (2006). Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16 (2), pp. 137–162. Jenkins, J. (2009a). World Englishes: A Resource Book for Students. New York: Routledge. Jenkins, J. (2009b). Exploring attitudes towards English as a lingua franca in the East Asian context. In Murata, K. and Jenkins, J. (eds), Global Englishes in Asian Context: Current and Future Debates. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 40–58. Jenkins, J. (2012). English as a lingua franca from the classroom to the classroom. ELT Journal, 66 (4), pp. 486–494. Jenkins, J. (2015) Global Englishes: A Resource Book for Students, 3rd edn. Abingdon: Routledge. Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44 (3), pp. 281–315. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (e)merging strategies for Second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (1), pp. 27– 48. Louhiala-Salminen, L., Charles, M. and Kankaanranta, A. (2005). English as a lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: two case companies. English for Specific Purposes, 24 (4), pp. 401–421. McCarthy, M., McCarten, J. and Sandiford, H. (2005). Touchstone: 1A. Student’s Book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McDonough, J., Shaw, C. and Masuhara, H. (2013). Materials and Methods in ELT: A Teacher’s Guide, 3rd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. McGrath, I. (2013). Teaching Materials and the Roles of EFL/ESL Teachers: Practice and Theory. London: Bloomsbury. Mackenzie, I. (2010). English for Business Studies. A Course for Business Studies and Economics Students. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rai, L. and Deng, C., 2014. Globalisation and English language education in Chinese context. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 14 (1), pp. 1–18. Richards, J. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Savova, L. (ed.) (2009) Using Textbooks Effectively: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swan, M. (2012). ELF and EFL: are they really different? Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1 (2), pp. 379–389. Tomlinson, B. (2010). Principles of effective materials development. In Harwood, N. ed., English Language Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 81–108. Ur, P. 2009. English as a lingua franca and some implications for English teachers. Plenary Dress at TESOl France, 2009, [online] Available at www.tesol-france.org/Colloquim09/Ur_Plenary_ Handouts.pdf [Accessed 8 September 2011]. Widdowson, H.G. (2012). ELF and the inconvenience of established concepts. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1 (1), pp. 5–26.
480
38 ELF and Content and Language Integrated Learning Julia Hüttner
Introduction This handbook is devoted to English as a lingua franca (ELF) and hence “any use of English among speakers of different first languages for whom English is the communicative medium of choice, and often the only option” (Seidlhofer, 2011, p. 7), and the chapters presented give evidence of the unprecedented use of ELF in all manner of settings, both geographical and contextual. This chapter, however, addresses Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and so an “educational approach where subjects such as geography or biology are taught through the medium of a foreign language, typically to students participating in some form of mainstream education at primary, secondary but also tertiary level” (Dalton-Puffer et al., 2010, p. 1) and so its inclusion here might seem incongruous at first sight. After all, even though CLIL participants choose to use English for their education, they do clearly have another option, namely the main educational language of their context, which is typically the first language (L1) of the majority of CLIL participants. So CLIL English language practices in the classroom are typically not lingua franca uses. Nevertheless, I would argue that there are crucial points of contact (and some of clear contrast) between CLIL and ELF, which have so far been little explored (but see DaltonPuffer and Smit, 2016) and where a greater understanding might be of mutual benefit to researchers of CLIL and ELF, and to educational practitioners. This contribution will start by providing an overview of CLIL and its main research findings, followed by a section aiming to highlight areas where ELF impinges on CLIL in the areas of language policy, beliefs and practices. For reasons of space and focus, I do not address CLIL at the tertiary level (but see Smit 2010 and Chapter 31 this volume) or non-mainstream English-medium programmes, such as international or European schools.
CLIL: definition and overview of research CLIL is a cover term for a variety of educational practices where non-language subjects are taught through a foreign language, typically to school-age students. It has been defined as “a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the 481
Julia Hüttner
learning and teaching of both content and language” (Coyle et al., 2010), but research into the varied CLIL practices shows clearly that despite this dual-focus aim, pedagogic reality varies. Frequently, this integration is not encapsulated in the individual CLIL classroom, but at best in the overall educational experience of students, who usually enjoy focused foreign language teaching in addition to the CLIL classes, which are in most cases staffed, scheduled and assessed in terms of their subject content. There have been attempts at capturing the potentials of introducing CLIL to the curriculum by reference to the conceptual framework of the “4Cs” (Coyle, 2007), i.e. content (subject matter), cognition, (thinking processes), communication (language) and cultural (intercultural awareness), but the extent to which these dimensions have become part of CLIL curricula varies tremendously. These initial remarks already point to the fact that CLIL cannot be described as one uniform pedagogical practice, but that it is rather an umbrella for a variety of practices, which share some ‘family resemblance’ and are heavily influenced by contextual factors. For the sake of clarity, it is also necessary to be explicit about the fact that CLIL shares aspects of other types of bilingual education (see Cenoz et al., 2014; Dalton-Puffer et al., 2014). Like in many educational areas, fuzzy boundaries between practices exist, and it seems most helpful to consider various types of bilingual education along continua addressing the other languages involved in teaching, the focus of teaching (language and/or content), the qualifications of teachers in terms of language and/or content, the situation of the language used and the learners in terms of minority, majority or foreign language and the intensity of the teaching programme. This contribution will focus only on CLIL at secondary and primary levels of education. Even though the term CLIL has gained currency in Asia, Latin America and Australia, it remains most closely associated with the European educational landscape. Its coinage in the 1990s aimed to encompass a programmatic, language political standpoint towards fostering European multilingualism through providing innovative educational alternatives by moving bilingual education into European educational practice, without the connotations of elite bilingualism (and elite schools) or of the discourse of “problems” associated with bilingual education for migrant children. Very quickly, the acronym CLIL “acquired some characteristics of a brand name, complete with the symbolic capital of positive description: innovative, modern, effective, efficient and forward-looking” (Dalton-Puffer et al., 2010, p. 3) and has enjoyed tremendous uptake across Europe at all educational levels. CLIL practices found their way into schools both on the basis of bottom-up initiatives of teachers and parents, for instance in Austria, and as a result of explicit educational policies, as in the Netherlands (www.europeesplatform.nl) and in several Spanish regions (Dalton-Puffer and Smit, 2013). With a slight time-delay to the booming of CLIL practices, CLIL research began to flourish and is now represented in several groups and initiatives, such as the CLIL research network of AILA (http://clil-ren.org/). Arguably the main strand of CLIL research is in studying the outcomes of CLIL on student achievements, primarily in the foreign language, reflecting the positioning of CLIL as a language learning and teaching endeavour. Many of these studies take the form of comparisons between students attending CLIL classes and those in regular education, and this set-up merits a few critical remarks. Especially in the beginning, but still continuing in many contexts, CLIL was an option for students, so there is an expectation that students in CLIL classes are more motivated and better foreign language users than their non-CLIL counterparts to start with. An additional difficulty lies in the fact that CLIL is complementary to regular EFL classes, so it is not possible to say what CLIL on its own would achieve in terms of student language learning, but only what it achieves in addition to regular EFL. 482
ELF and CLIL
The expectation based on this situation is that CLIL learners outperform their non-CLIL peers, and this is largely borne out in research (see e.g., Admiraal et al., 2006). A closer look at which language areas most benefit from CLIL instruction is arguably more interesting, and seems to highlight that oral proficiency and vocabulary benefit the most (see e.g. Agustín-Llach and Canga Alonso, 2016; Heras and Lasagabaster, 2014; Jexenflicker and Dalton-Puffer, 2010). Despite the generally positive view of the effects of CLIL on vocabulary, Tragant et al. (2016) suggest that although CLIL science materials provide more challenging vocabulary input, the learning of productive vocabulary is more successful in the ELT context for their primary school participants. Later research aimed at addressing the content learning of CLIL students; a challenging endeavour given the fact that there are many contexts where there are no standardised tests at schools in content subjects and even more contextual variation in terms of which content is taught. Findings in this area are overall rather mixed, with research citing improved content learning through CLIL (e.g. van de Craen et al., 2007), studies that indicate less content learning through CLIL (e.g. Lim Falk, 2008) and a cluster of research suggesting an overall zero effect of CLIL on content learning (e.g.; Admiraal et al., 2006; Jäppinen, 2005). Clearly more structured and large-scale studies are needed in this area, with key involvement of content specialists. A growing cluster of CLIL research addresses classroom discourse in CLIL (e.g. DaltonPuffer, 2007; Jakonen and Morton, 2013; Llinares et al., 2012; Nikula, 2010) and highlights the diversity of roles that English and other languages take in CLIL learning and teaching. It shows the range of interactions and genres that students and teachers engage in, as well as the adaptions to pedagogy which result from an increased language awareness. Finally, there is increased research into teacher and learner beliefs in CLIL (e.g. Hüttner et al., 2013; Skinnari and Bovellan, 2016), which establishes the perception on this pedagogic innovation, including motivations for engaging in it, and investigates the effects on (content) teacher identity of engaging in CLIL. Some of the findings of these research areas will be discussed below. In the following section, I will address areas of CLIL where ELF can be seen to be influential; an area hardly addressed in CLIL research so far. CLIL can be regarded as one of the biggest innovations in European language education and so in many ways as an instance of educational language policy. As mentioned above, however, this is only at some levels related to overt language policies, i.e. in terms of European Commission guidelines. Thus, I argue for viewing CLIL as an exemplar of extended language policy and will structure the discussion roughly by addressing the three elements identified by Spolsky (2004) as constituting language policy, i.e. language management, language beliefs and language practices.
CLIL and ELF: points of contact at policy level Language management CLIL has from its beginning been linked with explicit European language policy, which aims at fostering the ideal of a multilingual European citizen. The European Commission’s 1995 White Paper sets out that the widely quoted “mother tongue plus 2” policy, or to be precise the aim that “upon completing initial training every [European] should be able to communicate in two Community foreign languages” (European Commission, 1995, p. 47). Furthermore, this White Paper states that the way towards achieving this aim is for school students to “study certain subjects in the first foreign language learned” (ibid.), i.e. through CLIL. 483
Julia Hüttner
One of the most notable facts about the EU official policy documents lies in their complete negation of any difference between English as a CLIL language, or German, French, Estonian or Bulgarian. This is in line with other European initiatives, like the Common European Framework for Languages (CFR), which does not distinguish between target languages and so ignores Graddol’s (2006) view that English proficiency is gaining a similar status to computing skills, i.e. a requirement for all professionals, similarly to advanced literacy and numeracy). That an attitude of ‘all school languages are equal’ might be unhelpful to all has been argued by Seidlhofer (2003), who proposes viewing English as separate in the canon of foreign languages at schools, and so ensuring safe ecological space for other languages. However, despite such an ELF-ignoring attitude of pan-EU policies on CLIL, the interim official levels of the individual EU members states or specific regional educational authorities has largely been void of any substantial provision of CLIL policies (with the exception of Italy, Spain and the Netherlands), and so the interpretation of this EU guideline favouring CLIL as part of multilingualism strategy is very open. In fact, bottom-up CLIL movements have – without sanctions from European policy-makers – moved towards re-branding the official EU aim as learning to use the “L1 plus the language of wider communication = English” (Dalton-Puffer and Smit, 2016), and so taking a much more ELF-aware position.1 Language beliefs This somewhat diverse interpretation of CLIL policy in the local context points towards the importance of understanding Spolsky’s second area of extended language policy, i.e. language beliefs, in the uncovering of the links between ELF and CLIL. Language beliefs cover the complex cluster of intuitive, subjective knowledge about the nature of language, language use and language learning, taking into account both cognitive and social dimensions, as well as cultural assumptions (cf. Barcelos, 2003, p. 8ff). The importance of considering beliefs in language teaching enterprises has been highlighted with regards to several aspects; these include decision-making in the classroom (Borg, 2006; Graus and Coppen, 2015), uptake and evaluation of new pedagogical approaches (Hüttner et al., 2013; Tan, 2011) and the success or failure of teacher education programmes and activities (Borg, 2011; Freeman and Richards, 1996). The importance of understanding CLIL teachers’ beliefs has been acknowledged (Dalton-Puffer and Nikula, 2014, p. 118), but is not (yet) one of the major research foci. As is to be expected in research on a pedagogical innovation, the questions of more general language beliefs have rarely featured in CLIL research. This relates importantly to the issue of what language stakeholders envisage to be the “L” in CLIL and here findings suggest that the views expressed in the European policy papers of CLIL as a tool fostering multilingualism or of the more general cognitive and cultural benefits as expressed in the CLIL compendium find little reflection in practice. By contrast, English is considered the main and in some sense ‘most obvious’ CLIL language, and participants frequently link the benefits of CLIL to the (perceived) benefits of learning to use English in a manner that relates to its position in the world, i.e. to its use as a lingua franca with a preponderance of use in work-related positions. On a very general level, this specific position given to English is shown in the responses to the Eurobarometer in 2012 on attitudes to languages, where 79 per cent of Europeans responded that English is the most useful foreign language to learn, with the next positions at 20 per cent held equally by German and French (European Commission, 2012). 484
ELF and CLIL
Support for this is found in Otwinowska and Forys’ (2015) study on 10- and 11-year-old Polish CLIL learners, who responded positively to the statement that “English is an important language and I want to learn it well”, i.e. at point 4.9 and 5.7 on a 6-point Likert scale, with 6 constituting the ‘strongly agree’ option. A question remains, however, whether this acknowledgement of the importance of English has results on the conceptualisation of English as native language, lingua franca or something else. One way into a better understanding of the views on what kind of English is used in CLIL can be sought by delving into studies of CLIL teachers’ and students’ views of their English proficiency and targets in CLIL. More specifically, this focuses on their views towards the need of using or targeting native-like English, which is partly reflected in beliefs surrounding correction practices. As is to be expected in an educational approach that is far from uniform, diverse responses emerge in this respect, with some differences apparently related to the age of the CLIL learners involved. Thus, at primary level, Bovellan (2014) found that CLIL teachers in Finland embraced a native-speaker ideology and described their own English proficiency with “insecure and dismissive terms” (p. 174). Such a clear rejection of any non-native language use is not replicated at secondary levels of education, where Moate (2011), again in Finland, offers a more differentiated picture of upper-secondary CLIL teacher beliefs on their English. In the initial phases of their CLIL practice, some participants reported fear and insecurity about their use of English, going so far as to talk of parts of their brain being “paralysed” (Moate, 2011, p. 337). With more experience of CLIL, however, the same participants reported a change in their relationship to English and towards themselves as L2 English users, now reporting a high level of acceptance of ‘mistakes’ and other features of ‘Finnish English’, indications of a weakening of a native speaker ideology. In the words of one participants: “I do speak [English] now. I commit mistakes all the time, but so it goes” (Moate, 2011, p. 341) leading to the conclusion that “native language skills cannot be demanded of teachers or students” (ibid.). Dalton-Puffer in her study of Austrian secondary CLIL classes found teachers to agree on the notion that “the great advantage of CLIL is that students do not need to fear being sanctioned for language errors” (2007, p. 227), unlike in ELT classes. That language mistakes are not much of an issue was also expressed by the Dutch CLIL teachers in Denman et al.’s (2013) study, who all concurred in adopting the teaching strategy of “encouraging students to carry on if they make mistakes” (p. 296) and finding it to be working well. However, such a rejection of native-speaker targets is not ubiquitous and not necessarily mirrored in teaching practices; Dalton-Puffer (2007, p. 229) reports on teachers systematically correcting EFL-type mistakes, such as third-person -s and adverb/adjective, even though the same teachers were keen to point out that “it was the content that was important”. In upper level secondary education, a link to ELF is made in stakeholders’ perception of the (professionally oriented) English learnt through CLIL and an increase the in the employability of students. This use of English is sometimes linked to envisaged professional interactions with other non-native speakers of English . In Hüttner et al.’s (2013) study on the beliefs of Austrian CLIL teachers and students in professional colleges, the international aspect of future professional lives of the students, enacted with English (as a lingua franca), became a major justification for CLIL. In the words of a content teacher: “a vocational school trains for the job and with all this globalisation it is actually unthinkable to manage without English” (Hüttner et al., 2013, p. 279). This connection between CLIL, English (as a lingua franca) and employability is made also in the context of Hong Kong (Li, 2002). The fact that this professional practice is not linked to native-speaker norms is apparent in the critical view of many content teachers on the potential of native-speaker assistants 485
Julia Hüttner
or ELT teachers as “being out of [their] depth” when teaching students, e.g., how to write chemistry reports. Nevertheless, there is a clear realm for native-speaker ideology in these CLIL participants’ minds and that is the ELT classroom, which is constructed largely as complementary to CLIL. While participants positioned the language learning and use in CLIL as relevant to professional futures (at times enacted through ELF), ELT was seen as addressing more personal language needs, but also the place where you “actually learn the language”. One student participant summarise this view as: “the technical stuff is one thing, where you do technology in English, and the other thing is the English lessons where you talk about your hobbies” (Hüttner et al. 2013, p. 279) The current research base on CLIL stakeholder beliefs is still somewhat thin, but a type of continuum seems to emerge, where ELT is positioned as encompassing clear native-speaker orientation, in terms of language use, role differential between teachers and students, and correction practices, followed by primary school CLIL, where CLIL teachers feel the pressure of conforming to native-speaker standards and the more different secondary level CLIL, where teachers become more relaxed in their position as content experts first and foremost, with room for language practices more akin to ELF. However, the presence of disciplinary norms in language use continues in these settings. CLIL and ELF: the practice level The position of other languages While it is an ‘obvious truth’ that most ELF speakers have multilingual repertoires, it is only very recently that Jenkins (2015) argued for a reconceptualization of ELF as “English as a multilingual franca” by pointing out that “the relationship between English and other languages in respect of the multilingualism of most ELF users and the ‘multicompetence of the community’” (p. 59) has so far not received due focus in ELF research (but see Cogo, 2012; Kalocsai, 2014). While I agree with Jenkins that a “more multilingual turn” in ELF conceptualisation is beneficial to our understanding of the complexity of ELF, there remain distinct differences with the bilingual practices present in CLIL. One of the main differences between ELF and CLIL interactions lies not in the fact that in both cases speakers have multilingual repertoires, but in the known shared linguistic repertoires. Thus, in typical ELF situations, English is the one language participants know they share from the outset of an interaction, whereas in CLIL from the outset participants know that the shared repertoire is the local educational language plus English. Given that the majority of CLIL programmes involve a maximum of 50 per cent of instruction taught through the foreign language, and the strong tendency for CLIL to start at secondary school level, high levels of competence of all participants in the local educational language exist and so all CLIL participants can and do resort to this language. Thus, from the outset, CLIL constitutes an (acknowledged) bilingual situation. Moore and Nikula (2016) even suggest that CLIL should stand for content and languages integrated learning, to acknowledge the position of the L1 in this learning endeavour. As a way of conceptualising this bilingual practice I will here adopt the notion of translanguaging (García and Li, 2014), which “posits that bilinguals have one linguistic repertoire from which they select features strategically to communicate effectively” (García, 2012, p. 1, emphasis in original). In line with ELT classrooms, an area of a considerable amount of L1 use in CLIL concerns interactions in the regulative register, which often relate to issues of classroom management. Given the presence of such regulative register only in 486
ELF and CLIL
educational contexts, similar practices are not observed in typical ELF interactions. DaltonPuffer (2007, p. 102) in her study of Austrian secondary classrooms found that student questions relating to the location and use of materials or to aspects of organising tasks and activities were by default in the L1. Similarly, teachers reported using the L1 for a number of regulative functions, but also to intensify content learning, check understanding and make cross-linguistic comparisons (Gierlinger, 2015; Lasagabaster, 2013). In contrast to many ELT classrooms, Moore and Nikula (2016) found in a study that brought together extant data from secondary CLIL classrooms in Austria, Finland and Spain that the use of the L1 by students was rarely criticised or forbidden by CLIL teachers as long as it displayed a clear orientation to the ongoing interaction, reflecting patterns of behaviour typical in bilingual communities, and arguably also some ELF interactions. An area of some overlap with ELF interactions lies in the apparently greater acceptance of bilingual word-play and innovation. Kontio and Sylvén’s (2015) study on CLIL in vocational schools in Sweden shows the boys’ use of bilingual language play, as in the following exchange, where the students try to figure out how to use hydraulic power and levers to get a flywheel to move. Extract 1 (Engineering workshop) 1 Rob 2 Ken 3 Ben 4 Rob 5 Ken
Men ((Sw: But) Men ((Sw: But) Ja (.) men (Sw: Yeah, but) Men vad (Sw: But, what) Men in blue ((smiley voice))
The humour in this interaction relies on the bilingual homonymy of ‘men’, but line 5 also shows how the students appear to create an identity – as working men in their blue boiler suits? – for themselves through English. Moore and Nikula (2016) report on neologisms, based on mergers of resources of both languages, produced by teachers and students in CLIL, including “protestantist”, and “patented agency” (for patent office). In the example given below, the Spanish student creates a neologism for the English ‘mop’ from the Spanish ‘fregona’. Extract 2 (Geography) 1 S: that instead of the (.) eh men that have to sweep with 2 water all the city (.) we have not to (.) eh (.) make dirty 3 the city 4 T: aha () very good (.) so taking care about that (.) very 5 good M (.) something else 6 S: no cleaning the city with fregons ((children laugh)) 7 no (.) no 8 T: ok ok [our … our language inventor] 9 S: [with with with water ] 10 SS: Fregons fregons @@ (Moore and Nikula, 2016, p. 226) One major use of translanguaging in CLIL relates to subject-specific terminology, where frequently translations of terms are sought and offered, sometimes in lieu of and sometimes in addition to paraphrases or explanations in English. To some degree, this is a time-efficient 487
Julia Hüttner
practice to ensure that key concepts are clear to the students, and often used as a short-cut by students (Dalton-Puffer, 2007, p. 150). The following example illustrates the use of translation within definitions. Extract 3 (History) 1 T: what is a peace treaty 2 S1: ein Friedensvertrag (G: a peace treaty) 3 S2: Friedensvertrag 4 T: Friedensvertrag
(Dalton-Puffer, 2007, p. 137)
In contrast to typical ELT classrooms, there are instances of such translanguaging surrounding technical terms initiated by teacher uncertainty with regard to the English term. Such insecurity and also the pattern of students providing the required English terms seems, however, not to be considered a threat to teacher’s professional self-image, something that was also borne out in Hüttner et al. (2013). The example below from a Finnish classroom shows the teacher using a genuine question in line 5 and accepting the student’s contribution and corrections in this instance of a joint construction of (language) knowledge. Extract 4 (Biology) 1 T: what’s [left] from the gills is called um the finnish 2 S3: [oh] 3 T: word is nielurisat (F: tonsils) [or] kitarisat (F: adenoids) 4 S1: [tonsils] 5 T: what are [they in en-] 6 S1: [the tonsils] tonsils 7 T: tadgies ((misheard)) 8 S1: tonsils 9 T: tosins 10 S1: tonsils 11 T: tonsils (Moore Nikula, 2016, p. 224) Finally, the use of translanguaging reflects an educational aim, acknowledged by many CLIL teachers, of ensuring that students are bilingual in terms of their competence in subject-specific language. In the example below from a history lesson for 13–14-year-olds in Spain, we can see how technical Spanish terms are made a legitimate teaching object in a CLIL class. Extract 5 (History) 1 T: Why can’t you use the same land without leaving it to rest? 2 S: Because you plant different things. 3 T: Good. By planting different things which need different 4 substances from the earth. Do you know in Spanish? 5 Does anybody know the Spanish word for when the land rests? 6 S: erm 7 T: La tierra esta en … (Sp: The land is in …) 488
ELF and CLIL
8 S: ba 9 T: en? 10 S: barbecho ( Sp: fallow) 11 T: Barbecho good good 12 Esta es la palabra espanola (Sp: This is the Spanish word) 13 that many of you don’t know but you have to learn it too. 14 Spanish words OK? (Llinares et al., 2012, p. 35) To summarise, we see that while both CLIL and ELF are potentially bilingual practices, CLIL is so in an acknowledged fashion with clear roles for ‘the other’ language, both interactionally and pedagogically. A different set of norms? Focus on disciplinary language in CLIL The final point above links to another area of both contrast and contact to ELF, namely the focus on subject-specific language in CLIL. As CLIL has, by definition, an agenda of fostering the learning of disciplinary content, it is hardly surprising that the concurrent vocabulary, genres and quite generally, “particular ways of thinking about and doing” (Leung and Street, 2012, p. 9) of a subject loom large (see e.g. Llinares et al., 2012; Llinares and Morton, 2010; Nikula, 2012, 2015) Thus, while we have seen that many CLIL teachers, especially at secondary levels, are wary of positioning their own or their students’ target as native-speaker English, another norm, namely that of the discipline, seems to be strongly present in CLIL classrooms, even if some of the linguistic or generic features related to this might not be openly in teachers’ or students’ awareness. Hüttner and Smit (2014) argue that the increased exposure and the provision of learning possibilities of subject- or discipline-specific language is one of the main potentials that CLIL can offer. By its very nature, (semi)-technical vocabulary and disciplinary genres are naturally integrated into CLIL, a task much harder to achieve in general ELT. The one area where currently much of the work on disciplinary language in CLIL is located relates to vocabulary learning, where some studies suggest a success of CLIL in this regard (see e.g. Agustín-Llach and Canga Alonso, 2016; Gablasova, 2014) In the area of genre competence, research has addressed CLIL learners’ productions from a perspective of systemic functional linguistics (e.g. Whittaker et al., 2011; Llinares et al., 2012), with findings here suggesting developmental patterns of CLIL students towards, for instance, more appropriate uses of nominalisation patterns in history genres. Dalton-Puffer has recently (2013) suggested the concept of ‘cognitive discourse functions’ to describe the academic language use in CLIL classrooms, and empirical work using these is under way. Suggestions for using genre as a guiding principle for CLIL curricula and a means of integrating language and content have also been made (e.g. Lorenzo, 2013), but awareness and adoption of genres in CLIL curricula is still sketchy. While research into this area is still in its infancy, initial findings suggest that CLIL provides improved learning affordances for disciplinary language use.
Conclusion This contribution set out to highlight the nexus between CLIL and ELF and, ideally, to spark more mutual interest into the respective research fields. In many ways, CLIL can be seen as a 489
Julia Hüttner
set of localised educational responses to the rise of English as a global lingua franca, acknowledged in stakeholder beliefs, even if official EU policies continue to negate any unique status of English. On a level of interactional practice, a key difference between CLIL and ELF lies in CLIL being clearly educational, where the use of English is not a necessity, but a choice made to foster language learning. However, in elements such as the acceptance of language innovation, a partial rejection of native-speaker English as the only valid educational target, CLIL resemble practices found in ELF. In addition, the focus on content and the change in the teacher and student role relationship with regard to language expertise help enrich the educational uses of English at school. In terms of norm-orientation, while native-like English is questioned to some extent in CLIL, another set of norms, related to the discipline, emerge. While not focused on in ELF research so far, the position of professional or disciplinary discourse norms and conventions might be worth a closer look from the ELF perspective. Practices in CLIL vary enormously, so any conclusions to be drawn from the studies reported here are tentative, but CLIL does seem to have the potential of being the ‘missing link’ in English language provision at school between the purely educational, and still largely native-speaker oriented ELT classroom, and the reality of a professional, globalised world, where English is of paramount importance – and where in many cases this English is English as a lingua franca.
Note 1 In most cases, this unfortunately does not lead to an awareness of a need for other or additional policies to foster multilingualism in other languages than English or to maintain heritage languages.
Related chapters in this handbook 31 Smit, Beyond monolingualism in higher education: a language policy account 32 Murata and Iino, EMI in higher education: an ELF perspective
Further reading Coyle, D. Hood, P. and Marsh, D., (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dalton-Puffer, C., (2011). Content and language integrated learning: from practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, pp. 182–204. Llinares, A., Morton, T. and Whittaker, R., (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P. and Smit, U., eds (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
References Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G. and de Bot, K., (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation 12, pp. 75–93. Agustin-Llach, M.P. and Canga Alonso, A., (2016). Vocabulary growth in young CLIL and traditional EFL learners: evidence from research and implications for education. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(2), pp. 211–227.
490
ELF and CLIL
Barcelos, A.M.F., (2003). Researching beliefs about SLA: a critical review. In P. Kalaja and Barcelos, A.M.F., eds, Beliefs about SLA: new approaches. New York: Springer. pp. 7–33. Borg, S., (2006). Teacher cognition and language education. London: Continuum. Borg, S., (2011). The impact of in-service education on language teachers’ beliefs. System, 39, pp. 370–380. Bovellan, E., (2014). Teachers’ beliefs about learning and language as reflected in their views of teaching materials for content and language integrated learning (CLIL). PhD. University of Jyvaskyla. Cenoz, J., Genesee, F. and Gorter, D., (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35, pp. 243–262. Cogo, A., (2012). ELF and super-diversity: a case study of ELF multilingual practices from a business context. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2, pp. 287–313. Coyle, D., (2007). Content and language integrated learning: towards a connected agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, pp. 625–646. Coyle, D., Hood, P. and Marsh, D., (2010). CLIL: content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dalton-Puffer, C., (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising contentlanguage integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), pp. 216–253. Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F. and Nikula, T., (2014). “You can stand under my umbrella”: immersion, CLIL and bilingual education: a response to Cenoz, Genesee and Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35, pp. 213–218 Dalton-Puffer, C. and Nikula, T., (2014). Guest editorial content and language integrated learning. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), pp. 117–122. Dalton-Puffer, C. Nikula, T. and Smit, U., eds, (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Dalton-Puffer, C. and Smit, U., (2013). Content and language integrated learning: a research agenda. Language Teaching, 46(4), pp. 545–559. Dalton-Puffer, C. and Smit, U., (2016). Content and language integrated learning and ELF. In Pitzl, M. and Osimk-Teasdale, R., eds, English as a lingua franca: perspectives and prospects. Berlin and Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 235–244. Denman, J., Tanner, R. and de Graaff, R., (2013). CLIL in junior vocational secondary education: challenges and opportunities for teaching and learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16, pp. 285–300. European Commission, (1995). White paper on education and training: teaching and learning: towards the learning society. Brussels: European Commission. European Commission, (2012). Europeans and their languages (Eurobarometer). Brussels: European Commission. Freeman, D. and Richards, J.C., (1996). Teacher learning in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gablasova, D., (2014). Issues in the assessment of bilingually educated students: expressing subject knowledge through L1 and L2. The Language Learning Journal, 42, pp. 151–164. Gablasova, D., (2015). Learning and retaining specialized vocabulary from textbook reading: comparison of learning outcomes through L1 and L2. The Modern Language Journal, 98, pp. 976–991. García, O., (2012). Theorizing translanguaging for educators. In C. Celic and K. Seltzer, eds, Translanguaging: a CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators. New York: CUNY-NYSIEB, pp. 1–6. García, O. and Li Wei, (2014). Translanguaging: language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gierlinger, E., (2015). “You can speak German, Sir”: on the complexity of teachers’ L1 use in CLIL. Language and Education, 29(4), pp. 347–368. Graddol, D., (2006). English next. London: British Council. Graus, J. and Copppen, P.A., (2015). Student teacher beliefs on grammar instruction. Language Teaching Research, 20, pp. 571–559. Heras, A. and Lasagabaster, D., (2014). The impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 19, pp. 70–88.
491
Julia Hüttner
Hüttner, J., Dalton-Puffer, C. and Smit, U., (2013). The power of beliefs: lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, pp. 267–284. Hüttner, J. and Smit, U., (2014). CLIL (content and language integrated learning): the bigger picture. A response to: A. Bruton. 2013. CLIL: some of the reasons why … and why not. System, 41, pp. 587–597. Jakonen, T. and Morton, T., (2013). Epistemic search sequences in peer interaction in a content-based language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), pp. 73–94. Jäppinen, A.K., (2005). Thinking and content learning of mathematics and science as cognitional development in CLIL: teaching through a foreign language in Finland. Language and Education, 19, pp.147–168. Jenkins, J. (2015) Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice 2, pp. 49–85. Jexenflicker, S. and Dalton-Puffer, C., (2010) The CLIL differential: comparing the writing of CLIL and non-CLIL students in higher colleges of technology. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula and U. Smit, eds, Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 169–190. Kalocsai, K., (2014). Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kontio, J. and Sylvén, L.K., (2015). Language alternation and language norm in vocational content and language integrated learning. Language Learning Journal, 43, pp. 271–285. Lasagabaster, D., (2013). The use of the L1 in CLIL classes: the teachers’ perspective. [e-journal] Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 6(2). Available through: http:// laclil.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/LACLIL/article/view/3148 [last accessed: 2 November 2016]. Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, J.M., (2009). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes. [e-journal] International CLIL Research Journal, 1. Available through: www.icrj.eu/12/article1. html [last accessed: 2 November 2016]. Li, D.C.S., (2002). Hong Kong parents’ preference for English-medium education: passive victims of imperialism or active agents of pragmatism? In A. Kirkpatrick, ed, Englishes in Asia: communication, identity power and education. Melbourne: Language Australia, pp. 29–62. Lim Falk, M., (2008). Svenska i engelskspråkig skolmiljö. Ämnesrelaterat språkbruk i två gymnasieklasser. Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm Studies in Scandinavian Philology. Leung, C. and Street, B.V., (2012). English in the curriculum: norms and practices. In C. Leung and B.V. Street, eds, English: a changing medium of instruction. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 1–21. Llinares, A. and Morton, T., (2010). Historical explanations as situated practice in content and language integrated learning. Classroom Discourse, 1, pp. 46–65. Llinares, A, Morton, T. and Whittaker, R., (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lorenzo, F. (2013). Genre-based curricula: multilingual academic literacy in content and language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), pp. 375–388. Moate, J.M., (2011). The impact of foreign language mediated teaching on teachers’ sense of professional integrity in the CLIL classroom. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), pp. 333–346. Moore, P. and Nikula, T., (2016). Translanguaging in CLIL classrooms. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore and U. Smit, eds, Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 211–234. Nikula, T. (2010). Effects of CLIL on a teacher’s classroom language use. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula and U. Smit, eds, Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 105–123. Nikula, T., (2012). On the role of peer discussions in the learning of subject-specific language use in CLIL. In E. Alcon and M.P. Safont, eds, Discourse and language learning across L2 instructional contexts. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 133–153. Nikula, T., (2015). Hands-on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language use and learning. System, 54, pp. 14–27.
492
ELF and CLIL
Otwinowska, A. and Forys, M., (2015). They learn the CLIL way, but do they like it? Affectivity and cognition in upper-primary CLIL classes. [e-access] International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Available through: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 13670050.2015.1051944 [last accessed: 2 November 2016]. Seidlhofer, B., (2003). A concept of ‘international English’ and related issues: from ‘real’ English to ‘realistic’ English. [online]. Available from: www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/SeidlhoferEN. pdf [last accessed 15 May 2016]. Seidlhofer, B., (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skinnari, K. and Bovellan, E., 2016. CLIL teachers’ beliefs about integration and their professional roles: perspectives from a European context. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore and U. Smit, eds, Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 145–170. Smit, U., (2010). English as a lingua franca in higher education. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Spolsky, B., (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tan, M., (2011). Mathematics and science teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the teaching of language in content learning. Language Teaching Research, 15 (3), pp. 325–342. Tragant, E., Marsol, A., Serrano, R. and Llanes, À., (2016). Vocabulary learning at primary school: a comparison of EFL and CLIL. [e-access] International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(5), pp. 579–59. Van de Craen, P., Ceuleers, E. and Mondt, K., (2007). Cognitive development and bilingualism in primary schools: teaching maths in a CLIL environment. In D. Marsh and D. Wolff, eds, Diverse contexts – converging goals: CLIL in Europe. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 186–200. Whittaker, R., Llinares, A. and McCabe, A., (2011). Written discourse development in CLIL at secondary school. Language Teaching Research, 15, pp. 343–362.
493
39 ELT and ELF in the East Asian contexts Ayako Suzuki, Haibo Liu and Melissa H. Yu
Introduction In East Asia, the importance of English as a global lingua franca is growing. For East Asian people English is a language to access to information, knowledge and people beyond their nations. Communication ability in English is considered crucial for national and personal interests. Nations and regions there have taken various measures of English language teaching (ELT) to raise their peoples’ proficiency. These measures include bringing forward the starting age for learning English in school and changing teaching methods from reading/ writing centred to listening/speaking centred (Hu, 2005; Chen and Tsai, 2012; Butler, 2015). Even so, people consider school ELT unsatisfactory to develop communicative competence and seek ‘better’ ELT beyond national curriculum. For example, South Korean mothers take their children to English-speaking countries to learn English (Takeshita, 2010). Such phenomena further increase criticism on school ELT, and English education reform is an urgent task for many governments. Their reforms, as we see in this chapter, are towards developing ability for communication with various English users from different linguacultural backgrounds, or ELF communication. However, native speakers of English (NSs) seem to remain as norm providers in ELT, even though learning from ELF users’ uses of English better serves learners’ present needs for wider communication (e.g. Bowles and Cogo, 2015). Following this, the chapter describes what constitutes local ELT and explores its ELFrelated changes in Japan, mainland China and Taiwan. As the development and foci of ELF research vary across these contexts, each context considers different aspects of ELT practices. The chapter starts with Japan where several ELF-related researches were conducted, and Suzuki outlines its ELT from primary school to university and examines ELFcompatible changes and challenges for further developments. The discussion moves onto China where we can find a growing body of ELF research in the past five years. Focusing on a less researched but equally important group of learners, i.e. high school students, Liu discusses gaps between ELT policy documents and classroom practices. Then, mapping out the embryo stage of ELF-related practices in Taiwanese context, Yu argues that the feasibility and practice of ELF-aware pedagogy are context dependent. The end of this chapter
494
ELT and ELF in the East Asian contexts
highlights needs for transformations of ELT towards ELF-aware classroom practices in the societies where English is not used on a daily basis.
ELF in Japanese ELT: ELF in concept and NS English in practice After this century began, ELT in Japan has experienced many ‘reforms’ initiated by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). MEXT has enthusiastically attempted to develop ELT by issuing several educational policies. Most recent ones are ‘Five Proposals and Specific Measures for Developing Proficiency in English for International Communication’ (2011) and ‘Execution Plan to Innovate English Language Education for Globalization’ (2013). What was behind their implementations was the national recognition of the great importance of English’s role as an international lingua franca for communication with people of different countries and cultures. Indeed, the 2011 policy used the term ‘English as a lingua franca’ in the title of its introduction and argued that ‘society-wide efforts’ were needed to develop Japanese people’s proficiency in it (pp. 2–3). In the series of policies, improvement of abilities in the language was referred as key not only for young Japanese individuals’ but also for the whole nation’s successful future prospects, and this was to be done mainly by increasing practical English communication in the classroom. Despite the conceptualisation of ELF in the rationales of reforms, classroom realities are very different. NS English is presented as a lingua franca and students learn this for international communication. What Seidlhofer pointed out in 2001 as ‘a conceptual gap’ is still prevailing, although some ELF-compatible changes are appearing. The following will illustrate what reforms were/are carried out in each stage of education and explore the observed changes. Primary education It is not long ago that English came to be integrated into the primary education curriculum. In 2000, English started to be taught for foreign language activities in the module called ‘a period of integrated study’. In 2011, for fifth and sixth graders the activities became compulsory, and it is planned to lower the starting grade from fifth to third in 2020. In the same year, English will be introduced as a formal subject for fifth and sixth graders. According to a survey by Benesse (2016), a leading educational publisher in Japan, what fifth and sixth graders mainly do in the foreign language activities is playing English games, saying words and short sentences and practicing pronunciation, which they enjoy. For the activities, ALTs (assistant language teachers) from different foreign countries play leading roles because Japanese schoolteachers with whom they team-teach are not necessarily trained to teach English, although the majority of ALTs also do not have language teaching experiences. The nationwide research on primary schools by MEXT (2016) reported that 11,439 ALTs were hired and they joined 61.3 per cent of total class hours of English activities in 2015. The numbers of ALTs and class hours they join have been increasing because MEXT has loudly promoted their participation. However, while the activities are for various international communication, ALTs are very highly likely to be NSs. According to the largest organisation to hire ALTs, the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) Programme (2015), over 93 per cent of 4,404 ALTs they hired in 2015 were from inner-circle countries. Although people from outer-circle countries, such as Singapore, participated in the JET, the number was very limited.
495
Ayako Suzuki, Haibo Liu and Melissa H. Yu
From these facts, we understand that while primary school ELT is successful because it is reported that children became more interested in English communication (Benesse, 2014), we can anticipate a great problem. The fact that ALTs who play central roles in team-teaching are almost always NSs would lead children to take for granted that NSs are the main interlocutors for Japanese people in English communication, discounting the importance of other speakers of English. Such a view of essentialist dichotomy between NSs and Japanese (Toh, 2012) may be an adverse effect of the promotion of ALTs for international communication. Secondary education English has long been taught in junior and senior high schools (hereafter JHS and SHS) in the foreign language module. In 2013, one important reform for secondary school ELT started in SHS. It was implementation of MEXT’s key principle that ‘English classes should be conducted basically in English’. In JHS, this principle is to be put into practice in 2018. In the same year, SHS English classes would also change because more advanced oral activities, such as debate, are recommended to be introduced. Although the reforms aiming at ‘more English communication’ have started, what students do in the classroom appears to be still static and traditional. They translate English into Japanese and memorise words and sentences by reading and writing with coursebooks (Benesse, 2014). Japanese state schools have to use the coursebooks designed following the national curriculum, and inspected and authorised by MEXT. Therefore, what and how English is presented in them should be significant for students’ understandings of the language, and this is where we can find ELF-compatible changes. According to research on 16 coursebooks for JHS and SHS students by Takahashi (2014), English communication presented in them mostly took place between a NS character and a Japanese character. However, she found that compared with studies on previous coursebooks, more non-Japanese NNS (non-native speaker of English) characters, more interactions between NNSs, and even some forms of non-standard English appeared, though different coursebooks had different degrees of ELF orientation. Nonetheless, teachers can be obstacles to ELF-aware approaches, as Japanese English teachers’ strong attachment to NS English has been found. Almost all JHS and SHS teachers Mimatsu (2011) researched believed that good command in NS English could help students communicate with both NSs and NNSs. Similarly, Yukimori (2015) found that SHS teachers in her questionnaire survey highly valued it because of their prescriptive views of English. SHS and university entrance examinations that examine knowledge of NS English should be a key reason for teachers’ emphasis on it, and this clearly contributes towards students’ highly positive views of NS English (Mimatsu, 2011). Therefore, nurturing teachers’ awareness of ELF would be the first step to developing ELF-aware approaches in the classroom. Tertiary education University ELT is not tightly controlled by MEXT, but usually it is designed on an extension of secondary school ELT. Moreover, when scrutinising it, we cannot ignore the global trend of tertiary education: the internationalisation of education to prepare students to be globally competitive and culturally sensitive (e.g. Rhoads and Szelényi, 2011). Japan is also on this trend, and MEXT encourages universities to cultivate such ‘global human resources’ by running funding projects, such as Top Global University Project (MEXT, 2014). 496
ELT and ELF in the East Asian contexts
For many Japanese universities, ‘being international’ often indicates ‘offering high quality English education’ (Torikai, 2013). They are taking different strategies to improve English curriculums and teaching, but their strategies tend to be similar: hiring more NS instructors to offer small-group English conversation classes, making ‘English-only’ spaces on campus to provide opportunities for chatting, setting up university-supported study abroad programmes in inner-circle countries, and offering TOEIC preparation courses (see Torikai, 2013; Oda, 2015). Many students have few opportunities to widen their views of English even in university ELT that is supposed to more focus on global contexts. This is unfortunate because they would have good potential to develop their flexibility to different kinds of English if given opportunities. In fact, some scholars have found that university students are adaptable to the changing uses of English when they interact with ELF users (e.g. Galloway and Rose, 2013). Some institutions and individual teachers that are aware of students’ adaptability have started to incorporate diversity of English into their teaching: for example, Tamagawa University established the Center for English as a Lingua Franca (www.tamagawa.ac.jp/celf/), and employs expert users of English, regardless of nativeness (Oda, 2015). However, again, teachers can be obstacles to ELF-aware teaching. Galloway and Rose (2013) found that university language teachers they investigated were much less flexible towards today’s uses of English and reluctant to move away from traditional ideas of English. Suzuki (2011) also found that university students who hoped to be engaged in ELT tended to adhere to NS English as a norm, even though they developed their awareness of English in global contexts through lectures on this topic. On the whole, ELT in Japan still places much preference on NS English, while the changing sociolinguistic reality of English is recognised. Although gradual ELFcompatible changes can be observed, ELT continues to see English from an essentialist point of view (Toh, 2012). Because of this view, teachers may overlook the significance of learning from and with diverse kinds of English users. When teachers can develop a deeper recognition of multilingual aspects of English, we may become able to observe more ELF-aware classroom practices.
Language policy and teaching practice at high school level in mainland China Having recognised the role of English as a lingua franca in mainland China where there are more than 300 million English speakers (Crystal, 2012), more and more researchers have begun to conduct ELF researches related to the Chinese education context. However, most of these works are involving ELT and ELF at higher education (e.g. Wang, 2013; Zheng 2013) and few researches have investigated ELF at high school level, even though high school ELT directly affects a larger number of English learners (more than 62,000,000 enrolled students according to China Education and Research Network’s statistics in 2005) in the formal education system more than ELT at any other educational level in mainland China. The number must have climbed much further by 2015. Such a number of students can be a big barrier for ELF-oriented ELT practices since Standard English language ideologies may be gradually internalised through long time Standard English learning (e.g. Jenkins, 2007). Thus, it is pedagogically significant to examine English language teaching and learning in high schools. In the following section the focus will be on language policy and practice from ELF perspective at high school level in mainland of China. 497
Ayako Suzuki, Haibo Liu and Melissa H. Yu
National English curriculum To meet challenges of the twenty-first century, the Ministry of Education (MOE) issued a new English curriculum named National English Curriculum (NEC), in which English is taken as an international language. The overall goal of the NEC is to ‘develop students’ comprehensive language competence on the basis of their language skills, language knowledge, cultural understanding, learning strategies, and emotions and attitudes’ (MOE 2011). In this new curriculum, teachers are required to develop students’ comprehensive ability and encouraged to use communicative language teaching and task-based teaching approach. Analysing the explicit statements of NEC, Liu (2016) observed some ELF-compatible ideas in NEC. NEC realises the importance of other resources in language learning and use, such as communicative strategies, code-switching, and cooperative spirit in communication (MOE, 2011). Grammar, the representative of Standard English norms, seems to be degraded in language learning while other non-grammatical language resources are given more emphasis (MOE, 2011). Besides the above, the intention of NEC to promote English as a global language can be seen in its avoidance of using phrases such as ‘American English’, ‘British English’ or ‘English native speaker’. However, as Shohamy (2006) reminds us, the interpretation of language policy lies not only in the overt statement of policy, but more in the covert statement and the practice of policy. By examining the implicit statement of NEC, plenty of contradictions to those ELFcompatible statements are identified. For example, although there are statements in the first part of NEC where various English accents are encouraged to be taught, the latter part of NEC lists specific phonology pedagogical requirements including liaison, stress and vowel qualities. In terms of lexis, NEC first advocates ‘learning in context, using in context’, but then English idioms and specific British and American spellings are required to be memorised. From the cultural awareness aspect, the NEC claims that the aim of cultural pedagogy is to raise students’ cross culture/intercultural awareness, but among the specific pedagogical items, English speaking countries’ cultures are given priority. Classroom teaching practice In classroom practice, the main teaching and learning resources for teachers and students are textbooks. There are many versions of textbooks, which are designed by Chinese teams or by both domestic and foreign teams. Most textbooks have claimed that the content and language are authentic and the design is to help students to obtain communicative abilities. The so-called ‘authenticity’ of the NS model brings many problems in language learning. Through a three-year case study in 10 provinces in China, which involves secondary level education in big cities, small towns and rural areas, three major problems are identified in textbooks by Gong (2011): 1) English learners in rural areas feel alien to Western culture in textbooks; 2) textbooks ignore students’ inner-world expression; 3) the emphasis on a good image of Western culture affects students’ love for local culture. Similar findings can also be found in Liu’s research (2016) where dominance of Western culture in textbooks also causes some students to despise their own culture. As for specific teaching procedures and content, compared to the NEC document, there is much heavier influence from Standard English ideology. Referring to Liu’s (2016) ethnographic study in a Chinese junior high school, the observational data shows that English language teaching is not conducted based on the guideline of NEC document but on Standard English-oriented English tests. In her research context, Liu found that grammar and lexis are 498
ELT and ELF in the East Asian contexts
intensively taught and learned in English classes while listening and speaking skills are not taken into account in teaching and learning plans. There are few interaction activities for students to practice their communicative abilities in class. Instead, grammatical-lexical lectures and exercise practices are the main content of English class through which Standard English ideology is reproduced, repeated and enhanced. Standard English oriented examinations and teacher education are considered as the two biggest barriers for introducing ELF into class. For instance, Liu’s (2016) teacher participants state that the great wash-back on language education, which can ‘determine which languages will be studied and the content and methods of teaching that should be used’ (Shohamy, 2006: 105), leaves teachers no choice but to teach what the language examination is to test; while for teachers who dare to get rid of the influence of testing on their teaching, they still have no idea how to relate ELF to their teaching practice due to the lack of training in teacher education programs. In this way, there are many challenges on language test and teacher education from ELF perspectives in China. In fact, moves have already been taken to change the heavy attachment to grammars and lexis. In 2014, the ‘Beijing province senior high school entrance examination reform plan for 2014–2016’ was issued by the Beijing Education Examinations Authority. As part of this reform plan, marks for English subject tests are reduced from 120 points to 100 points. More importantly, listening tests make up half the points (50 points). In 2016, the Beijing Education Examinations Authority launched another reform of college entrance examination in which listening and speaking tests will be both included in English language examinations. The examination paper has not been made available to the public yet. But, there is no doubt that the increase of the portion of listening and speaking test in English examinations will provide a relatively freer environment for English teaching and learning where the emphasis on language accuracy will probably be reduced and where space for the introduction of ELF will increase. Teacher education will be another issue for ELF-oriented pedagogy in high school in mainland China. There are many proposals that are inspired for an ELF-oriented pedagogy, such as Kumaravadivelu’s (2006) post-method pedagogy and Dewey’s (2012) post-normative approach, which both empower teachers’ freedom in their language teaching to meet local needs and emphasise the critical-thinking ability of teachers in their classroom teaching. Chinese English education would be very different if those proposals can be implemented. However, the large population of teachers and the uneven English and teaching proficiency among them make the ELF-oriented teacher education very difficult. But it does not suggest no space for ELF-oriented teacher education. It can start from an ELF-aware stage. For example, since every teacher in mainland China needs to pass a test for the English teacher certificate, some basic ELF knowledge can be included in the test and ELF-relevant books, such as Jenkins’ Global Englishes (2015), can be added as one of the reference books for the test to raise teachers’ awareness of the existence of ELF. Once the awareness has been raised, it will be much easier for more complicated programs. But, still, there is a long way to go for the education in mainland China.
Developing a new ELT path in Taiwanese contexts: ELF-aware classroom practice English is recognised as a communicative lingua franca whereby Taiwanese people interact with speakers of English who do not have Chinese language and cultural backgrounds 499
Ayako Suzuki, Haibo Liu and Melissa H. Yu
(MOE, 2010). In line with this international eminence of English, the MOE introduced educational policies to promote English language in order to produce proficient users for intercultural communication (MOE, 2010). One of the policies is to devise the pedagogic innovations for compulsory (from primary to secondary level) as well as higher education. Below is a discussion about the English language policies and educational provisions in relation to the lingua franca English use from compulsory to tertiary education. Compulsory education In Taiwan, English is the only foreign language that has been introduced into national curriculum as an obligatory subject under the compulsory education system (Chou and Ching, 2012). The following discussion considers how English language is conceptualised in the educational settings, policies and classroom practices. Apart from the compulsory English language education, Taipei Municipal NanGang Elementary School and XiHu Elementary School have instituted English–Mandarin bilingual education in order to create a learning environment for international school students from diverse linguacultural backgrounds (MOE, 2010). The bilingual education highlights that government and schools were aware of students’ lingua franca need and use for realworld communication at schools. However, students’ lingua franca English usage at schools seems out of tune with the stated aim of policy for NS teacher recruitment, as follows. Chou and Ching (2012: 89) indicated that ‘numerous elementary and junior high schools around Taiwan employ NS teachers’ to facilitate students’ English for international communication. Providing classroom-based evidence on NS teachers’ practice, Chou and Ching (2012) reported that the common challenge for South African NS teachers is their accents because Taiwanese pupils and colleagues at schools could not understand their English. One major cited reason is that American English or British English is the most familiar to Taiwanese students, leading to their rejection of other kinds of spoken English. Following this line of thought, Chen and Cheng (2010) concluded that linguistic variation and varieties of English were not considered desirable when hiring NS teachers to enhance students’ English for international communication. They argue that introducing students to only one kind or a few kinds of English led to the limited contact of students with various ways of spoken English and this further made pupils feel it was difficult to accept or understand diverse ways to speak English for communication. With regards to the linguacultural resource for secondary education, Ke (2012) analysed how English language and cultures were presented in high-school English textbooks. He found that English was usually presented to students as a native language used by Americans rather than as an international language or lingua franca used by people around the world in textbooks. He also recognised that American cultural resources dominated high school textbooks in contrast with the resources around other parts of the world. Ke concluded that English language by Americans and American cultural resources prevail across units of all high school English textbooks and urged that the lingua franca status and use of English should be represented in textbooks for teaching and learning. It is arguably the case that US-related linguacultural resources of the textbooks and the monolingual approach for ELT practice still perpetuate in Taiwanese compulsory education. In this regard, Yu (2015) highlighted that NS resources presented in textbooks are not the only factor to determine ELF-aware pedagogy. To yield a better insight into this issue also requires a scrutiny of how NS resources presented in textbooks are used to teach and learn English for communication.
500
ELT and ELF in the East Asian contexts
Higher education In Taiwan, universities/colleges rather than the MOE stipulate compulsory subjects and a majority of universities still offer undergraduates obligatory English language courses (Chou and Ching, 2012). The MOE in 2002 initiated English language education policies to internationalise Taiwan’s universities (Chou and Ching, 2012). At present, English language is not only a subject but also a language to connect universities and students to the world. Given the international status of English, over the past decade, the number of studies on teaching and learning English for ELF communication is increasing. Some explore the views of university teachers or students on principles of teaching and learning English for lingua franca use in real-life settings (e.g. Lai, 2008; Tsou and Chen, 2014). Others focus on the possibility to incorporate the concepts of ELF or World Englishes into language courses (Chang, 2014) and acquisition (Liou, 2010). Researchers pay scant attention to principles as well as the practice of teaching and learning English for lingua franca communication (Yu, 2015). Below is a review of university teachers’ and students’ beliefs about lingua franca English. The discussion moves on to resources available for teaching and learning English for ELF communication. The reviewed research agrees that an ELF theory and practice divide exists in classroom practice. However, university teachers’ (Lai, 2008) and students’ awareness (Ke and Cahyani, 2014) of lingua franca or World Englishes did not necessary bring teaching and learning to the fore. Instead, the teachers and students felt hesitant about ELF-aware classroom practice. The cited reasons for their uncertainty about ELF-aware classroom practice include the availability of ELT materials (Yu, 2015), ideas and principles of teaching (Yu, 2015), and students’ need and willingness to learn for ELF communication (Liou, 2010). As Yu (2016) argued, ELF-aware pedagogy in Taiwanese universities is very complex, not unconditional. So, ELF-aware teaching and learning is still a new pedagogical path and under development for Taiwanese ELT practitioners. Despite the challenges to realise ELF-aware pedagogy, Chang (2014) drew upon the theories of World Englishes and designed a course for English majors (e.g. some of them were teacher trainees for ELT). According to Chang (2014), after the course, students acquired good knowledge about World Englishes and preferred a multilingual to a monolingual approach to learn English. Yu (2015, 2016), as also suggested by Widdowson (2015), emphasised teachers’ ideas and skills to teach English beyond the prescribed monolingual approach to English language use and resources presented in the textbooks so as to prepare students for flexible and spontaneous language use and exploiting emergent linguacultural resources from ELF perspective. For instance, Yu (2015: 45) presented that one teacherparticipant critically evaluated the US-related resource and highlighted the irrelevance of US-related resources to students’ English language use. By so doing, the teacher skillfully drew students’ focus of learning away from the US resources. The exemplified classroom practice casts a light on how incorporating concepts of World Englishes or ELF into university courses or teaching becomes feasible under certain teaching circumstances. Nevertheless, ELF-aware classroom practice remains a minority. Clearly, the seeds of ELF-aware pedagogy have just been sown and have begun to sprout up as a new pedagogical path. The majority of university teachers and students still follow the conventional ELT route through which NS linguacultural resources and monolingual approach are the most available and common for teaching and learning.
501
Ayako Suzuki, Haibo Liu and Melissa H. Yu
As a whole, ELF-aware ELT has not yet been widely accepted or implemented at different levels of schools. For instance, primary and secondary students were still unfamiliar with the different ways to speak English around the world and only accepted a particular way to speak American English or British English. University teachers uphold mixed beliefs about teaching undergraduates for ELF communication due to various contextual factors. Besides, not all teachers and students are flexible in regards to different ways of using English, let alone teaching and learning beyond a prescriptive or NS scope. Lastly, the available NS textbooks or other contextual factors do not always support ELF-aware classroom practices. Consequently, ELF-aware classroom practices in Taiwan are developing with a rather slow growth.
Conclusion This chapter has reviewed ELT in three different contexts in East Asia, considering how far ELF-compatible developments can be observed. While conditions surrounding ELT are different, what we have found is similar. In all contexts the monolingual approach is still pervasive in the classroom, although small indications of shifts towards ELF-aware teaching can be found in policy documents. In fact, Japan and Taiwan actively recruit NS teachers to prepare their students for international communication. Even though some developments are found in Japan, most teaching materials are still produced in accordance with NS linguistic and cultural norms. Entrance exams to high schools and universities continue to assess students’ knowledge of grammar and lexis of a kind of NS English, though in mainland China (Beijing Education Examinations Authority, 2014, 2016) moves away from this were just announced. Because of these limited conditions, many local teachers seem to have theorised their roles as informants of knowledge of NS English, rather than cultivators of students’ agency in English, though some might question their roles. Thus, in alignment with researchers’ observation in East Asian contexts as follows, we recommend that the concepts of ELF should be introduced to reassess the following domains of ELT enterprise in East Asian contexts: material writing, selection and use (Yu, 2015, 2016), classroom, national and international assessments (Liu, 2016), curricular innovations (Matsuda and Friedrich, 2012), and pre- and in-service teacher training (Suzuki, 2011; Chang, 2014). In particular, we suggest that these reassessments should focus not only on conceptual but also on practical issues. Some of the domains including material writing, national and international assessments, and curriculum designs may be difficult to change in a short period of time, as they have to involve governmental, commercial and institutional entities. However, there still remains what we, ELT practitioners, can do. As teachers are those who directly plan activities and tasks, use materials, interact with and assess students in the classroom, developing their awareness of ELF and ideas of ELF-oriented teaching and learning can be the first priority. Although their developed awareness may not immediately bring about radical changes in their teaching (Dewey, 2015), as Yu discussed in this chapter, even within the limited resources for ELF-aware teaching, individual teachers can conduct teaching from ELF perspectives, going beyond prescriptive codes of language and its rules of use. Such teachers’ grass-root efforts in the classroom may shift ELT away from the NS English norm, even though realising ELT that fully appreciates ELF needs a long time to go.
Further reading Bayyurt, Y. and Akcan, S. (eds) (2015). Current perspectives on pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 502
ELT and ELF in the East Asian contexts
Bowles, H. and Cogo. A. (eds) (2015). International perspectives on English as a lingua franca: pedagogical insights. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan. Marlina, R. and Giri, R.A. (eds) (2015). The pedagogy of English as an international language: perspectives from scholars, teachers, and students. Heidelberg: Springer.
References Beijing Education Examination Authority. (2014). Senior high school entrance examination reform. [Online]. Available at: www.bjeea.cn/ [Accessed 7 June 2016]. Beijing Education Examination Authority. (2016). College entrance examination reform. [Online]. Available at: www.bjeea.cn/ [Accessed 7 June 2016]. Benesse. (2014). Chukousei no eigogakushu ni kansuru jittaichousa 2014 [A survey on secondary school students’ English language learning 2014]. [Online]. Available at: http://berd.benesse.jp/ global/research/detail1.php?id=4356 [Accessed 26 April 2016]. Benesse. (2016). Chuko no eigoshidou ni kansuru jittaichousa 2015 [A survey on English language teaching at secondary schools 2015]. [Online]. Available at: http://berd.benesse.jp/global/research/ detail1.php?id=4776 [Accessed 26 April 2016]. Bowles, H. and Cogo, A. (eds) (2015). International perspectives on English as a lingua franca: pedagogical insights. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Butler, Y.G. (2015). English language education among young learners in East Asia: A review of current research (2004–2014). Language Teaching, 48(3), pp. 303–342. Chang Y.J. (2014). Learning English today: what can World Englishes teach college students in Taiwan? English Today, 30(1), pp. 21–27. Chen, S.C. and Tsai, Y. (2012). Research on English teaching and learning: Taiwan (2004–2009). Language Teaching, 45(2), pp. 180–201. Chen, W. and Cheng, Y. (2010). A case study on foreign English teachers’ challenges in Taiwanese elementary schools. System, 38, pp. 41–49. China Education and Research Network. (2005). 1978–2002 Number of students enrollment by level and type of school. [Online]. Available at: www.edu.cn/education_1384/20060323/ t20060323_115821.shtml [Accessed 6 June 2016]. Chou, C.P. and Ching, G. (2012). Taiwan education at crossroad: when globalization meets localization. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Crystal, D. (2012). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dewey, M. (2012). Towards a post-normative approach: learning the pedagogy of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), pp. 141–170. Dewey, M. (2015). Time to wake up some dogs! Shifting the culture of language in ELT. In Y. Bayyurt and S. Akcan (eds) Current perspectives on pedagogy for English as a lingua franca. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 121–134. Galloway, N. and Rose, H. (2013). ‘They envision going to New York, not Jakarta’: the differing attitudes toward ELF of students, teaching assistants and instructors in an English-medium business program in Japan. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(2), pp. 229–253. Gong, Y. (2011). A third approach to communicative language teaching: general English education approach for schools. Zhongguo Waiyu, 8(5), pp. 60–68. Hu, G. (2005). English language education in China: policies, progress, and problems. Language Policy, 4(1), pp. 5–24. Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2015). Global Englishes: a resource book for students. New York: Routledge. Ke, I.C. (2012). From EFL to English as an international and scientific language: analysing Taiwan’s senior high-school English textbooks in the period 1952–2009. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 25(2), pp. 173–187. Ke, I.C. and Cahyani, H. (2014). Learning to become users of English as a lingua franca (ELF): how ELF online communication affects Taiwanese learners’ beliefs of English. System, 46, pp. 28–38. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: from method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lai, H.Y.T. (2008). English as an international language? Taiwanese university teachers’ dilemma and struggle. English Today, 24(3), pp. 39–45. 503
Ayako Suzuki, Haibo Liu and Melissa H. Yu
Liou, Y.S. (2010). Who wants EIL? Attitudes towards English as an international language: a comparative study of college teachers and students in greater Taipei Area. College English: Issues and Trends, 3, pp. 133–157. Liu, H. (2016). Language policy and practice in a Chinese high school from global Englishes perspective. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Southampton. Matsuda, A. and Friedrich, P. (2012). Selecting an instructional variety/ies for an EIL classroom. In A. Matsuda (ed.) Principles and practices of teaching English as an international language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 17–27. MEXT. (2013). Gurōbaruka ni taioushita eigokyouiku-kaikaku jisshi-keikaku [Execution plan to innovate English language education for globalization]. [Online]. Available at: www.mext. go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/01/31/1343704_01.pdf [Accessed 26 April 2016]. MEXT. (2013). Gurōbaruka ni taioushita eigokyouiku-kaikaku jisshi-keikaku [Execution plan to innovate English language education for globalization]. [Online]. Available at: www.mext. go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/01/31/1343704_01.pdf [Accessed 26 April 2016]. MEXT. (2014). Top global university project. [Online]. Available at: www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/ koutou/kaikaku/sekaitenkai/1360288.htm [Accessed 26 April 2016]. MEXT. (2016). Eigokyouiku jisshi-joukyou chousa 2015 [Survey on English language education 2015]. [Online]. Available at: www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/1369258.htm [Accessed 26 April 2016]. Mimatsu, T. (2011). ELF versus EFL: teaching English for ‘international understanding’ in Japan. In A. Archibald, A. Cogo and J. Jenkins (eds), Latest trends in ELF research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 251–267. Ministry of Education (China). (2011). Yiwujiaoyu yingyu kecheng biaozhun [National English curriculum standard for compulsory]. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press. Ministry of Education (Taiwan). (2010). 2010/2011 Education in Taiwan. Taiwan: Ministry of Education. Oda, M. (2015). University English language programs in transition: EFL to ELF, and then? WASEDA Working Paper transition: EFL to ELF, and then? WASEDA Working Papers in ELF, 4, pp. 199−208. Rhoads, R.A. and Szelényi, K. (2011). Global citizenship and the university: advancing social life and relations in an interdependent world. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), pp. 133–158. Shohamy, E.G. (2006). Language policy: hidden agendas and new approaches. New York: Routledge. Suzuki, A. (2011). Introducing diversity of English into ELT: student-teachers’ responses. ELT Journal, 65(2), pp. 145–153. Takahashi, R. (2014). An analysis of ELF-oriented features in ELT coursebooks. English Today, 30(1), pp. 28–34. Takeshita, Y. (2010). East Asian Englishes: Japan and Korea. In A. Kirkpatrick (ed.), The Routledge handbook of World Englishes. Oxford: Routledge, pp. 265–281. The Japan Exchange and Teaching Programme. (2015). Number of participants by country 2015–2016. [Online]. Available at: http://jetprogramme.org/wp-content/themes/biz-vektor/pdf/countries/2015_ jet_stats_e.pdf [Accessed 26 April 2016]. Toh, G. (2012). Having English as a resource for multicultural understanding: exploring possibilities in Japanese ELT. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(3), pp. 301–311. Torikai, K. (2013). Gurobarizashon nonakano eigo-kyouiku [English education in the era of globalisation]. In T. Hirota, A. Yoshida, T. Kobayashi, T. Ueyama and J. Hamanaka (eds), Gurobarizashon, shakai-hendo to daigaku [Globalisation, social change and university]. Tokyo: Iwanami-shoten, pp. 139–166. Tsou, W. and Chen, F. (2014). EFL and ELF college students’ perceptions toward Englishes. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(2), pp. 363–386. Wang, Y. (2013). Non-conformity to ENL norms: a perspective from Chinese English users. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(2), pp. 255–282. Widdowson, H. (2015). ELF and the pragmatics of language variation. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(2), pp. 359–372.
504
ELT and ELF in the East Asian contexts
Yu, M.H. (2015). Developing critical classroom practice for ELF communication: a Taiwanese case study of ELT materials evaluation. In H. Bowles and A. Cogo (eds), International perspectives on English as lingua franca: pedagogical insights. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 35–54. Yu, M.H. (2016). Connecting classroom English to real-world English: Taiwanese teachers and students’ perspectives on ELF-aware pedagogy. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Southampton. Yukimori, M. (2015). Nihonjin eigokyoushi no eigokan: ‘kokusaigo toshiteno eigo’ wo chushin toshite. [Japanese English teachers’ views of English: focusing on ‘English as an international language’]. Eiken Bulletin, 27, pp. 175–183. Zheng, Y. (2013). An inquiry into Chinese learners’ English-learning motivational self-images: ENL learner or ELF user? Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(2), pp. 341–364.
505
40 Language as system and language as dialogic creativity The difficulties of teaching English as a lingua franca in the classroom Sue Wright and Lin Zheng
Introduction In this chapter we explore the different ways in which human beings have conceived language and how these have affected the strategies that groups have adopted to overcome linguistic barriers and communicate. We conclude with a discussion of the legacy of structuralism and its effect on an increasingly interconnected world.
The prodigality of human languages and language learning in contact In After Babel, George Steiner declared that ‘languages have been throughout human history zones of silence to other men and razor edges of division’ (1998, p. 58). He finds this prodigality of language destructive. From time immemorial, human groups in contact have always needed to overcome their mutual incomprehension by acquiring some knowledge of the language of the other. And for most of human history such language learning required physical contact with the speakers of the language to be learnt. Living among its speakers was the way to acquire a ‘foreign’ language. The social activity of negotiation allowed meaning to be developed in exchange, and lines of communication to open. In this immersion model, the process of second language learning was in some ways similar to the way that children acquire their first language.
Written language, the Greek concept of grammar and SLA When societies developed a written form for their language, then it was possible for second language acquisition to take place through interaction with texts as well as through face to face interaction. In the European tradition the Greeks developed linguistic analysis, identifying parts of speech (noun, verb, participle, etc.) and their attributes (number, gender, case, tense. etc.). 506
Language as system and dialogic creativity
In (or around) 100 BC, Dionysius Thrax recorded this approach to language in his Technē Grammatikē. The Romans adapted the system to Latin. This way of conceiving language as grammar and syntax was immensely influential and the grammars of Donatus (fourth century AD) and Priscian (sixth century AD) shaped the European approach to language learning until well into the twentieth century. At least it did for those members of the elites who were educated formally and whose education included the study of the classical languages, Latin and Greek. These were ‘dead’ languages, existing only in texts, fixed forever. Their acquisition was not a negotiation with speakers but a study of grammar and vocabulary that was then applied in grammar exercises, vocabulary tests and translation of classical texts. Such an approach to language learning influenced the acquisition of living languages – and the same methods were adopted. Many learners attempted to acquire a foreign language by internalising rules of grammar and lists of vocabulary and practising them. In the mid-twentieth century there was recognition that this language pedagogy produced meagre results and the education establishment looked for other approaches. Behaviourist psychology seemed at first to provide an answer: learners would learn by repetition, mimicking the way that first language is acquired. Bloomfield (1933) was among the first to apply such psychological approaches to language. Behaviourist practices were widely adopted and the use of language laboratories burgeoned where they could be afforded. However, this new pedagogy continued to ignore the social, cultural and discursive contexts for language learning and the fundamental fact that language is a circular process, created in interaction.
Nation building and structural linguistics There was another powerful element that influenced language learning. The view of language as system took deep root among Europeans in part because it married perfectly with developing political structure. As feudalism disappeared and the modern nation state system spread through Europe, language became a political issue. Nation builders used language as a tool. A nation could be defined as a community of communication, and planning for a standard national language permeates all nation building. Linguists codified and standardised one variety on the dialect continuum, teachers trained the citizens (or at least their children) to use (or at least to understand) the national standard. And so it is no coincidence that the political ideal of congruence among people, territory and language appears within much the same time frame as structuralist linguistics.1 The Swiss linguist, de Saussure, argued that it was possible to conceive language as unitary. He acknowledged the dichotomy of language as system and language as practice but chose to study the former, the ideal language, and ignore the complexity of language in action. His followers, for example, the group around Hjelmslev, ignored much of the subtle distinction inherent in his thinking and linguistics grew increasingly formalist, a matter of studying a set of abstract, self-contained systems with a fixed set of structural components and a fixed set of rules for their combination (Hjelmslev, 1953). The Prague Linguistic Circle of the interwar years also continued the Saussurean tradition with their synchronic studies and their interest in language regulation. For them ‘anarchic production in language as system [was] naturally condemned to retreat gradually in the face of plan and regulation’ (Jakobson, 1934, p. 325). Thus the foreign language learners of the twentieth century were imbued with some fundamental beliefs. First, that there was a mosaic of nation states each with a national language. Every national language was a stable system that was separate and complete. 507
Sue Wright and Lin Zheng
Second, that each individual learner could acquire these fixed systems in a formal way. Third, that the individual’s decision on which of the many national languages to learn should be driven by utility, as measured by the power and prestige of its speakers, unless there were other, personal, motivations for foreign language learning. Thus the languages of the more powerful nation states served in turn as lingua francas.
Language as dialogic interaction Applied linguistics, a new discipline that investigated, among other things, how language is acquired began to develop in the 1960s and might have challenged this set of beliefs (Mackey, 1966). However, the relationship of applied to theoretical linguistics at first made applied linguists the ‘consumer’ or ‘user’ of theoretical studies (Politzer, 1972), and theoretical linguists were still bound up in language as system. For example, Chomsky might have rejected aspects of structuralism but his concept of the ideal native speaker is no different in essence from that of de Saussure’s langue (an ideal language that is the totality of the correct forms used by its speakers). There was thus no questioning of ‘what’ was being learnt – only the ‘how’, as a leading British applied linguist, Pit Corder, confirms: ‘The starting point of every application of linguistics to any of the practical tasks is a description of the language or languages involved in the task’ (1975, p. 5). Leaving aside the ‘what’ and ‘concentrating on the ‘how’, applied linguists turned to psychology for solutions to the problems of second language acquisition (see Brumfit, 1996 and Widdowson, 1980 for a discussion of contemporary approaches). The door was opening, however, for more wide-ranging speculation, since the discipline was taking flight contemporaneously with the rise of postmodernism and the latter’s challenge to orthodoxies, particularly that of structuralism. Moreover, computational work in first language acquisition (Kiss, 1973) and first language use (Sinclair, 1991) was revealing how language in practice and language as system frequently diverged. The old certainties of grammar were undermined. In the wake of the COBUILD corpora project, Ellis (1997, p. 49) suggested that ‘it [was] impossible to describe syntax and lexis separately; that syntax and semantics [were] inextricable and that language [was] best described as collocational streams where patterns flow into each other’. In this climate, newly translated work by the Russian theorists Voloshinov and Bakhtin struck a chord in Western academia. Bakhtin’s The Dialogic Imagination2 is principally a work of literary scholarship, but his insights on the diverse and hybrid nature of language, which he termed heteroglossia and polyglossia, and on the relation between utterances, which he termed intertextuality, seemed to provide convincing alternative theories that countered the structuralist strait-jacket. He wrote: ‘Within the arena of almost every utterance an intense interaction and struggle between one’s own and another’s word is being waged, a process in which they oppose or dialogically interanimate each other’ (Bakhtin, 1986, p. 354). He argued that ‘utterances are defined not by their relation to the language (as a purely linguistic system), but by various forms of relation to reality, to the speaking subject and to other (alien) utterances’ (Bakhtin, 1986, p. 123). This awareness of dialogicality, the creation of meaning in interaction, represents a substantive shift from de Saussure’s views on the nature of language. Voloshinov’s Discourse in Life and Discourse in Poetry: Questions of Sociological Poetics also mounts an early challenge to the concept of language as a ready-made system where developments are aberrations. He argues against the fixedness of the monologic signifier 508
Language as system and dialogic creativity
and signified, contending that speech is dynamic, that words do not have a unitary sense and that meaning needs to be teased from a multiplicity of possibilities. For him too, language could only be studied in dialogic interaction, the process in which meaning is negotiated among participants.
Language in a globalising world In certain parts of the academic community this pendulum swing against the conception of language as an autonomous and stable system was accepted with enthusiasm and developed even further. Conceiving language as negotiated, responsive interaction rather than rigid structure seemed to have particular explanatory power in a globalising world where flows, exchanges and networks were happening on a scale and at a complexity rarely experienced before. New technologies allowed a new intensity of both real and virtual interaction across the globe. Of course, human beings have always moved, travelled, come into contact and settled. In late modernity, however, modern transport transformed the possibility and availability of such contacts: individuals regularly travel vast distances for business and leisure; groups in diaspora have the possibility of visiting and/or regrouping; migrants can commute between country of origin and country of settlement more easily; those seeking refuge go further and are more widely dispersed. Of course, human beings have long corresponded across distance, and flows of knowledge have often passed from one society to another. Now, however, e-technologies provide new kinds of virtual community linking groups across vast distances in real time. At the time of writing in May 2015, there were a reported 3 billion users of the mobile internet3; millions are maintaining relationships and communicating through social media; entertainment and news are widely available to a global audience via satellites or the internet. Of course, human beings have always traded. Now, however, the liberal free market system pertains in most of the world: economies are enmeshed; some trans-national corporations have economic power equal to that of small states. Such massive interaction and contact have put a strain on the old cross-border communication systems where interaction was managed through bilingualism, interpretation and translation among national standards. As individuals negotiate their new linguistic complexities in this globalising world, a number of scholars are drawing attention to the inadequate explanatory power of the ‘language as system’ model. Blommaert (2015), Jørgensen et al. (2011), Heller (2007), Makoni and Pennycook (2006) among others suggest that, in the linguistically superdiverse conditions of many settings of late modernity, it may be more useful and more accurate to see the language skills of individuals as a repertoire, a collection of resources for communication, which are available to them at any one point in time, rather than as the mastery of a named standard language. In work on asylum seekers, Blommaert (2009) illustrates how erroneous it can be to seek to identify all human beings as members of standard language communities of communication. In work on migrants moving through Africa to Europe, d’Agostino (2015) shows how speakers use and mix whatever linguistic features they have at their disposal to achieve their communicative aims as best they can, regardless of how well they know and understand the various languages as system associated with their practices. In work on the complex megalopolises of the twenty-first century Blackledge and Creese (2010) and Canagarajah (2013) show how language is part of the superdiversity mix. These sociolinguists challenge the view according to which languages are bounded, separate systems. They have concentrated on exposing standard language as a nationalist ideology. 509
Sue Wright and Lin Zheng
Another group of scholars (e.g. Jenkins 2007; Seidlhofer 2011; Mauranen and Ranta 2009) have explored this dichotomy of language as practice and language as system in the context of lingua franca use. They focus specifically on how English is being employed as a lingua franca among an increasingly mobile and interacting world population. This present compendium itself gives an up-to-date account of the scholarship in this area and the tension between the standard language presented in formal courses and described in grammar books and the language actually deployed in transnational interaction, the tension between the rigidity of the language as system being presented to learners and the flexibility necessary to master the negotiation of meaning in context. In particular, Ehrenreich (Chapter 3, this volume) reminds us of the lack of homogeneity and stability among ELF users; Larsen-Freeman (Chapter 4, this volume) focuses on the dynamic nature of ELF, the situated performativity which causes variation and novelty and Cogo (Chapter 29, this volume) emphasises how ELF is an open source phenomenon, constantly adapted by its users in different settings and networks. And even where idea of system continues to dominate, as in the case of cognitive linguists, who focus on the systematicity of language and its relation to the way the mind is patterned and structured, and of systemic functional linguists who consider language as a social semiotic system, the emphasis has changed. Cognitive linguists also deal with the socio-physical aspect to language, seeing language as one of the modalities through which ‘we interact with and learn about our environment, our sociocultural reality, others around us and ourselves’ (Evans, 2012). Systemic functional linguists also focus on the process of choosing within that system (Halliday, 2004), foregrounding the paradigmatic aspect of language, the messy reality of performance.
Responses So how has the wider world reacted to this scholarly re-evaluation of language and communication? Given the current views of language in the academy, we should expect to see some response within the other branches of the educational establishment. For example, have teachers of English in schools and universities adapted their teaching to prepare learners to use the language as a lingua franca. Is there practice in mutual engagement, building of repertoires and negotiation of meaning? Are learners (and their parents) willing to accept language as practice or do they still prize standard language, language as system? Have there been changes in education policy at governmental level to recognise that named languages are a construct and language courses should address fluidity and creativity? Governments in general have been conservative. For example, in settings where English has survived from the colonial period and where populations have taken it up and appropriated it in the exact way that Bakhtin and Voloshinov describe, the policy approach has been to try to rein in change in the forms of English and reinstate UK or US standards. We see this in Singapore where language contact and subsequent dialogic creativity have produced variant forms of English that are grouped under the name of Singlish. As Singlish has spread the Singaporean establishment has reacted by promoting Standard English. The Speak Good English Movement,4 launched in 2000, targeted different professional groups within the population to direct, control and monitor their English language use and to stem the use of Singlish. The language taught in Singaporean schools is standard UK/ US English (MoE, 2006; MoE, 2008a, 2008b). The argument for this top-down control has been that English is a resource for the Singaporeans and mutual comprehensibility with all 510
Language as system and dialogic creativity
other English users must be maintained (Low, 2012). Singlish is banned from the classroom although there could be evident advantage in using comparison and contrast between English and Singlish to encourage an understanding of the pluricentric nature of English and encourage the skills of negotiation and accommodation that speakers of slightly different varieties employ in interaction. This has not been recognised outside a small number of linguists (Alsagoff, 2012). Learners and their parents have generally been conservative, especially those from elite groups. Their tacit acceptance of Standard English as the language of contemporary, high-end mobility appears to remain undisputed. Rich parents from non-English speaking backgrounds increasingly send their children to English-medium international schools (Brummit and Keeling, 2013) and such schools provide ‘a fast track to the top universities for global and indigenous elites’ (Lauder, 2015, p.172). The entry to such higher education is mastery of Standard English and the gatekeeping mechanism is a high-level pass in the IELTS5 or TOEIC6 examinations. As long as such competence in language as system is the key to social mobility and entry into elite employment, ‘one element in the construction of transnational ruling class’ (Lauder, 2015, p.172), it is difficult to persuade students or their parents that it is actually much more productive to learn to navigate language as practice. We may agree as linguists that languages are a construct, but this is not a popular view. The belief in language as system, in ‘correct’ and ‘proper’ usage is widespread and the conviction that the standard bestows cultural capital permeates all aspirant groups (Bourdieu, 1982; Jacquemet, 2005). The professions and business have generally been conservative. Numerous research projects on employers’ preferences report the requirement that employees master the standard language (e.g. Didiot-Cook et al., 2000) The teaching profession has not been so conservative, in that at least there has been a pragmatic acceptance that grammar-translation methods do not produce competent users of the second or foreign language being learnt. Investigating how best to help learners of language (first, second or foreign), has caused teachers to develop a functional approach, in which language is taken as a vehicle to express or accomplish a certain purpose, such as requesting something. This approach encouraged teaching in the communicative style. A similar movement, the interactive view, saw language as a vehicle for the creation and maintenance of social relations, and tried to reproduce in the classroom patterns of moves, acts, negotiation and interaction found in conversational exchanges. The teaching profession was aware that learners needed a pedagogy that addressed practices as well as systems, but they were still wedded to the idea of stability, that there were discourse communities that could be entered (Brumfit, 1996). In other words the teaching profession responded to the current debates on dialogic creativity by again addressing the ‘how’ of foreign language teaching but not the ‘what’. In the next section we furnish modest evidence that shows how teachers of English as a second/additional/foreign language are beginning to address the subject of language as practice and language as system. In the two enquiries we asked practising teachers of ESL/EAL/ EFL how they dealt with this dichotomy in the classroom. 2001 In this small research project 50 part-time Masters students, all of whom were also engaged as teachers in secondary or higher education, were interviewed about their opinions, attitudes and practices regarding teaching standard language and language variation. The extensive 511
Sue Wright and Lin Zheng
discussions gave an enormous amount of data, and from the complexity it was possible to draw robust answers to three key questions: Is metalinguistic knowledge and grammar explanation a constant in their teaching? Are empirical investigations of language variation a routine part of classroom practice? Are students made aware of varieties of English apart from US and UK standard? Table 40.1 Course content in 2001
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Country where working
Category of teaching
Metalinguistic knowledge*
Computers, corpora and collocations
World Englishes
Britain Britain Britain Britain Britain Britain Britain Britain Britain Britain France France France France France France Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Japan Japan Japan Japan Mexico Mexico Mexico Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Singapore Singapore Tanzania Tanzania
Secondary Secondary Secondary University University University Business Business Tutoring Tutoring University University Business Business Tutoring Tutoring University University University University Tutoring University University Secondary Business University University Secondary University University University Business University University University University Tutoring Tutoring Tutoring University University
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No
No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No
* In discussions, the term ‘metalinguistic knowledge’ was used to distance the question from issues in other component courses in which students were enrolled and where students had worked on the concept of new word grammar. For an overview of this approach, see, for example, Hudson (2007). The respondents were studying on courses at Aston University, UK.
512
Language as system and dialogic creativity
The data showed that discussion of language, particularly in the form of explanation and explicit practising of grammar rules, formed a major part of English courses. Some teachers used new technologies, but this was often to show students how to confirm a rule. Only a handful were employing collocation, etc. to underline how language usage changes, and should be monitored. An even smaller proportion of teachers addressed the issue of different norms. This was interesting since all had taken courses that dealt with the subject of World Englishes and English as a global lingua franca. Ordering the data in this way underpinned the impression from the interviews that the MA students might well be aware of language variety, language variation and dialogic creativity, indeed may have even studied these subjects in depth and written papers on them, but in their professional lives they were constrained by their syllabus to teach Standard English, even if their teaching methods could be more experimental. The group included teachers who were not native speakers of English, and they, in particular, were reluctant to endorse deviation from standard forms in their classrooms. In discussions about permitting variation they reported that they would feel anxious. They said that as non-native speakers they believed that they had no authority to condone ‘error’ and that failure to correct would be seen as professional negligence or lack of personal competence. As one Spanish national/MA student/teacher of English said: ‘We have to correct them; that’s our job!’ And in general, the whole cohort (both native and non-native speakers of English) believed that the preference of both their employers and their students was a systems approach – in which there could be little room for language as dialogic creativity. 2016 In this second small study, teachers7 preparing students in English as a second/additional/ foreign language responded to a questionnaire enquiring whether they addressed the issue of language variety and variation in their classrooms and whether they taught strategies to facilitate processing non-standard ELF usage. The very full answers to the open questions gave us data that suggest that these teachers are addressing the issues of varieties of English more regularly and more systematically than the 2001 group. They suggested that the range of different English varieties among staff seems to be one reason for greater student awareness. One respondent told us that the very different English language backgrounds of his staff alerted the students to the pluricentric nature of English. However, the cohort still reported that the most likely discussion of language variation was in the context of differences between the UK and US standard forms. One respondent seemed to speak for many in her institution when she reported that ‘World Englishes are not on our radar’. Where very different forms, such as Singlish, were discussed, respondents indicated that students were uniformly negative. A Japan-based respondent who organised language courses in English-speaking countries reported great resistance to the offer of studying English in Singapore. The teachers’ discussion of global/international English contained no mention of adoption or appropriation. Only one respondent (from Senegal) described English as a process rather than a body of knowledge: ‘I like to focus on English more as a communication tool than an academic subject’. When asked whether they spent any time preparing students to use English as lingua franca with other non-native speakers, some respondents mentioned that they taught students repair strategies for situations where communication was not evidently successful. 513
Sue Wright and Lin Zheng Table 40.2 Course content in 2016
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Country of teaching
US or UK standard?
Do you spend time discussing World Englishes?
Do you prepare students to use ELF?
Spain Sweden Singapore HK China Italy Oman UK Senegal Japan Germany Australia China China Vietnam Spain US England Myanmar Greece South Korea Japan Oman Turkey Oman Turkey
UK UK UK UK UK and US UK UK UK US mostly (UK for IELTS) US UK UK and US US UK and US UK US UK UK UK and US US UK, US and Australian UK UK UK UK and US
Yes No No Yes but only US and UK differences Yes, but only US and UK differences Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (US and Australian variations) Yes No Yes Yes Not much Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Sometimes yes No A little
Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Not in big groups Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No A little
Others reported that they highlighted certain lexis where there could be ambiguity because of usage in students’ L1. One respondent explained how she taught students to ‘grade’ their interlocutor and adjust their language according to his or her skill level. Others, however, reported student resistance to any diversion from exam-focused learning and one teacher commented ‘I feel this is due to lack of awareness that English as a lingua franca may in fact serve them better than the American or British variety’. Some expressed regret at this and that the straitjacket of the examinations and the strong pressure from students, parents and employers did not allow them to move away from a focus on the UK and US standards: ‘Unfortunately, no. We do not have time to develop skills of accommodation or negotiation’; ‘Unfortunately not. We do not have any time for extra activities outside the syllabus’; ‘Sadly not so much time for ELF’. Although the two studies are not directly comparable because of different methodologies and different contexts, it still seems legitimate to claim that the 2016 cohort seemed more inclined to acknowledge the complex networks in which ELF interaction takes place and the various language backgrounds that interlocutors bring to ELF communication than the 2001 group. The 2016 respondents generally had more awareness of the language as practice and language as system dichotomy. They might be just as constrained by the requirements of the syllabus and the examination as well as the expectations of students and employers, but they were becoming aware that to continue to view English only as a fixed and stable system did not respond to the linguistic practices with which they were confronted, and they were beginning to address these discrepancies, even if only in minor ways. 514
Language as system and dialogic creativity
Conclusion Linguistics in the late twentieth century changed focus. The preoccupation with form and structure gave way to approaches that foregrounded the role of language as a vehicle for the creation and maintenance of social relations. And this influenced second-language pedagogy. Many education systems abandoned grammar-translation and audio-lingual parroting. However, the move to situational and communicative language teaching only changed the ‘how’ of what was to be learnt not the ‘what’. Language in the second-language classroom remained overwhelmingly language as system, even as the methods by which this is acquired tried to mirror as convincingly as possible the processes of language learning by immersion in the target community of communication. In the twenty-first century we are having to address the ‘what’. And this is extremely difficult territory for teachers. The convenient myth of language as system permitted language to be captured and then taught in a formulaic way. We can recognise that communication is dialogic creativity, but then how do we teach this behaviour in the classroom? In essence, we have the dynamic of interaction, which is infinitely creative, versus the fiction of Chomsky’s ‘ideal native speaker’ or de Saussure’s ‘ideal speech community’. If, in education, we are going to veer to the former we shall need a profound reworking of language pedagogies; if we maintain our support of the latter, then there still needs to be extension of pedagogy, so that learners know that the system can only be a starting point and that negotiation, accommodation and creation are crucial to collective meaning making. It is encouraging that reflection has begun. The teachers who contributed to J. Hall et al. (2004) consider the problems associated with second- and foreign-language learning through the prism of Bakhtin’s ideas about language. Saraceni (2010; 2015) makes the academic argument about language as system and language as practice accessible to teachers in general. C. Hall’s recent publications raise awareness of the dialogic creativity of English (e.g. Hall et al., 2013). However, we have scarcely scratched the surface on the system/practice debate and we shall no doubt see much more exploration, discussion and reflection in the coming decade.
Notes 1 Modern European states encouraged language as system from the very earliest period. The codification and standardisation of French is an early example, e.g. Lancelot and Arnaud’s Grammaire générale et raisonnée de Port Royal. 2 A compilation of four essays concerning language and the novel: ‘Epic and Novel’ (1941), ‘From the Prehistory of Novelistic Discourse’ (1940), ‘Forms of Time and of the Chronotope in the Novel’ (1937–1938) and ‘Discourse in the Novel’ (1934–1935)’. 3 www.internetsociety.org/globalinternetreport. 4 For a critical discussion of this see Rubdy (2005) ‘Creative Destruction: Singapore’s Speak Good English Movement’, World Englishes, 20, 3, pp. 341–356. 5 British Council’s International English Language Test System. 6 American Test of English for International Communication. 7 The respondents were contacted through University of Portsmouth channels: visiting scholars; members of partner institutions; contacts from the Portsmouth East Asian learners’ network, etc.
Related chapters in this handbook 3 Ehrenreich, Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca 4 Larsen-Freeman, Complexity and ELF 29 Cogo, ELF and multilingualism 515
Sue Wright and Lin Zheng
Further reading Hall, J., Vitanova, G. and Marchenkova, L. (eds) (2004) Dialogue with Bakhtin on Second and Foreign Language Learning: New Perspectives. London: Routledge. Wright, S. (2016) ‘Globalisation and Rethinking the Concept of Language’. In S. Wright, Language Planning and Language Policy: From Nationalism to Globalisation. London: Palgrave, pp. 202–222.
References Alsagoff, L. (2012) ‘The development of English in Singapore’. In E. Low and A. Hashim (eds) English in Southeast Asia: Features, Policy and Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 137–154. Bakhtin, M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Blackledge, A. and Creese, A. (2010) Multilingualism: A Critical Perspective. London: Bloomsbury. Blommaert, J. (2009) ‘Language, asylum, and the national order’. Current Anthropology, 50, 4, pp. 415–425. Blommaert, J. (2015) ‘Language: the great diversifier’. In S. Vertovec (ed.) Routledge International Handbook of Diversity Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 83–90. Bloomfield, L. (1933) Language. New York: Henry Holt. Bourdieu, P. (1982) Ce que parler veut dire. Paris: Fayard Brumfit, C. (1996) ‘Educational linguistics: applied linguistics and the study of language practices’. In G. Blue and R. Mitchell (eds) Language and Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 1–15. Brummitt, N. and Keeling A. (2013) ‘Charting the growth of international schools’. In R. Pearce (ed.) International Education and Schools: Moving Beyond the First 40 Years. London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 25–26. Canagarajah, S. (2013) Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. London and New York: Routledge. D’Agostino, M. (2015) ‘L’Italia linguistica plurale di ieri e di oggi. Qualche storia e alcuni dati’. Paper given at the conference, Language in Italy in the 21st Century, at the British Academy, London. Didiot-Cook, H. Gauthier, V and Scheirlinckx, K (2000) Language Needs in Business, a Survey of European Multinational Companies. Language and Culture Department Working Paper, 725. Paris, Inter-faculty Group for Languages Joint Study Project. Jouy-en-Josas: Community of European Management Schools (CEMS). Ellis, N. (1997) ‘The epigenesis of language: acquisition as a sequence learning problem. In A. Ryan and A. Wray Evolving Models of Language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Evans, V. (2012) Cognitive linguistics. WIREs Cogn Sci, 3, pp. 129–141. Hall, C.J., Wicaksono, R., Liu, S., Qian, Y. and Xiaoqing, X. (2013). English Reconceived: Raising Teachers’ Awareness of English as a ‘Plurilithic’ Resource Through an Online Course. London: British Council. Hall, J., Vitanova, G. and Marchenkova, L. (2004) Dialogue with Bakhtin on Second- and ForeignLanguage Learning: New Perspectives. London: Routledge. Halliday, M. (2004) The Language of Science. Volume 5. Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday. London and New York: Continuum. Heller, M. (2007) ‘Bilingualism as ideology and practice’. In M. Heller (ed.) Bilingualism: A Social Approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 1–22. Hjelmslev, L. (1953) ‘Prolegomena to a theory of language’. International Journal of American Linguistics Memoir 7. Hudson, R. (2007) Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jakobson, R. (1934) ‘Slavische Sprachfragen in der Sovjetunion’. SRund, 6, pp. 324–343. Jacquemet, M. (2005) ‘Transidiomatic practices: language and power in the age of globalization’ Language and Communication, 25, 3, pp. 257–277. Jenkins, J. (2007) English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jørgensen J., Karrebaek, M., Madsen, L. and Møller, J. (2011) ‘Polylanguaging in superdiversity’. Diversities, 13, 2, pp. 23–38. Kiss, G. (1973) Grammatical word classes: a learning process and its simulation. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation Vol. 7 . New York: Academic Press, pp. 1–41.
516
Language as system and dialogic creativity
Lauder, D. (2015) ‘International schools, education and globalization: towards a research agenda’. In M. Hayden, J. Levy and J. Thompson (eds) The Sage Handbook of Research in International Education. Los Angeles, CA: Sage, pp. 172–182. Low, E. (2012) ‘Singapore English’. In E. Low and A. Hashim (eds) English in Southeast Asia: Features, Policy and Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 35–54. Mackey, W. (1966) Applied linguistics: its meaning and use. English Language Teaching 20,1, pp. 197–206. Makoni, S. and Pennycook, A. (2006) Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds) (2009) English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2006) Report of the English Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review – Executive Summary. www.tesol.edu.sg/pdf/MOE%20English%20Review.pdf (accessed 11 May 2017). Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2008a) English Language Syllabus 2010 – Primary (Foundation) and Secondary (Normal [Technical]). www.ibe.unesco.org/curricula/singapore/si_lpr_ls_ eng_2008_eng.pdf (accessed 11 May 2017). Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2008b) English Language Syllabus 2010 – Primary and Secondary (Express/ Normal [Academic]). www.ibe.unesco.org/curricula/singapore/si_lprls_eng_2008_eng. pdf (accessed 11 May 2017). Pit Corder, S. (1975) ‘Applied linguistics and language teaching’. Edinburgh Readings in Applied Linguistics. Volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Politzer, R. (1972) Linguistics and Applied Linguistics: Aims and Methods. Concord MA: Heinle & Heinle. Rubdy, R. (2005) ‘Creative destruction: Singapore’s speak good English movement’, World Englishes, 20, 3, pp. 341–356.Saraceni, M. (2010) The Relocation of English: Shifting Paradigms in a Global Era. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Saraceni, M. (2015) World Englishes: A Critical Analysis. London: Bloomsbury. Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sinclair, J. (1991) Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Steiner, G. (1998) After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press. Voloshinov, N. (1983) ‘Discourse in life and discourse in poetry: questions of sociological poetics’. In Shukman, A. (ed.) Bakhtin School Papers. Oxford: RPT Publications, pp. 5–30 Widdowson, H. (1980) ‘Models and fictions’. Applied Linguistics, 1, pp. 165–170.
517
41 English language teachers and ELF Enric Llurda
Introduction In the late 1990s research on language teaching was drastically affected by two major developments that have altered the way we have been considering English language teaching. These two developments were the beginning of research on non-native Englishspeaking teachers (henceforth, NNESTS) and also the beginning of research on ELF. Both developments were born independently but they did come hand in hand on several occasions and they have mutually reinforced each other ever since. They were the natural outcome of the previous revolution brought by Kachru’s work on World Englishes and indigenised varieties of English (Kachru 1985, 1992). They extended Kachru’s original formulation so as to cover the uses of English as a lingua franca among speakers of different L1s in any context or situation. ELF research for the first time acknowledged the use of English as an accessory language for purely pragmatic purposes of international communication and the need to describe such uses. It centred on the description of how English is used and the features that make it more easily understood by speakers of different L1s. NNEST research looked at the characteristics and identity of teachers who do not speak English as their L1. Both areas of research had to deal with a dominant tradition of English description and teaching based on an idealised standard form, which was imposed as the correct way to use and teach English. Since the evolution and main contributions of ELF research are extensively discussed in other chapters of this volume, we can now turn our attention to how research on NNESTs has contributed to the same goals as ELF research.
NNEST research Non-native English teachers were put in the spotlight for the first time ever in the early 1990s, when Medgyes devoted his attention to them and published the results of an extensive survey on the characteristics of both NESTs and NNESTs (Medgyes 1994). Before then, NNESTS had obviously existed and had been teaching English all over the world. Yet, they were not included in the ‘ideal language teacher’ category, which was (and still is in many places and for many people) restricted to NESTs. Somehow, NNESTs were tolerated 518
English language teachers and ELF
in the profession but were not accepted as first-class teachers, as the default teacher was presumed to be a native speaker of the language. Medgyes’ work, thus, placed NNESTs in the spotlight. His work, combined with Braine’s (1999) subsequent impulse, created a profound interest in uncovering the characteristics and discovering the assets of NNESTs, who, incidentally, constitute the vast majority of English teachers in the world. Seidlhofer (2001) originally provided a link between the idea of ELF and NNESTs, and Llurda (2004) explicitly stated the mutual positive outcome of connecting both areas. In essence, the idea is that ELF empowers NNESTs. NNESTs are no longer in foreign territory competing with native speakers of English. Both share a common language spoken by people of different origins. Therefore, it seems rather logical that NNESTs must be actively engaged in spreading the idea of ELF among students and administrators. Teaching the world lingua franca makes the connection to native communities of speakers less relevant than if the language taught was one exclusively used by a certain community or national group. Learning English no longer aims at communicating with a particular group of native people situated in a given local community. It involves learning a language of communication in different communicative situations among very diverse and far distant communities from anywhere in the world, and it therefore is an invaluable tool for intercultural communication. Some characteristics of NNESTs that have been presented in the literature are rather relevant to ELF and the ELF ongoing discussions. For instance, NNESTs have been reported to be particularly good at understanding strategy use among language learners (Árva and Medgyes, 2000; Lasagabaster and Sierra, 2005). This is rooted in the obvious fact that all NNESTs have at some stage been second-language learners themselves and can therefore relate personally to what their students’ are currently experiencing. At the same time, NNESTs have been described as having a superior intuition with regard to identifying potential difficulty with lexical items (McNeill, 2005). Both advantages of NNESTs over NESTs are therefore related to characteristic elements of ELF use such as priming strategy of use and intelligibility over purely formal accuracy in language use. These characteristics are by no means exclusive of NNESTs, as many NESTs are themselves multilingual and have a great command of their students’ L1. The main point here is that NNESTs do have by definition such features that unfortunately have often been overlooked in the profession. NNESTs, however, have not supported the notion of ELF as enthusiastically as the above arguments may suggest. Many among them still embrace the native-speaker ideal in language teaching (Llurda 2009a) and regard NS models as the only possible ones, thus refusing to accept non-native forms of English as rightful and legitimate usage. On the other hand, many NESTs have been strong supporters of the NNEST cause and have pushed the boundaries for increasing acceptance of NNESTs in language teaching (Cook 2005). In fact, ELF and NNEST research have been carried out by NESTS as well as NNESTS. Although the two constituencies may at the superficial level appear to be located in opposing trenches, each fighting to preserve their own status, this is not true. Both will certainly win from dealing with English and ELT from a more realistic perspective, which involves looking at language as it is actually used in different communicative situations all over the world and disregarding highly prescriptive idealised representations of the language (Llurda 2009b). In essence, this requires stressing communicative efficiency and effectiveness over adherence to standard norms. ELF research has challenged deeply established principles and paradigms, and it is a fact that human beings tend to experience resistance to any kind of change, no matter its direction. Yet, in this case, the change brings equal opportunities for all teachers and reflects the reality of the communicative uses of English rather than a prescriptive view completely detached from actual usage. 519
Enric Llurda
Looking beyond the native-speaker paradigm Establishing a dichotomy between native and non-native speakers has proved to be the wrong way of approaching language use. As Davies (2003) conclusively demonstrates, the native speaker only exists as an idealisation that does not hold in reality. In fact, there are no distinctive traits that can only be attributed to native speakers and are missing in all non-natives. Instead, we find a wide array of speakers with different skills and diverse language competences. Cook (2005, 2007) brings forward a concept of language user that may overcome the distinction between native and non-native speakers. He notes that the goal of ELT is always helping learners become L2 users, and thus all efforts in teaching must be focused on reaching that goal, rather than wasting energies on attempting to resemble native speakers. Competent users of English are not learners anymore, or at least not as much as they are users. It is true that everybody may keep on learning new words, meanings, usages in any language, including their mother tongue, but in general one ceases to be considered a learner when they manage to successfully use the language in real life situations. Thus, we may argue that if one can communicate in ELF, he/she is no longer a learner of the language but a successful L2 user. The distinction between learners and users is paramount as it establishes success in the language learning endeavour at the level of becoming a successful ELF user thus avoiding the negative connotation of belonging to the category of incomplete learner of standard native English. If the ultimate goal of a language learner is to speak exactly like native speakers do, there is no way this person will ever feel entitled to drop the ‘learner’ label and take on a new one as a ‘native’ user of the language. ELF enables learners to regard themselves as rightful users, without feeling less competent for not using the English in exactly the same way as established in native-based prescriptive models. As Cook (2007) argues, the goal of ELT must be to develop language competence and skills to help the learner become a user of the language. The concept of ‘learner’ brings to mind an idea of immaturity, as learners need an external authority who confirms that they are on the right path. A learner is always somebody who needs a teacher or a guide and has not developed yet a voice of their own. Instead, a user is somebody who can successfully communicate in a language without resorting to another person to provide the ultimate confirmation that what was said is right. The user is independent and free to subvert the rules for special purposes, whereas the learner is always bound to an external authority. Therefore, it is rather logical to claim that language teaching should aim at helping learners become independent in their use of the language, and move from being learners to becoming users. As Cook (2005) argues, basing teaching on the L2 user requires acknowledging that multilingualism and multicompetence are the norm rather than the exception and that the L2 user’s knowledge of the second language is not the same as that of a native speaker, neither better nor worse, simply different.
Language learners vs. language users Let us now focus a bit further on the notions of learner and user, and on how the different stakeholders in the language learning process place themselves in relation to them, taking into account what has been said in the literature about being a user, which means in essence being capable of speaking the language and successfully navigating through different kinds of interactions in a diversity of communicative environments.
520
English language teachers and ELF
If we look at the different groups of people that are mainly involved in the language teaching/ learning situation, we may establish three constituencies: 1) people who are at the beginning of their second language learning process; 2) former learners who have some experience in using the language and have therefore had the opportunity to communicate successfully; and 3) language teachers. People beginning their learning process We may easily agree that people who are in their initial stages of learning the language, and have not had yet the opportunity to use it, tend to adopt a native-speakerist perspective to the language learning process. This means that they look up to the native speaker as the authorised voice in matters pertaining to using and learning the language. Their goal initially is to use the language like a native speaker. Young learners may not have developed this fondness for the native speaker, as their goal and model, but their parents may fall within this category. There are countless examples of parents who prefer native speakers for their children in the vane hope of transforming their children into NSs of English. Numerous private language schools in many countries are promoted on that premise and openly advertise their NS teachers as though they were a desirable merchandise that parents and older learners will be willing to acquire. And they certainly do, as they will pay a good deal of money for the ‘privilege’ of being taught by a native speaker, no matter their training, expertise or dedication to their students. Obviously, many NESTs are well-trained, have expertise in language teaching, and love their job and dedicate intensely to their students. However, learners and parents’ preference for NESTs goes beyond this, as it is a purely irrational feeling by which they perceive NSs as the guarantee of learning, without any consideration for the NESTs’ training and expertise. Often, such learners and parents are rather naïve with regard to the nature of language, and tend to think of it as a set of rules and items that constitute ‘correct language’ as opposed to all the ‘incorrect forms’. They do hold a prescriptive view of language, as opposed to a more descriptive one. According to the prescriptive perspective, there is one right way to speak and write, which is the one that needs to be mastered in order to be accepted in the exclusive ‘club’ of proficient speakers of English. Only Standard English, which is often confused with Native English, is considered acceptable. In fact, such a view tends to validate Standard English as spoken by NSs as the only legitimate form of English, and thus the only one worth being used and promoted in teaching. Such an approach to the language guarantees a rather profitable money-making business to companies and entrepreneurs who draw on the NS halo of authority to sell their language-related services. The continuous stream of demand for English courses offered in the UK, Ireland, the US, Canada, Australia or New Zealand has nothing to do with the quality of the teaching and is all based on the ‘NS seal’ attached to all these countries. Competent users The second group we may turn to is made up of language users, namely people who have already experienced using the language in a diversity of communicative situations and have successfully come out of them with their goals accomplished. They have spoken with people from different origins who speak with different accents and they have developed an awareness of being users of a language used in very diverse places by very diverse people.
521
Enric Llurda
Such language does not belong to an exclusive community of speakers. Instead, it actually belongs to all their speakers, including L2 users as themselves. The category of language users includes all the people who have reached a high level of language competence and have had opportunities for using the language. Their language production may not be totally falling within the ‘standard language’ category, but they can make up for language production differences with other speakers by using communicative strategies. Language teachers Finally, we are left with the group of language teachers, and specifically here I am referring to non-native teachers, by far the most difficult to allocate in this dichotomous classification between learners and users. It would appear to be rather logical to think of language teachers as users, for they have probably spent several years learning and using the language until they have developed a level of competence that allows them to teach it. Of all non-native speakers of English, teachers should in principle be the ones with the highest level of competence and therefore the most likely associated to the concept of user. It does also seem logical to assume that language teachers would refuse to call themselves learners, as presumably they have already overcome such a stage. Yet, when one asks NNESTs whether they see themselves as learners, many of them nod and picture themselves as incomplete learners, who have not mastered yet (and will never do!) the level of proficiency they have set as their ultimate goal, that is, native-speaker competence. This may be due to two different causes. First, many NNESTs, in spite of having an excellent command of English, do still experience an inferiority complex (Medgyes 1994) for not speaking exactly like native speakers do. Such a complex makes them become ever more intent on imitating native speakers and therefore they do develop a sense of inadequacy that brings them to the conclusion that they are still incomplete and imperfect speakers, that is, learners rather than users. Consequently they do not feel they can provide a good model to their students. The second reason is of a different kind, as many NNESTs lack actual opportunities for speaking the language outside the classroom, and sometimes even in the classroom they actually speak it very little. When such is the case, those NNESTs have never had the opportunity to use the language and therefore they have become teachers without ever actually experiencing language use. Be it for one reason or the other, the outcome is more or less the same. Many NNESTs feel disempowered as they think their language skills are not good enough, thus relegating themselves to the condition of learners instead of users. Teachers who see themselves as learners are conditioned by the displacement of authority on the native speaker and the perception of language as unitary and rigid, with one single model that needs to be protected and promoted. These teachers can therefore be aptly referred to as ambassadors of the language. They think their role is to protect and promote the language as is spoken by its ‘legitimate owners’. Another term that suits well this kind of teachers is ‘custodians’ (Sifakis, 2009), as they do not own the language but they set as their role to custody it from ‘impure mouths’. Their view is that Standard English should be preserved in its ‘pure’ form and be protected from non-Standard forms that may contaminate it. With regard to culture, they tend to associate English with British or maybe American culture, disregarding the many non-Anglo-Saxon cultural situations that may involve the use of English. One typical consequence of this vision of language is the constant reminders to learners that they should speak consistently, either British or American English but they should never ever mix the two of them. This makes little sense if we pause for a moment to 522
English language teachers and ELF
think about how many elements from what was traditionally regarded as American English have already been incorporated in so-called British English, due to the extensive influence of American TV and cinema. The demand for consistency is one of the ultimate proofs that many teachers still consider English the property of NSs. Empowerment by NNESTs as well as embracing the notion of ELF clearly goes against such idea, so deeply rooted in traditional views of language. Fortunately, not all NNEST regard themselves as permanent learners of the language. Many of them have actually experienced using the language in communicative situations and have developed the notion of being legitimate language users. They have no problem in considering themselves users of the language and they actually feel comfortable with the notion of ELF. Llurda (2008) found that Catalan teachers who had spent periods of over three months in English-speaking countries did have a higher awareness of ELF and were more accepting of the positive side of being a NNEST. The interpretation ties in well with the idea developed above, as NNESTs with a prolonged experience in English-speaking countries have had many opportunities for using the language in a diversity of settings and with many different people, who presumably may have spoken in a wide array of accents. Such experience is what may have triggered the awareness of being a user instead of a learner. These teachers do not fit within the ambassadors or custodians categorisation but may be better called mediators or facilitators. These two terms reflect the fact that they are users of the language who share their expertise with learners. Their role is not to protect the essences of the language in its purely idealised form, but to bend it and bring it to use in order to meet the needs of all kinds of speakers in all kinds of situations.
A paradigm shift for language teachers: from custodians to facilitators Second- or foreign-language teaching has traditionally revolved around the figure of the idealised native speaker. In the case of English, the debate during the second half of the twentieth century was around what native variety should be chosen as the model for teaching. There were diverse and powerful arguments for two native varieties in particular: US standard (i.e., General American) and British Standard English (with Received Pronunciation (RP) as the pronunciation model). Language schools or individual teachers often made a strong case for using one and only one variety in their classes, presenting themselves as some sort of representative of that particular group of speakers and their culture. The teacher was the ambassador that represented that community among the locals, often with a rather artificial adoption of habits and behaviour patterns of the community they represented. Thus, for instance, a British English teacher would drink tea, wear a certain type of clothing and have some rituals that made them be perceived as closer to the British community and therefore would adopt a more legitimate identity as a teacher-ambassador of that culture. Such identity sometimes worked in conjunction with another, that of custodians of the language. Often, language teachers, and in particular non-native teachers who had invested a great effort in mimicking the native speaker habits and accent, felt the burden of protecting the English language from learners’ tendency to corrupt it and destroy it, thus becoming custodians of the language in its idealised form (Sifakis 2009). Both native and non-native teachers can take up this role, but studies looking at both groups of teachers’ essay correction indicate that non-native teachers take a more restrictive stand, becoming more severe custodians of the idealised purity of the language than their native speaker counterparts 523
Enric Llurda
(Porte 1999). Opposed to this idea of language teachers as ambassadors or custodians, is the idea of teachers as mediators and facilitators. The idea of the teacher as facilitator was already developed by Rardin (1977) four decades ago, but it becomes more relevant in the light of ELF, as it is no longer reasonable to think of the teacher’s job as one in which they have to protect the language from subversiveness. Instead, their job is to help learners develop the strategies that will allow them to become autonomous users in a diversity of contexts. Thus the teacher needs to be a facilitator of the process of becoming an L2 user, and their main job is to facilitate this task rather than to exert restrictions and build barriers to communication on the grounds of their total adherence to an ideal standard. In the first years after the notion of ELF was presented in academic publications, several criticisms and challenges to the idea of ELF were levelled by asking the question of what model should be taught, and what were teachers supposed to do in the classroom with ELF. The misleading identification of ELF with a variety of English called for such questions. However, more recent ELF formulations, which consider it not a variety but a communicative situation involving speakers of different L1s with English as their common language, bring us to a very different question, much more relevant and prone to offer relevant answers: What do teachers need to do in order to incorporate this new paradigm and cease being custodians in order to become facilitators? (Jenkins 2007, 2015).
Challenging language teacher models Overall, research on ELF and NNESTs has brought us to a point in which traditional English language teaching models need to be challenged and transformed. It is still early to determine the exact dimension of such transformation, but I contend that changes in at least the following aspects are essential, and we will surely see them taking place in the next few years. Prioritisation of communication over NS norms In the history of English language teaching, there have been moments in which emphasis was placed on accuracy and correctness and moments in which fluency and communication were the preferred outcome of teaching. Two paradigmatic examples are the audio-lingual method (ALM), with its strong emphasis on imitation and exact reproduction of native speaker models and its aversion to creative use of the language for the fear of making errors that might be adopted by the learner as part of their linguistic repertoire, and communicative language teaching (CLT), with an emphasis on natural spontaneous communication in order to approximate real situations of language learning in naturalistic environments. In spite of the enormous differences between these two methods with regard to their treatment of errors and their different attitude towards spontaneous use of the language, both had something in common, which was the reliance on native-speaker norms and the assumption that the ideal teacher was an ideal native speaker. Even CLT, which was much more open to accepting non-standard forms produced by learners, was very much oriented to native speaker norms and models and disregarded any benefit for students of transferring knowledge from their L1 to the L2, and in fact completely refused to accept any presence in the class of the students’ L1, as the class was intended to reproduce a monolingual native speaker environment. Taking an ELF-inspired perspective means allowing diversity in the English class and promoting negotiation of meaning with the goal of reaching intelligibility in all communicative interactions. Imitation of pseudo-real situations ceases to be important as what becomes 524
English language teachers and ELF
relevant is the creation of real communicative actions with all the creativity and complexity of forms that arise in such situations. Errors are problematic when they clearly hinder communication but need not be taken aim at when they simply differ from standard forms but do not affect the communicative goal of the message. Different goals in teaching receptive and productive skills Another change that needs to be implemented in language teaching has to do with the goals set for productive and receptive skills, and especially oral skills rather than written ones. It is clear that at a global scale, the English language can take multiple forms, which were captured by Kachru’s (1992) formulation of World Englishes. Yet, it would be rather unrealistic to aim at students’ ability to produce all those multiple forms. No speaker of English needs to be able to produce all the varieties of English. However, in an increasingly globalised world, it is more and more necessary to interact with speakers of English coming from many different origins and speaking different varieties of the language, which means that in order to keep the conversation alive one will need to at least process and understand what their interlocutor is saying. This implies the need to understand English, or rather Englishes, in their diversity of forms. It is no longer enough to be satisfied with the capacity to interact with either British or North-American speakers, or even with both of them. One needs to be able to interact with any speaker from anywhere in the world, and good English language teaching needs to account for this contemporary need in a way that was probably not necessary only a few decades ago. With regard to productive skills, efforts should be devoted to developing features of the language that are rather generalised across territories and communities, thus saving time by avoiding local forms that require specific cultural and contextual cues for their interpretation. Among these forms, an obvious element that may clearly fall from the list of priorities is idiomatic expressions. No doubt these are interesting teaching elements and useful in localised contexts, but are of very little use when we are dealing with English global uses. Similarly, specific cultural information, localised pronunciations and morphosyntactic forms need not be considered a top priority. The varied potential uses of ELF make it almost impossible to predict the exact cultural information and local pronunciation or grammar forms that will be encountered. Instead, learners need to be able to use the language in the most intelligible manner across contexts and with any speaker of English. Emphasis on language awareness Language awareness has often been described as one of the strengths of bilingual language teachers over monolingual ones (Moussu and Llurda, 2008). When the most radical version of CLT was unquestioned as the dominant teaching method, no space appeared to be left for the development of learners’ awareness. However, language awareness has been increasingly appreciated as a useful and rather necessary element in language development (Schmidt 1990; James and Garrett 1992; Doughty and Williams 1998). As a consequence, teacher language awareness has entered the picture as a relevant feature in teacher competence (Andrews 2007). Ideal teachers need no longer be native speakers, but they rather need to be able to understand the language in such a way that the learning process is optimally conducing learners to the achievement of their goals, and this entails helping them become aware of the language at the different levels, from noticing language features to understanding the complexities of rules and the critical implications of language use. NNESTs with 525
Enric Llurda
high levels of awareness will be much better prepared to teach the language in a most effective way and lead their students to higher levels of competence. Use of multilingual resources Another fundamental tenet of both ALM and CLT was the exclusive use of the target language, and the banning of any other language from the L2 classroom. Thus, students’ prior language knowledge was deemed unnecessary or even counterproductive. Such principle runs against standard constructivist theory that emphasises the role of prior knowledge in developing a new one, but was supported by the idea that given the limitation of classroom time, not a single minute could be wasted using languages different from the L2. This idea is still quite predominant among language teachers, but there is increasing evidence from the fields of multilingualism and bilingual education that learners’ can obtain many benefits from incorporating their previous language knowledge into the language classroom. From the psycholinguistic notion of linguistic interdependence (Cummins, 1979) to the more recent concept of translanguaging (Garcia and Wei, 2014), there is growing empirical evidence of the positive influence of accepting and optimizing previous language knowledge, and particularly L1 knowledge, into the L2 learning and teaching process. L2 classes need to be reconceptualised as what they truly are: bilingual or multilingual environments in which all participants share a common goal, namely, the development of the L2. Macaro (2005) argued that the L1 may be a very effective resource in the L2 classroom, and NNESTs can effectively use the L1 to the L2 learners’ advantage. Of course, not only NNESTs can do it, but their condition of L2 speakers of the target language places them in a very advantageous position with regard to the optimal use of multilingual resources in the language classroom.
Conclusions Research on ELF has run parallel to the rise of the NNEST movement and the research associated with the appraising of NNESTs as valid and legitimate teachers. Teachers of English need to adapt to the highly internationalised uses of the language, and it would appear that NNESTs could be more prone to incorporate the idea of ELF and introduce changes in their way of teaching English. However, research on non-native teachers’ views reveals that they do not always support the change of paradigm ELF is bringing along to the field of ELT. Rather, a great amount of NNESTs resist the winds of change and strongly defend native-speakerist views on language teaching. The literature produced in the last decade is bringing momentum to a change of paradigm regarding native and non-native speakers in language teaching. First, there should be no assumption with regard to the value and quality of a teacher solely based on their place of origin, the colour of their skin, or their first language. Professionalism is based on a combination of skills and hard work, which come from training and active involvement in the task, but are not influenced by place of origin or native/non-native condition. Second, learners should not aspire to the idealised and unachievable goal of speaking like native speakers do, but to become competent L2 users who can perform successfully in the L2, thus establishing a rather realistic and achievable goal. Teachers should then stop acting like custodians and ambassadors of the language to become mediators and facilitators of the learning process. Language teaching models need to experience some important changes geared towards: 1) giving higher priority to communication and less relevance to NS-based norms; 526
English language teachers and ELF
2) exposing students to diverse varieties of English so that they get used to them, while at the same time focusing on a more limited range of linguistic elements that aims at maximal intelligibility at the productive level; 3) promoting language awareness among teachers and learners as a necessary element for second language acquisition; and 4) using all multilingual resources in order to more effectively reaching the students’ language learning goals.
Related chapters in this handbook 35 Dewey and Patsko, ELF and teacher education 36 Sifakis and Bayyurt, ELF-aware teaching, learning and teacher development
Further reading Braine, G. (2010). Non-native speaker English teachers. London: Blackwell. Kamhi-Stein, L.D. (ed.) (2004). Learning and teaching from experience: Perspectives on non-native English-speaking professionals. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Llurda, E. (ed.) (2005). Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession. New York: Springer. Mahboob, A. (ed.) (2010). The NNEST lens: Non-native English speakers in TESOL. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
References Andrews, S. (2007) Teacher language awareness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Árva, V., and Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and non-native teachers in the classroom. System, 28(3), pp. 355–372. Braine, G. (ed.) (1999). Nonnative educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cook, V.J. (2005) ‘Basing teaching on the L2 user’, in Llurda, E. (ed.) Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession. New York: Springer, pp. 47–62. Cook, V.J. (2007) ‘The goals of ELT: Reproducing native-speakers or promoting multicompetence among second language users?’, in Cummins, J. and Davison, C. (eds) International handbook of English language teaching. New York: Springer, pp. 237–248. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, pp. 222–251. Davies, A. (2003) The native speaker: Myth and reality. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Garcia, O. and L. Wei (2014) Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. London: Palgrave. James, C. and P. Garrett (eds) Language awareness in the classroom. London: Longman. Jenkins, J. (2007) English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2015) Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice, 2, pp. 49–85. Kachru, B.B. (1985) ‘Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism’, in Quirk, R. and Widdowson, H.G. (eds) English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the British Council, pp. 11–30. Kachru, B.B. (ed.) (1992) The other tongue: English across cultures. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, J.M. (2005). ‘What do students think about the pros and cons of having a native speaker teacher?’, Llurda, E. (ed.) Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession. New York: Springer, pp. 217–241.
527
Enric Llurda
Llurda, E. (2004). Non-native-speaker teachers and English as an international language. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14(3), pp. 314–323. Llurda, E. (2008) ‘The effects of stays abroad on self-perceptions of non-native EFL teachers’, in Dogancay-Aktuna, S. and Hardman, J. (eds) Global English teaching and teacher education: Praxis and possibility. Alexandria, VA: TESOL, pp. 99–111. Llurda, E. (2009a) ‘Attitudes towards English as an international language: The pervasiveness of native models among L2 users and teachers’, in Sharifian, F. (ed.) English as an international language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 119–134. Llurda, E. (2009b) ‘The decline and fall of the native speaker’, in Cook, V. and Wei, L. (eds), Continuum contemporary applied linguistics. Volume 1: Language teaching and learning. London: Continuum, pp. 37–53. Macaro, E. (2005) Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. In Llurda, E. (ed.) Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession. New York: Springer, pp. 63–84. McNeill, A. (2005). ‘Non-native speaker teachers and awareness of lexical difficulty in pedagogical texts’, in Llurda, E. (ed.) Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession. New York: Springer, pp. 107–12. Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Moussu, L. and E. Llurda (2008). Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: history and research. Language Teaching, 41(3), pp. 315–348. Porte, G. (1999), Where to draw the red line: Error toleration of native and non-native EFL faculty. Foreign Language Annals, 32, pp. 426–434. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1999.tb00873.x Rardin, J. (1977). The language teacher as facilitator. TESOL Quarterly, 11(4), pp. 383–387. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied linguistics, 11(2), pp. 129–158. Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, pp. 133–158. Sifakis, N. (2009). Challenges in teaching ELF in the periphery: the Greek context. ELT Journal, 63(3), pp. 230–237.
528
Part VII
ELF into the future Trends, debates, predictions
42 English as a lingua franca Changing ‘attitudes’ Robert Baird and Mariko Baird
Introduction One theme that has accompanied accounts of English as a lingua franca is change, and attitude research has featured so prominently in ELF research because the changing linguistic landscapes observed have a closer connection with people’s thinking and practices than with the language forms themselves. Some early accounts of ELF considered how ‘the language’, or ‘varieties of the language’, would come to embody innovations from the millions of multilingual speakers using English globally (see Jenkins et al., 2011). In contrast, more recent accounts encourage a break from objectifications of language that have proliferated in some approaches to linguistics, especially as researchers investigating English as a lingua franca are obliged to consider contextual language use rather than abstract constructs of languages (see Baird et al., 2014), with multilingualism and translanguaging becoming more conspicuous in the literature (see Jenkins, 2015). This shift has, in our view, elicited a rich response in discussions of language use and theorisation of communication. The still-popular area of language attitude research, however, has retained relatively consistent approaches, functions and rhetoric despite such shifts in ideas of language and communication. This chapter seeks to address potential mismatches between current conceptualisations of language practices in the ELF field of enquiry and approaches to attitude research undertaken in this field. As the title suggests, it is our hope that dialogue opened here can lead to a change in the way perceptions of language are treated in the field in order to close this conceptual gap. It is important to address developments brought about through research into perceptions of language as these are essential for understanding language and language users. As Jenkins (2007) observed, we can only begin to develop a picture of how English could be used in future, or make recommendations about the treatment of English, when we understand how people think about English use. Whether intentional or not, communication of meaning happens in relation to our expectations, feelings and judgments, which are constituted in contextual engagement with others. Communication that happens through English used as a lingua franca is no exception. Accordingly, findings from descriptive ELF research that highlight the communicative effectiveness of ‘non-standard’ forms of English do not necessarily discount ‘accuracy’ as a relevant construct for the interlocutors, as people hold views 531
Robert Baird and Mariko Baird
of language that can seem to align with or diverge from their language use, and this could have various implications over time and across contexts. In most communicative situations, the goals behind people’s communicative behaviour transcend intelligibility, as they want (or do not want) their interlocutors to perceive them in a particular way within that context. Intentions to convey or avoid certain social meanings have a basis in personal experiences, perspectives and forms of knowledge that people draw on to interpret contextual cues. These factors go on to affect individuals’ linguistic choices, trajectories, perceptions and the influences that they exert on people with whom they engage. Research into perceptions of language, therefore, can be seen as central to our understanding of social communication beneath the surface of linguistic forms. Having established the importance of investigating various aspects of people’s engagement with communicative environments, it is equally important to engage in discussions of how such investigations are conducted and aligned with wider ontologies of language. Going ‘beyond language’ has been central to the perceived need for attitude research in the field, but going beyond linguistic forms and top-down labelling of speakers has been more difficult to achieve within this area. The issues involved in avoiding deterministic accounts of language and speakers has been a challenge to attitude research generally, but are exacerbated in ELF research, which is characterised by situations in which there are low degrees of linguistic stability, shared expectations and identifiable social groupings. Labov’s (1966) seminal study of sociolinguistic variation is an example of an approach that investigated what he saw as a speech community within a particular social space, and this has been foundational to the ideas behind language attitude studies that followed. This study has since been criticised for its underlying variationist and reifying treatment of language, speech communities and social positions (see Bucholtz and Hall, 2010; Coupland, 2007), so the caution needed for a field of enquiry such as ELF is much more pronounced when the speech communities, social spaces and predictability of communicative features are far less predictable. ELF researchers quite rightly draw attention to the diversity that characterises lingua franca communication, but practices of attitude research that adopt variationist frameworks that encourage the grouping of speakers based on their first language or nationality, and grouping language variation based on the same foundations, can be seen to contradict the non-normative and non-linear practices and identifications involved in communication in ELF settings. We argue below that for ELF research the construct of an ‘attitude’ needs to be disassociated from previous, modernist paradigms. Although the identification and treatment of attitudes varies in the literature (see Cargile et al. 1994; Coupland, 2007; Garrett, 2010; Niedzielski, 1999; Petty et al., 1997), the act of investigating and measuring attitudes involves a conceptual separation of the mind and the established social object to which one is seen to react (Oppenheim, 1992) or consider (Garrett, 2010), which is often approached acontextually. This is on different ontological ground than more qualitative approaches that access individuals’ ongoing perceptions of and engagement with external phenomena, such as those influenced by phenomenology (see Smith et al., 2009) or ethnography (Atkinson et al., 2003; Coffey, 1999), which are arguably more suited to representing, on participants’ terms, situations characterised by instability and emergence (see Baird et al., 2014; Blommaert and Dong, 2010; Sealey and Carter, 2004). The difficulty of identifying and measuring attitudes without closing what might be open questions is presented below, alongside questions of the ‘object of study’ (the attitude) and the ‘object’ to which people might have an attitude. This links more generally to considerations of the ‘object of study’ in language research (see Canagarajah , 2013; Harris, 1981; Mortensen, 2013; Pennycook, 2010; Seargeant, 2010; van Lier, 2004). 532
ELF and changing ‘attitudes’
After providing a critical overview of some relevant developments in language attitude research and corresponding developments in the conceptualisations and frameworks of ELF research, we discuss how framing attitudes while simultaneously ignoring or deemphasising contextualised thought processes or variability in social identification processes can be ineffective in understanding the nature of people’s thinking and the social phenomena with which they engage. At the end of this chapter, we present considerations for approaching perceptions of language practices in a way that is in alignment with broader and more holistic approaches to language practices in ELF research.
Attitudes and the study of language The value of language attitude research lies in the fact that when we use language to communicate, we find meaning in more than the words we use. Interest in language attitudes stems from the idea that language practices present a “powerful social force that does more than convey intended referential information” (Cargile and Giles, 1997: 195). It should be noted that this process of thinking beyond ‘referential information’ in communication is fundamental to understanding language anyway. Perceptions and positionings are essential to the contextual realisation of language, and ELF research is in prime position to highlight aspects of the contextualised nature and inherent complexity at the heart of human communication and identification, which includes people’s ideas of language. We therefore agree with the need to consider contextual reactions, judgments and feelings that might influence perceptions and behaviour, but we consider that the notion of ‘attitudes’, and the established approaches to researching them, ought to be considered carefully in a landscape characterised by complexity, hybridity and plurality. Cargile et al. (1994) characterise language attitude research as investigating “people’s processing of, and disposition towards, various situated language and communicative behaviours and the subsequent treatment extended to the users of such forms” (p. 211). Note that, despite the words ‘situated’, ‘processing’ and ‘behaviours’, which sit well with practicebased approaches to language, the focus ends on forms. ‘Forms’ or ‘labels’ are two elements upon which attitude research has traditionally rested, which could be a necessary part of conducting such research, as will be discussed later in the chapter. Briefly, language forms tend to become the decontextualised focus of indirect approaches to language attitude research, whereas direct methods tend to be reliant on labels (these approaches are explained below). Many in linguistics have argued that to be accepted, rejected or even investigated, linguistic phenomena need a recognisable form for participants, researchers and stake-holders. Despite the usefulness of words and labels, in order to access the processing, dispositions and treatments described in the above definition of language attitudes from Cargile et al. (1994), researchers need to ensure that these actually access people’s thinking, and therefore align with the world as they experience it. One key starting point for the proliferation of language attitude research in sociolinguistics came in the form of matched-guise technique (MGT), proposed by Lambert et al. (1960). This approach seeks to investigate the influence of linguistic cues on people’s attitudes ‘indirectly’ by having them rate or characterise recorded speech samples from the same speaker affecting different accents, often interspersed with other speech samples to maintain the illusion of different speakers. This, alongside verbal-guise technique (VGT), which invites responses to different speakers in speech samples instead of one speaker, form the crux of the indirect approach in language attitude research, which is thus called because attitudes are inferred from the language samples without explicit reference to varieties or 533
Robert Baird and Mariko Baird
speakers. This approach originally aimed to remove outside factors as much as possible and focus on “reactions that are attributable primarily to the language itself ” (Lambert et al., 1960, p.44, emphasis added), which brings us back to language forms as the object of analysis and interpretation. This can be problematic, as it is hard to establish what ‘the language itself ’ might mean in a field in which practice-based approaches treat static ideas of discrete languages and language varieties with scepticism, especially as they relate to individuals’ experiences and contextualised practices (Hall, 2013; Harris, 1997; Pennycook, 2010; Seargeant, 2010; van Lier, 2004; see also the next section). A number of researchers have employed such indirect methodologies (see e.g. Giles, 1970; He and Li, 2009; McKenzie, 2008), with McKenzie (2008) and He and Li (2009) being of particular interest here. Their findings indicate positive evaluations of ‘native’ speech on some levels, but familiar ‘local’ English accents were received positively in some domains, embodying positive values associated with local cultures and social attractiveness. Similar two-sided attitudes have been reported in research relating to ELF and World Englishes. These often utilise direct methods, which directly refer to the constructs to which attitudes are elicited, such as ‘native speaker English’ or ‘Chinese accented English’ (see section below on ‘Language attitudes and ELF’). This approach is often favoured in these areas, or used in conjunction with indirect methods (e.g. He and Li, 2009), as it is seen as closer to the realities of participants and allows direct access to views without the researcher selecting and framing language samples (which is a difficult task considering the variability in Global Englishes). The majority of findings suggest that the Englishes associated with native English speakers are commonly valued positively in relation to aspirations and accuracy, while other positive characteristics are assigned to ‘non-native’ or ‘non-inner circle’ Englishes, such as intelligibility and interpersonal alignment (see Fang 2016; Galloway, 2013; Jenkins, 2007; Karakaş, 2015; Kirkpatrick and Xu, 2002; Wang, 2013). These are often framed in terms of the future potential of the roles of English, while also considering the influences of ideologies and educational practices on attitudes, or the potential influences of attitudes on social and institutional practices. Language attitude research related to ELF has given more weight to claims that constructs such as ‘standard English’ or ‘native English’ do not possess a mystical power in people’s minds that positions the English associated with ‘non-native’ English speakers as necessarily inferior by association. More widely, language attitude research, over time, has helped establish core values in linguistics today, such as the observation that all language is ‘accented’, and that speech style becomes recognised and infused with meaning only when there is the social knowledge upon which to ground it (see Coupland, 2007). Perceptions of the speaker and context can even lead to the misinterpretation of speech forms based on inadequate or misconceived social information (Niedzielski, 1999; Rubin, 1992; Xu et al., 2010). An important finding from language attitude research, therefore, is that evaluations of language tend, in fact, to be evaluations of people and their perceived place within wider social structures, and this is accessible through experience, familiarity and social connections (see Edwards, 1982). Attitude research has presented aspects of this, often with the impact of informing new directions within this research area. Whether an attitude is held to a person or to their language, the foundations of thought that relate to either are founded on complex practices, experiences and histories. Studies that are not in alignment with such ontological understandings of communication, thinking and people could be drawn into separating language from wider social consideration or
534
ELF and changing ‘attitudes’
separating attitudes from wider social engagement. ELF researchers studying perceptions of language have been contending with the dichotomy between pragmatic reasons for labels, classifications and reifications of constructs and the dynamic nature of communicative practices in ELF scenarios (see Mortensen, 2013) that cannot be adequately captured by such rigid frameworks. We question, therefore, whether it is wise or even possible to attempt a priori separations between attitudes and wider conceptualisations or between language and communication in ELF-related research. This is because concepts in this area have shifted towards more holistic and contextually grounded approaches to understanding situated communication among language users, as highlighted in the next section.
ELF and new directions As presented above, ELF has grown as a field of enquiry, and has been discussed and (re) conceptualised by various scholars (Jenkins, 2015; Seidlhofer, 2011; Widdowson, 2012). As a result of continual developments, the approaches taken to account for the language practices of those who use English with speakers who do not share their first language has naturally become more nuanced and considered. With such a diverse subject matter as ‘people using English in ELF scenarios’, early attempts to account for a priori accounts of large-scale language patterns, i.e. language that can be explained, predicted and codified without reference to specific contextual communicative episodes, speakers or functions, have made way for more contextually driven and open approaches (see Baird et al., 2014; Jenkins, 2015). Along with other fields such as anthropology and SLA, scholars researching ELF are approaching more grounded (McNamara, 2014), translingual/multilingual (Jenkins, 2015), contextual (Ehrenreich, 2009), sociocultural (Baker, 2015) and complex (Baird et al., 2014) aspects of communicative interaction among communicators. The reason for this shift in some scholars’ thinking is not just that new data made complexity apparent, but rather that, as Seidlhofer (2011) states, the as in English as a lingua franca fuses the idea of ELF to language in use, i.e. communication. Conceptualising a focus on communication logically involves shifting greater focus towards the contextualisation of language and integration of wider elements that communication embodies. This is especially evident in the kinds of communication observable in ELF settings. We see Harris’s work as useful in this regard when he proposes three scales of integrated communication: a biological scale (e.g. our brains, articulators and bodies), macrosocial scale (social expectations, conventions and ideas) and situational scale (the situated interaction between interlocutors) (Harris, 1997). ‘Language’, according to this idea, can only be understood within the situational scale, as this is where the three scales become integrated. Moving in a similar direction, some ELF scholars have made a more explicit shift towards accounting for human interaction and away from focusing on decontextualised language forms (Baird et al. 2014; Hall, 2013; Jenkins, 2015; Mortensen, 2013), which is in line with approaches to language in wider fields (see Harris, 1997; Pennycook, 2010). Moving forward from this progressive shift in conceptualisations around ELF, there are a range of attitudinal, conceptual and perceptual aspects of language that inform us of people’s linguistic realities. How the ‘attitudinal’ can be isolated from the complex interplay between aspects of cognition, performance and contextualisation presents a challenge for researchers, as research goals are mapped onto a more complex framework. That being said, how the specific notion of ‘attitude’ can inform us, or mislead us, in this increasingly plurilithic area of research forms the focus below.
535
Robert Baird and Mariko Baird
Language attitudes and ELF Having mentioned aspects of the historical development of language attitude alongside recent developments in English as a lingua franca, it is useful to consider where alignment is lacking between approaches to attitudes and the conceptualisations of language that are emerging among ELF researchers. We consider first the justification for attitude research and its accompanying frameworks as opposed to concepts and approaches, mentioned in the beginning of the chapter, that invite more open and exploratory enquiries into people’s perceptions. We explore ways in which constructs tend to be pre-framed and reified in attitude research, and the effects of this. Possible responses to these issues are discussed in the final section of the chapter. Juxtaposing ELF research and language attitudes To begin with, a discussion of language attitudes and ELF would be incomplete without considering what an attitude is and how it is represented, in order to establish its relevance to ELF research. As mentioned above, at its simplest level, an attitude is generally agreed to involve an evaluative judgement or response to a perceived object or construct (see Cargile et al. 1994; Coupland, 2007; Edwards, 1982; Garrett, 2010; Jenkins, 2007). The way that ‘an attitude to something’ is framed as a reportable, singular entity suggests a level of stability and identifiability inherent in an attitude, which allows researchers to attempt to disassociate language from other aspects of communicative settings, or to isolate this evaluative perception from wider thought processes. Furthermore, attitude research typically begins with an ‘object’ of some kind to which people are expected to have an attitude. However, the problem of this starting point is that researchers cannot know how this ‘object’ is conceptualised, or even whether this ‘object’ is perceived as a category, by research participants. In both direct and indirect approaches, labels and/or samples should really have coinciding relevance to participants and to the wider research community for whom research is conducted, framed and reported, if findings are to be in any way generalisable and based on understood phenomena. This creates difficulty for this kind of research once we accept that social knowledge, constructs and categories, including language and social groupings, are performed into being in various ways, and are therefore grounded in people’s perceptions and experiences of what they are and what they mean. Convenience, manageability and large (potential) sample sizes are possible reasons for choosing to conduct attitude studies as opposed to more qualitative enquiries into, for instance, positioning (Holland and Leander, 2004) or identification (Bucholz and Hall, 2010), which tend to draw on ecological (van Lier, 2004), ethnographic (Blommaert and Dong, 2010) or ethnolinguistic (Riley, 2007) frameworks. The convenience gained at the level of intended generalisability and impact can at times offer only pseudo-convenience, as the stabilisation and compartmentalisation of what should be complex and integrated could present a misleading picture of people’s perceptions, as we will explore in relation to our own research after a clarification of the issues with which attitude researchers have to contend in order to reflect perceptions and positions in relation to dynamic communicative environments. Whether X can have an attitude to Y, and how that attitude can be perceived by researchers, is firstly dependent on the nature of Y. It is also grounded in X’s relationships with and perceptions and experiences of Y. Moreover, reporting this involves establishing who X is, and if reporting on selected social groups, which most attitude research does, it also involves identifying what makes X a demonstrable grouping, although not all research 536
ELF and changing ‘attitudes’
does suggest such alignment among research participants. A number of studies in World Englishes and ELF, however, tend to report findings in relation to aggregates of people rather than individuals who occupy a social space or communicative context. The linear approach to reporting attitudes according to researcher-assigned groups can be reflected in the treatment of ‘Y’, the social object, which appears in the form of other groupings that could disguise diversity within them (e.g. native speakers) or framed categories of language (e.g. Japanese English). Such framing is not always appropriate when approaching fundamental questions around ELF scenarios, such as how combinations of language acts can be used and perceived contextually, how people interpret meanings within multimodal and translingual communicative landscapes vis-à-vis ‘English’, how people handle processes of identification within complex semiotic environments, or how culturally saturated forms and artefacts become recontextualised, adapted and interwoven within local practices. Addressing these questions precludes pre-framing a clear object of analysis, as they require a dialogic understanding before any attitudes could be distinguished among ‘a group’ towards ‘a social object’. The issues identified in aligning attitude research and ELF relates to ideas of language and communication, mentioned in the previous section. In terms of linguistic signs, there is a fundamental metalinguistic issue in attitude research. Most attitude studies are reliant on lexical representation of both the ‘Y’, to which one might have an attitude, and the evaluative judgements of respondents (X). In a field that is alive to the dynamic nature of communication and the contextual variability inherent in semiotics, relationships between labels and analytic categories need careful attention, as Brubaker and Cooper (2000: 5) describe: We should seek to explain the processes and mechanisms through which what has been called the ‘political fiction’ of the ‘nation’ – or of the ‘ethnic group’, ‘race’, or other putative ‘identity’ – can crystallize, at certain moments, as a powerful, compelling reality. But we should avoid unintentionally reproducing or reinforcing such reification by uncritically adopting categories of practice as categories of analysis. While some have attempted to address metalinguistic issues in the analytic categorisation of attitude studies (this is, after all, a wide field comprising many sub-fields), there is an issue with pre-framed assumptions that suggest both a relatively stable attitudinal position that a person is or is not likely to take and widely understood labels or examples in relation to which attitudes can be elicited and measured. In Harris’s scales of language, the attitude frameworks problematised above tend to rely heavily on the biomechanical (seeking ‘attitudes’ as mental representations) and macrosocial (asking for perceptions of labels and forms) rather than looking at the integration of these within the situational scale (the contextualisation of communication and cognition). To occlude variability and contextualisation in the meaning of words, and therefore researched phenomena represented by such words, strays into what Harris (1997) would term a telementational fallacy, which involves a false assumption that words have discrete and secure meanings across contexts, which is especially problematic when communication in ELF scenarios is characterised by fluidity and hybridity. We would argue that misconceptions of linguistic signs and communicative practices have had a deep and lasting influence in the field of applied linguistics, and are symptomatic of how research fields are managed and subject-matter confined, which, as Seargeant (2010) observes, can serve to ignore fundamental parts of whole systems being observed, and make accounts partial to disciplinary approaches and terminology. When applied to complex human activity, such approaches can result in overlooking the fuzziness and complexities of 537
Robert Baird and Mariko Baird
what happens in situated practice, where people constantly engage in dynamic processes of meaning-making and identity construction. We will highlight this below by looking at our own experiences of ELF research. Categorisation in attitude research While we might use certain constructs to discuss and account for aspects of social reality as applied linguists, by “imposing our own order on [the world] by devising abstract concepts so as to bring it under conceptual control” (Widdowson, 2012: 5), when we transfer such notions onto our accounts of people, we should consider how these notions map onto their experiences and their perceptions, as the examples below, taken from reflections on our own research (Baird, 2013; Kitazawa, 2013), demonstrate. Kitazawa’s research (2013), which explores conceptualisations of English in East Asian contexts, originally employed labels such as ‘Korean people’s English’ or ‘native speaker’s English’ in interview questions (e.g. “what do you think about Korean people’s English?”), in order to bring ‘convenient’ frameworks into conversations with participants. There was also a certain level of expectation that participants would comment on or describe the forms of English that were in question (e.g. “Their English sounds like . . .”) and show some attitudes towards them (e.g. “I like their English because . . .”). Although this was often the case when participants mentioned ‘American English’ (e.g. “I prefer American English to . . .”) and ‘British English’ (e.g. “it sounds elegant”), their comments on non-native speakers’ English went against such expectations. There was hardly any reference to forms or preferences when participants talked about English of East Asian people (e.g. “Japanese people’s English”), which is most likely because the object in question lacked generalisable forms in their minds. Responses reflected experiences with known interlocutors rather than uniform group characteristics, which serves as a warning to other researchers that categories that are initially brought into research frameworks might not have recognisable shapes in participants’ minds, and that even when they do, how these are conceptualised might be drawn variously from participants’ experiences and their contextual knowledge rather than from a static understanding of the category as proposed in the methodological or conceptual framework of the study. Similar observations were made in relation to perceptions of ‘native-like’ English, which arose in some interviews. Rather than being seen as ‘the English of inner-circle countries’, as one might expect from linguists’ use of the term, this was instead perceived in relation to an ability to fluently communicate without having to consider aspects of grammar, language or speech style, or to speak without thinking about speaking, as the speakers presumably felt they did in their first languages. When non-native English speakers say in an interview that they wish to speak English like a native speaker, or tick a box in a questionnaire saying that they aspire to native-like English, it could mean that they want to speak English without being nervous, which might be related more closely to their view of their own ‘native-like competence’ in their first language than to their view of an English speaker of a particular nation. Clearly, such responses can be (mis)interpreted that “they wish to sound like native English speakers”, if the researcher conceptualises ‘native-speaker English’ in that way. This deconstruction of groupings and re-framing of constructs was also a theme in Baird’s (2013) research on the experiences and positionings of students in China, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand on English-medium postgraduate programmes. He found that the participant groupings he observed, which could be framed as ‘speech communities’ or ‘communities of practice’ in some studies, did not reflect common depictions of such 538
ELF and changing ‘attitudes’
constellations within the contexts observed. People, unsurprisingly, had different social networks, trajectories, identifications and ideas of language, which had implications for their perceptions of and engagement with the linguistic landscapes around them. For example, identification played an important role within contextual communication, with some MA TESOL students in Taiwan seeing corrections of each other’s English as sustaining and enhancing their shared trajectories and relationships. These students saw accuracy in English as a relevant construct in their professional identities and the group practices among postgraduate teachers. This caused conflict within the group, however, as other Taiwanese students with different life experiences, perceived trajectories and orientations to language saw such corrections as an obstacle to their interactions and, for one student in particular, as a rather typical misunderstanding of language and communication made by some Taiwanese people. This last point showed divisions that were present across contexts, with students from the same group identifying against others based on knowledge, experience, ethnicity and practices. This shows clear issues within any proposed ‘X’ group in this study, if a researcher were seeking to measure X’s attitude to Y. This study showed further issues with identifying the ‘Y’ to which this heterogeneous group (X) would share a similar attitude, certainly in relation to the traditional attitude frameworks and approaches mentioned earlier in the chapter. Participants tended to share closer orientations to language based on their experiences with communication, whether with native or non-native speakers, than with either their own demographic grouping or the grouping of their interlocutors. For instance, feedback on writing that was presented in relation to a perceived (not present) ‘Western’ reader was seen by some as an obstacle to understanding culturally specific feedback in the absence of that culture or cultural representative, which aligns with some rejections of form-based corrections within student groups mentioned above. Although that might be seen as an attitude to ‘native-speaker English’ in some studies, in fact, communication with native speakers was perceived by some to be more cooperative, flexible and friendly than with many teachers or classmates locally, which was down to the friendliness and cooperation of the relationships and situations experienced rather than the speaker type. As with the written feedback and correction example, this shows that accessibility, type of communication and the environment are essential in understanding what people might draw on when reacting to aspects of language or speakers. Similarly, language forms and practices transcended geographical boundaries and were interwoven with processes of recontextualisation in this study. Participants’ experiences of ‘English’ were tied up with different discourses, in-groups and positionings, for example, a Taiwanese postgraduate Business School student regularly participated on international social media sites as an active fan of the Twilight movies, a Thai MA TESOL student had just returned from the US after serving as the sole apprentice of a small-town artisan sign maker and a Taiwanese MA TESOL student had formed a childhood friendship with a US missionary and joined, and sometimes led and promoted, his local Bible reading group in her home town. Differences in experiences were found to be characteristic of each ‘group’ identified in the investigation and the types of language practices that they drew on when reporting these differences. This makes it difficult to identify objects of attitudes without understanding how experience and positioning influences participants’ perceptions of and relationships with them. Despite shared nationalities and similar contextual roles among the participants, a deeper understanding of their experiences and practices was necessary in order to understand their identification processes and contextualised perceptions. The language and people they experienced could incorporate both ‘local’ and ‘foreign’ elements 539
Robert Baird and Mariko Baird
to them, and, as seen above, the local and the foreign are far from homogeneous anyway, making researcher-framed social objects (Y) in these ELF contexts problematic. From the above examples, we can see that although ELF research has had an important role in accounting for and understanding the ways in which people use and perceive English, it also deals with ideas that do not always reflect the reality in which respondents engage. This reflects Brumfit’s warning about formulating a priori frameworks of language and culture that intend to answer questions about people and their realities before fundamental questions are asked (2001: 136), as this serves to reinforce stereotypes and to position people rather than breaking through stereotypes and understanding people’s positioning. More inclusive, dialogic and situated frameworks would therefore be more reflective of how thinking works in relation to language because it is more aligned with human communicative realities. As well as showing how X self-identifies as X, this kind of approach could also show how they perceive Y, and why this is important (or not) for them.
Conclusion To conclude this chapter, we would like to reiterate that language attitudes have been a useful heuristic for beginning to look beyond language in ELF research, with positive realisations for the field. Perhaps work in this area is the reason why we felt comfortable proposing this chapter and why others have engaged in such diverse areas of English as a lingua franca as seen in the chapters of this book. With the current movements in the field, however, we feel that research into perceptions of language that relate to ELF scenarios need to embrace a more qualitative and complex turn that have been embraced in discussions of ELF in other areas (see Baird et al. 2014; Jenkins, 2015). Considering the complex and subjective nature of social, linguistic and thinking processes, we put forward some ideas for future research in this area, especially in relation to how perceptions might be extrapolated, dialogically understood and made relevant to the field. 1 The part is not divisible from the whole. Just as linguistic forms emerge in communicative practices, our evaluations of constructs we perceive emerge from our cognitive processing of the complex environments in which we engage. Isolating small parts of wider and far more complex processes in order to consider their influence can only occur with an understanding of the wider picture and then extrapolating from there, not by pre-framing limited aspects of practices for investigation and isolating these from wider factors. Moreover, failing to account holistically for different aspects of situated practice can misrepresent the nature of the constructs studied, which are contextualised with wider phenomena. 2 Perceptions are subject to situational and personalised integration. Thought, whether deliberate or not, emerges from contextual engagement, both experientially, perceptually and situationally. Research that ignores wider aspects of perceptions and practices that exist around people’s evaluative reactions to equally complex social phenomena has limited alignment with wider findings from open fields of enquiry such as ELF. Conversely, studies that seek detail, variability and multiplicity in people’s perceptions of and interactions with language practices can gain a clearer picture of attitudes. Findings from such studies can provide insights into the trajectories, timescales, identities, groupings, power relations and sites that influence evaluative judgements, and therefore can better align with this dynamic field of enquiry. 540
ELF and changing ‘attitudes’
3 Framing and modelling should reflect the complexity of the phenomenon. The framing of people’s social and perceptual worlds needs to account for complex linguistic environments and discourses (Larsen-Freeman, 2011), alongside the complexity of phenomenological views mentioned above. Here, although simplification is important in managing and controlling ideas, these should not result in the adoption of a priori ontological approaches to framing phenomena that can only be understood with a posteriori and holistic insights, which seek to enquire rather than explain. Studies relating to language attitudes and ELF have shown that most constructs take meaning in various ways, from ‘native speaker English’ to ‘accent’. Therefore, future ELF research is likely to involve engagement with this multiplicity through more open investigations of the interactions between constructs, social environments and people’s contextualised perceptions and practices. 4 Meaning is ephemeral, individual, dialogic and contextual. People do use identifiable constructs and stereotypes for a number of functions, but their regularity in practice breeds irregularity in meaning, as all social meanings are conceived, perceived, performed and received variously within processes of contextualisation. Just as repetition of form is not repetition of meaning (Pennycook, 2010), neither is a shared feature or background enough to make a ‘group’ or ‘construct’, nor a similar statement or rating enough to claim an understanding of people’s thinking. Not only do ‘meanings change’ in language, but it is a fallacy to consider our conceptual and linguistic tools of meaning-making to possess stability between speakers, contexts and times. Only by placing ‘evaluative perceptions of’ within a deeper understanding of ‘perceptions’ can alignment be achieved with wider ELF enquiries that seek understanding of linguistic environments and functions ahead of language forms and norms. Therefore, scholars emphasise the potential of ELF research to push against the dominance of notions of normativity and limiting labels such as ‘learners’, ‘standards’ and ‘competence’, and move towards ideas of pluricentrism, complexity and performativity. We have attempted to highlight ways in which language attitude research can lack alignment with this conceptual shift, which is more oriented towards qualitative approaches and open questions than pre-framed and compartmentalised approaches. This is not to say that language attitude research has not contributed to ELF research endeavours, but that enhancing our understanding of attitudes in the field requires establishing the ‘objects’ and ‘attitudes’ investigated after developing a more holistic understanding of people’s identification processes, their phenomenological perceptions of their surroundings and the situational practices in which they construct and interpret meaning.
Related chapters in this handbook 1 Mauranen, Conceptualising ELF 2 Baker, English as a lingua franca and intercultural communication 4 Larsen-Freeman, Complexity and ELF 6 Hall, Cognitive perspectives on English as a lingua franca 24 Kimura and Canagarajah, Translingual practice and ELF 44 Morán Panero, Global languages and lingua franca communication 541
Robert Baird and Mariko Baird
Further reading Baird, R., Baker, W. and Kitazawa, M. (2014). The complexity of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(1), pp. 171–196. Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
References Atkinson, P., Coffey, A. and Delamont, S. (2003). Key Themes in Qualitative Research: Continuities and Change. Oxford: AltaMira Press. Baird, R. (2013). Investigating perceptions of Master’s students on English as a medium of instruction programmes in East Asia. PhD thesis, University of Southampton. Available from: https://eprints. soton.ac.uk/366601/ (accessed 3 March 2016). Baird, R., Baker, W. and Kitazawa, M. (2014). The complexity of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(1), pp. 171–196. Baker, W. (2015). Culture and Identity through English and a Lingua Franca: Rethinking Concepts and Goals in Intercultural Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter. Blommaert, J. and Dong, J. (2010). Ethnographic Fieldwork: A Beginners Guide. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond ‘identity’. Theory and Society, 29, pp. 1–47. Brumfit, C.J. (2001). Individual Freedom in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2010). Locating identity in language. In Llamas, C. and Watt, D. (Eds.), Language and Identities. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 18–28. Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. London: Routledge. Cargile, A.C. and Giles, H. (1997). Understanding language attitudes: exploring listener affect and identity. Language and Communication, 17(3), pp. 195–217. Cargile, A., Giles, H., Ryan, E. and Bradac, J.J. (1994). Language attitudes as a social process: a conceptual model and new directions. Language and Communication, 14, pp. 211–236. Coffey, A. (1999). The Ethnographic Self. London: Sage. Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edwards, J. (1982). Language attitudes and their implication among English speakers. In Ryan, E. and Giles, H. (eds), Attitudes Towards Language Variation. London: Edward Arnold, pp. 30–33. Ehrenreich, S. (2009). English as a lingua franca in multinational corporations: exploring business communities of practice. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 11–34. Fang, F. (2016). ‘Mind your local accent’ Does accent training resonate to college students’ English use? Englishes in Practice, 3(1), pp. 1–28. Galloway, N. (2013). Global Englishes and English language teaching (ELT): bridging the gap between theory and practice in a Japanese context. System, 41, pp. 786–803. Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giles, H. (1970). Evaluative reactions to accents. Educational Review, 22(3), pp. 211–227. Hall, C.J. (2013). Cognitive contributions to plurilithic views of English and other languages. Applied Linguistics, 34(2), pp. 211–31. Harris, R. (1981). The Language Myth. London: Duckworth. Harris, R. (1997). From an integrational point of view. In Wolf, G. and Love, N. (eds), Linguistics Inside Out: Roy Harris and His Critics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 229–310. He, D. and Li, D. (2009). Language attitudes and linguistic features in the ‘China English’ debate. World Englishes, 28(1), pp. 70–89. Holland, D. and Leander, K. (2004). Ethnographic studies of positioning and subjectivity: An introduction. Ethos, 32(2), pp. 127–139. Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice, 2(3), pp. 49–85 Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44(3), pp. 281–315. 542
ELF and changing ‘attitudes’
Karakaş, A. (2015). Orientations towards English among English-medium instruction students. Englishes in Practice, 2(1), pp. 1–38. Kirkpatrick, A. and Xu, Z. (2002). Chinese pragmatic norms and ‘China English’. World Englishes, 21(2), pp. 269–279. Kitazawa, M. (2013) Approaching conceptualisations of English in East Asia: ideas, ideology, and identification. PhD thesis, University of Southampton. Available from: https://eprints.soton. ac.uk/367342/ (accessed 10 October 2015). Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R., Gardner, R.C. and Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, pp. 44–51. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). A complexity theory approach to second language development/ acquisition. In Atkinson, D. (ed.), Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. London: Routledge, pp. 48–72. McKenzie, R.M. (2008). Social factors and non-native attitudes towards varieties of spoken English: a Japanese case study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 63–88. McNamara, T. (2014). 30 years on: evolution or revolution? Language Assessment Quarterly, 11, pp. 226–232. Mortensen, J. (2013). Notes on English used as a lingua franca as an object of study. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(1), pp. 25–46. Niedzielski, N. (1999). The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18(1), pp. 62–85. Oppenheim, A.N. (1992). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. London: New York: Continuum. Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a Local Practice. London: Routledge. Petty, R.E., Wegener, D.T. and Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, pp. 609–647. Rubin, D.L. (1992). Nonlanguage factors affecting undergraduates’ judgments of nonnative Englishspeaking teaching assistants. Research in Higher Education, 33(4), pp. 511– 31. Riley, P. (2007). Language, Culture and Identity: An Ethnolinguistic Perspective. London: Continuum. Sealey, A. and Carter, B. (2004). Applied Linguistics as Social Science. London: Continuum. Seargeant, P. (2010). The historical ontology of language. Language Sciences, 32, pp. 1–13. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, J.A., Flowers, P. and Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research. London: Sage. van Lier, L. (2004). The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic. Wang, Y. (2013). Non-conformity to ENL norms: a perspective from Chinese English users. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(2), pp. 255–282. Widdowson, H.G. (2012). ELF and the inconvenience of established concepts. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), 5–26. Xu, W., Wang, Y. and Case, R.E. (2010). Chinese attitudes towards varieties of English: a pre-Olympic examination. Language Awareness, 19(4), 249–260.
543
43 ELF in migration Maria Grazia Guido
Introduction: issues in the use of ELF in migration contexts This chapter focuses on the cognitive and communicative processes involved in the production and reception of discourse in ELF that occur within domain-specific contexts where non-native speakers of English – i.e., EU experts in authority (in the case studies under analysis, intercultural mediators in legal and medical contexts) and non-EU immigrants as supplicants (in the cases in point, from Sub-Saharian West-Africa) – interact in centres for legal advice and medical assistance to migrants and asylum seekers. In such contexts, the experts’ interviews often turn into gate-keeping situations because of misunderstandings frequently caused by different ELF variations in contact. It has been observed (Guido 2008, 2012) that, although both groups make use of English as their means of communication, the English variations each uses in these migration contexts are often respectively – to use Kachru’s (1986) terminology – from the outer circle (regarding the variations spoken by immigrants mainly coming from former British colonies) and from the expanding circle (variations spoken by EU experts who are non-native speakers of English). Precisely as the native-speaker varieties from the inner circle are norm providing, so also the outer-circle ones are recognized as being endonormative, having developed different norms characterizing their own ‘different’ Englishes, which are accepted as legitimate variations since they have become ‘official’ in former colonial contexts. And yet, such an acceptance does not apply to the expanding-circle English variations, which are instead conventionally regarded as exonormative in reference to the inner-circle norms and, thus, as ‘defective variants’ of the native-speaker language. What has been observed to happen (Guido 2008) in migration domains is that when outer-circle varieties are dislocated in an EU context and come into contact with exonormative expanding-circle variations, they lose their endonormative status as they come to be perceived by EU experts in charge of interactions on exactly the same level as other expanding-circle ELF variations – that is, as mere ‘deficient’ variants of the inner-circle standard norms. As a result, not acknowledging other, non-native variants and modes of communication can have serious social and personal consequences, particularly when intercultural specialized communication occurs in migration contexts. This is so because, whereas in ‘normal’ 544
ELF in migration
circumstances of intercultural interactions ELF-users from the expanding circle aim at cooperative communication by drawing on the resources of their respective native languages without claiming any ownership of the English language (Jenkins 2007; Seidlhofer 2011), in cases of unequal encounters in migration contexts, instead, the conditions for achieving such mutual accommodation of communicative modes very often do not occur. The reason for such a cooperation failure is, therefore, to be ascribed not simply to status differences between the participants in the interactions, but also, and crucially, to their respective different native linguacultural backgrounds, as well as to the outer-circle migrants’ attempts at investing their socio-cultural identity in their ELF variants as an expression of their primary community values (Guido 2008). Central in this enquiry into ELF variability used in migration contexts is the notion of transfer of the non-native speakers’ respective L1 semantic, syntactic and pragmatic structures into ELF – a transfer that has been observed as mainly caused by the different cognitive-experiential backgrounds – or schemata1 – underlying their native languages and cultures (Guido 2008, 2012). Whereas in mainstream interlanguage research (cf. Selinker 1992; Selinker and Lakshmanan 1992) the notion of ‘L1→L2 transfer’ has principally explained the ‘syntactic errors’ produced by non-native speakers of a language (Corder 1981), in the present enquiry into migration interactions, it has been expanded to include the cognitive dimension of the participants’ native schemata informing their L1 and, thus, influencing their use of ELF, thus causing misunderstandings. Indeed, this kind of transfer affects the grammaticalization processes of the ELF variations triggered by the transfer of the L1 cognitive-syntactic structures with the L2-grammar, thereby contributing to the development of the grammar of an ELF variation. The expression ‘developing ELF grammar’, however, is not intended to signify any such thing as a gradual approximation of L2-English to the Standard English as a native language (ENL). Particularly in migration contexts where outer-/expanding-circle ELF variations come into contact, it is necessary that the EU experts in charge of interactions do not consider the nonEU migrants’ distinctive syntactic, semantic and pragmatic characteristics as ‘interlanguage errors’ in need of defossilization, or as ‘code deviations’ typical of ‘uneducated’ non-native speakers, but rather as ‘English variations’ meant as variable uses independent from ENL, reflecting typical grammaticalized features to be acknowledged and accepted. Yet, EU experts from the expanding circle tend to expect from migrants a conformity to an exonormative native-speaker grammar and pragmatics that they have learnt in pedagogic contexts usually guaranteed by the assessable system of certified levels of ‘interlanguage’ approximation to the Standard English code according to established criteria, for example those of the Common European Framework of Reference for languages (CEFR). On such grounds, misunderstanding in ELF use has been noted to be less frequent when the two participants’ native languages are typologically similar (Greenberg 1973) in their cognitive-semantic and syntactic structures (Guido 2008). These structures, once transferred to the participants’ use of English in ELF settings, are not expected to cause serious divergences because their respective ELF variations may converge syntactically and be cognitively shared in the interaction, as they may be perceived by both participants as familiar and ‘unmarked’ (Eckman 1977). Conversely, an ELF interaction perceived as ‘marked’ (ibid.) is assumed to be primarily caused by the participants’ typologically different L1 structures transferred into their respective ELF variations, which makes misunderstanding more likely to occur. Being aware of these processes of L1-transfer underlying ELF-use is therefore particularly important for the experts in charge of intercultural specialized 545
Maria Grazia Guido
interactions and, as such, responsible for the successful outcome of communication. Such an awareness is not normally evident in experts in charge of migration interactions – as the following case studies will show.
Case-study analysis Case-study method In the enquiry reported in this chapter, the data on ELF used by the participants in interactions were collected in the course of longitudinal case studies, mostly implemented in reception camps for immigrants and asylum seekers in Italy. Data were then analysed according to a protocol procedure (Ericcson and Simon 1984) designed to investigate the processes by which experts (mostly Italian specialists) try to impose – deliberately or unintentionally – upon immigrants their own ELF pragmalinguistic uses and the generic conventions informed by their specialized background shared with the community of practice to which they belong. Such uses and conventions may be not only cognitively and linguistically inaccessible but also conceptually unavailable (Widdowson 1991) to non-EU immigrants who, in fact, may find it difficult, if not impossible, to understand specialized concepts and discourse behaviours that are alien to their native socio-cultural and pragmalinguistic schemata. The underlying hypothesis is that both participants in the interaction tend to activate their own linguacultural schemata in order to come to an understanding of the unfamiliar communicative situations they are involved in – which is assumed to be at the very source of intercultural miscommunication in migration contexts, as illustrated in the following case studies representing instances of ELF communication failure and possible accommodation strategies. Case study 1 Case study 1 introduces an instance of cross-cultural miscommunication caused by EU experts’ and West-African immigrants’ lack of awareness of the L1→ELF transfer processes that both automatically activate as they interact through the use of their respective ELF variations. The focus is specifically on the contact between two different semantic conceptualizations of events in two typologically different L1s spoken by the participants in an interaction – namely, an Italian intercultural mediator interrogating a Nigerian immigrant who was suspected of hiding the identities of the smugglers that had helped him reach the southern coasts of Italy. The ELF variations used throughout this interaction were represented by the immigrant’s outer-circle endonormative Nigerian Pidgin English (NPE), and by the intercultural mediator’s expanding-circle ELF variation, the latter regarded as exonormative in its reference to both the inner-circle norms of native speaker usage and the ‘interrogation routines’ conventionally shared by specialized communities of practice within the EU. The analysis is focused on the two typologically different accusative and ergative structures of the participants’ L1s transferred into their respective ELF variations. On one hand, there is the Nigerian immigrant’s ergative construction of events typical of his L1 – i.e. Igbo (Nwachukwu 1976; Agbo 2009) – in which the logical inanimate object replaces an animate agent in grammatical-subject position according to the OV(S) typology (Langacker 1991: 336). Such an ergative clausal construction was thus transferred to the immigrant’s NPE as ELF variation so that, in reporting his clandestine journey to Italy, 546
ELF in migration
the immigrant identified as the actual cause of the illegal transport not a human agency (i.e., ‘the smugglers’), but an inanimate object (i.e., the ‘ship’) perceived as a medium apparently endowed with a life and force-dynamic energy of its own. On the other hand, this ergative structure in the immigrant’s ELF variation was interpreted by the Italian intercultural mediator according to his own L1 ‘accusative’ SVO clausal structure, thus ascribing to the Nigerian immigrant the deliberate intention to omit information about the identity of the smugglers, on the grounds that he avoided placing an animate agent in subject position. This accusative structure also underlies the Western conventional register of institutional interrogations, which places animate agents in thematic subject positions when they are assumed to be guilty of an offence. The following extract is from the interrogation of the Italian intercultural mediator (IM) to the just landed Nigerian immigrant (NI) carried out in support of the police enquiry (Guido 2008).2 Each participant uses his own respective ELF variation:3 IM: who::: (.) assisted you:: (.) in the journey to Italy? NI: won old ship bin bo::ard os many many < =di deck so::: so:: bin pack (.) di hold so so cra::m .hhh di ship wood bin sweat hh di hull bin (.) drip water [An old ship boarded us, too many, the deck was so packed and the hold so crammed. The ship wood sweated, the hull leaked water. IM: mm hm (..) how much money did you pay for that ship? who:: did [you pay?] NI: [every money] (.) e:::verything >bin don dry finish< (..) .hh after won day journey di ship bin struggle struggle against di se:::a (.) .hh-heavy won night (.) hhh di wave dem bin de ri::se (.) like tower (.) na cold cold o o [Every money, every good had dried up. After one day journey, the ship struggled against the rough sea in the night. The waves were rising like towers and they were so cold!] IM starts the exchange with a question organized according to the accusative clausal structure, foregrounding the animate agent causing the action in a ‘culpable’ subject position (‘Who’). NI’s answer, however, is perceived by IM as dispreferred not only because it keeps the typical NPE pre-verbal tense/aspect markers, but also because it focuses on the inanimate object of the ‘ship’ collocated in subject position within the ergative clause construction, as if it were the animate agent causing the action. The actual force-dynamic agent represented by the smuggler is in fact left unspecified. The sense of despair pervading NI’s report is stressed by the emphatic phoneme /o/, often reduplicated, representing an Igbo/ Yoruba emotional suffix. Also the word/morpheme reduplication is a typical ‘substratumloan structure’ derived from Nigerian indigenous languages and is used in NPE (and in other pidgins and creoles) as ‘emotional intensifiers’ (Anagbogu 1995) (i.e., ‘many many’, ‘so so’, referred to the crowd of immigrants on board, and ‘struggle struggle’, referred to the ship’s desperate battle against the rough sea). Such emotional involvement is also reflected in the series of part-of-the-ship metonymic personifications in subject position within a sequence of ergative clauses where transitive verbs are used intransitively (the ship-deck that ‘packed’, the ‘hold’ that ‘so so’ ‘crammed’ with people, despite the evidence that the ‘ship wood’ ‘sweated’, and the hull ‘dripped water’). Such a ‘dissection’ of the ship into its animate parts embodies the immigrants’ unsettling feelings at realizing that there were really too many of them, overcrowding the parts of the weak ‘old ship’ carrying them. Yet IM’s reaction to such a painful account of events is just another detached request urging NI to reveal the identity of the smugglers (‘who did you pay?’). But IM again replies with a 547
Maria Grazia Guido
dispreferred informative sequence of ergative clausal constructions placing the inanimate object in subject position as an animate medium (NI’s money and goods had dried up, in metaphorical contrast with the overflow of water and waves against which the ship fiercely ‘struggled’). In this case, therefore, the two participants in the interaction failed to achieve cooperative communication through ELF. Case study 2 Case study 2 illustrates another situation of intercultural miscommunication – regarding this time the interaction between an Italian intercultural mediator and an asylum seeker from Sierra Leone – but, this time, alternative accommodation strategies are suggested (Guido 2012). More specifically, this case study is concerned with the transfer into the asylum seeker’s Sierra-Leone Krio English of the metaphorical structures typical of his native Yoruba language (Fabumni 1970) representing mental processes of cognition, perception and affection in the concrete terms of material processes of ‘doing’ (Halliday 1994). Such transfer processes, normally interpreted in their intended meaning within the original Krio speech community, often come to be misinterpreted in migration contexts when Krio is perceived like any other ELF variation. Nativized English variants, in fact, become ‘displaced’ and ‘transidiomatic’ (Silverstein 1998) once their patterns of meaning become disconnected from their original outer-circle contexts of use to be recontextualized within estranged expanding-circle communicative situations. Furthermore, the forensic methods of transcription of the immigrants’ ELF oral reports, usually made by intercultural mediators in support of the police or lawyers after institutional interviews, often involve first a displacement of such reports from their original contexts, and, then, their written reframing – or ‘entextualization’ (Urban 1996) – within totally new contexts. Indeed, the conventional entextualization practice of transcribing an oral report into a pattern of paragraphs follows culture-specific parameters of contextual logic, indexicality, textual coherence and cohesion, which do not correspond to the immigrants’ native discourse parameters that they transfer to their ELF reports (Blommaert 1997). Such a discrepancy may give rise to the serious issue of forensic misconstructions. Hence the importance of recovering the ‘situatedness’ (Gumperz 1982) of the immigrants’ displaced narrative (which entails recognizing the original contextual reference and relevance of their ELF reports) so as to interpret their narrative pertinently and, thus, producing appropriate forensic reformulations. A suggestion for a reliable entextualization that can be truthful to the intended meanings of the immigrants’ original reports is represented by Hymes’ (2003) ‘ethnopoetic approach’ to the analysis and transcription of non-Western oral narratives revealing non-conventional ‘verse patterns’ of language coherence, highlighting that which the speakers themselves consider as relevant in their accounts. In the case study in point, the ethnopoetic analysis can reveal the correct interpretation of the asylum seeker’s Krio ‘physical’ metaphors as an expression of his states of mind, whereas the conventional forensic entextualization of the same report into paragraphs carried out by the Italian intercultural mediator reveals his misinterpretation due to his biased context misconstruction causing communication failure. In fact, the intercultural mediator misinterpreted as a report of material, physical violence the asylum seeker’s native metaphors for psychological violence that he unconsciously transferred from his L1, Yoruba, to the Krio that he used as his ELF variation. The mediator’s presuppositions, therefore, were misleading in that they fulfil neither truth conditions (as the reported processes are not actual material actions), nor felicity – or appropriateness – conditions 548
ELF in migration
(as there were no shared assumptions between the two participants in this encounter). This encounter was clearly unequal insofar as the intercultural mediator attributed to himself the authority to ‘disambiguate’ the pragmatic presuppositions in the asylum seeker’s report without trying to understand his interlocutor’s native socio-cultural, linguistic and experiential parameters informing his report. The following brief extract is from an interview between the Italian intercultural mediator (IM) and the Krio-speaking Sierra Leonean asylum seeker (AS) who had fled from civil war but risked repatriation if the Committee for Refugees’ Rights decided to reject his asylum application. The ethnopoetic entextualization shows how, by deleting IM’s questions, the organization of narrative into ‘ethnopoetic lines’ (Hymes 2003: 304) becomes possible, with each line representing a unit of meaning marked by a metaphorical expression, thus restating the original ‘situatedness’ of AS’s narration. The interview extract is provided in the following three versions: 1 The original protocol of the interview transcript reproducing the participants’ ELF variations.4 2 IM’s written entextualization of the AS’s report, according to the conventional ‘paragraph’ format. 3 An ‘ethnopoetic’ entextualization of AS’s original narrative here proposed as an instance of a possible hybridization of different ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’ narrative styles. 1 Original transcript IM: was everything oka::y with the Committee? AS: o (.) dehn de chehr mi asylum application (.) yu si::? [They are tearing my asylum application, you see?] IM: Pardon? (.) ehm (.) can you explain (..) [>what do you mean?<] AS: [yehs] (.) dehn se:: mi kohntri na Nige::ria (.) a tehl dhen se a kohmoht na Salone .hhh boht dehn noh listin to mi [[Yes,] they say my country is Nigeria. I tell them that I come from Sierra Leone, but they don’t listen to me.] IM: they don’t listen you?= AS: =no IM: so (..) now you should try to get a (.) humanitarian permi::t then (..) in this way your bosses could perhaps (..) regularize your work (..) AS: o (..) dis boss ya so (.) dhen kin de kik mi ehvri de [Oh, these bosses here keep kicking me every day!] IM: wha::t? they kick you? AS: (.) dehn se a foh fala dehn, °boht dehn rod noh clear° [They say that I must follow them but their road is not clear.] IM: do you say that they tell you to follow them? [where?] AS: [.hhh dehn] de lehf mi insai da::k da::k ples dehn [Oh, they are leaving me inside a completely dark place.] 2 IM’s entextualization The Committee members have torn my asylum application to bits and when I tried to set out my reasons they didn’t even listen to me. My bosses, too, are only keen to kick me every day! They tell me to follow them along an uneven road, and then they left me shut in a completely dark place. 549
Maria Grazia Guido
3 ‘Ethnopoetic’ entextualization The Committee members are criticizing my asylum application severely, as if they were tearing it. They say that my country is Nigeria. I tell them that I come from Sierra Leone, but they don’t listen to me. The bosses I work for, moreover, keep disregarding me, and I feel as if they were kicking me every day! They say that I should follow their argument, but the line, the ‘path’ of what they say is not clear. They leave me entirely ignorant, as if in the dark, about everything. IM introduces the contextual circumstances of place/participants (the Committee for Refugees’ Rights) and AS replies by making anaphoric reference to the Committee members as ‘dehn’ (‘they’) and by rendering their mental process of ‘severely criticizing’ his asylum application into the material metaphor ‘de chehr’ (‘tearing’), and the consequent mental process of ‘discarding an assumption’ as ‘tearing a piece of paper’ (Lakoff/Johnson 1999: 240). To IM’s request for clarification, AS points out that the Committee’s offence is solely of a psychological kind as they kept misidentifying him as Nigerian, even when he claimed that he came from ‘unsafe’ Sierra Leone, a reference to nationality that escapes IM as he does not recognize the Krio word ‘Salone’. On being informed by IM about other possible legal alternatives that AS could pursue to facilitate his Italian employers in regularizing his status as an unregistered worker, AS shifts his focus from the Committee members to his employers, reporting the mental, emotional effects of their behaviour upon him. This is expressed by another ‘physical metaphor’ representing the employers (the ‘bosses’) who ‘kin de kik’ (‘keep kicking’) – i.e., ‘keep offending, disregarding’ – him regularly, thus stressing the emotional reactions to their psychological/verbal disrespect towards him by resorting to the material metaphor of ‘violent tactile sensations’ (Sweetser 1990: 43). In his transcription (2), IM misinterprets such a metaphor literally, with the Krio habitual/continuous-aspect markers ‘kin de’ rendered into the expression ‘keen to (on)’ (‘My bosses, too, are only keen to kick me every day!’) thus imputing to the employers deliberate physical abuse. Furthermore, AS metaphorically represents the employers requiring him to share their line of reasoning, which he finds ‘not clear’, by metaphorically rendering abstract ‘reasoning’ as a material ‘journey through space’, and ‘understanding a line of thought’ as ‘following someone along a path’ (Lakoff and Johnson 1999: 236). Once again, IM misread such metaphors, literally interpreting them as an imposition of hard physical activity upon AS. This may be due to AS’s use of the concrete term ‘road’ not immediately related to the figurative ‘logical path to follow’. IM also renders arbitrarily ‘not clear’ into ‘uneven road’, probably because he misread it as ‘not cleared’. AS then, in his report, blames his employers for keeping him ignorant about his rights through the expression ‘they are leaving me in completely dark places’ (i.e., ‘in the dark’), emphasized by the Krio lexical reduplication (‘da:k da:k’), which IM literally misinterprets as a ‘dark place’ in which AS is confined. In his entextualization, IM also inserts ‘backward links’ (‘and when’, ‘and then’) to turn the paragraph into a ‘logical’ sequence of violent facts. Differently from IM’s misinterpretation, in the ethnopoetic entextualization of the interview proposed in (3), the use of a hybrid ELF register renders the metaphors of the original report in terms of similes, or within ‘as if’ clauses, to make them explicit, thus disambiguating possible literal misinterpretations. Here, the two subjects of the ‘Committee’ 550
ELF in migration
and the ‘employers’ with the two related contexts represent the thematic starting point of each line, causing the narrative to be focused on a description of ‘how these subjects psychologically affect AS’, followed by AS’s attitude of disappointment introduced by adversative contrajunction ‘but’. Such an ethnopoetic type of forensic entextualization of non-Western immigrants’ oral reports may thus reproduce native narrative styles and linguistic features that a ‘normalization’ into a conventional Western forensic transcription would probably delete. Case study 3 The entextualization problems identified in the conventional forensic transcriptions of immigrants’ reports were also observed in the ‘transcultural psychiatric’ domain of nonWestern asylum seekers’ ELF-mediated trauma reports, which are often transcribed according to the established generic norms of the Western tradition. This issue in intercultural interaction is illustrated in this Case study 3, which introduces another instance of possible accommodation between different narrative modes, focusing this time on the ways in which the conventional specialized lexicon of the Western psychiatric discourse diverges considerably, in both its experiential and pragmatic terms, from the idiomatic expressions typical of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) used by non-Western migrants (Guido 2008). In this specific migration context, it has also been noted that deontic and epistemic modality is employed in pragmatically different ways in the two different verbal representations of trauma. The topic of this case study regards precisely the PTSD reports narrated by African refugees through the use of their ELF variations. Such reports should be regarded as ‘situated narratives’ (Gumperz 1982) whose structures and idiomatic expressions acquire a pragmatic and experiential meaning only in reference to the native contexts of their use. Yet, when the Western specialists entextualize these non-Western narratives, they use the registers of Standard English referred to the lexical and discursive conventions established by the parameters of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) laid down in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (APA 2015). Such parameters and norms of transcriptions have developed with reference to standard clinical cases applicable to trauma impact on Western victims of war trauma and torture (mainly US veterans of some recent Middle East conflicts), as well as to the scientific terminology for single-trauma effects representing trauma as an individual, private experience. Hence, such norms are inadequate for the assessment of multiple-trauma effects on African populations (Peltzer 1998) as they do not correspond to the way other non-Western cultures experience war trauma and communicate it verbally (Mattingly 1998). Linde (1993), for instance, claims that ‘self’ narratives are unknown in many cultures and, as Mattingly (1998) argues, non-Western trauma narratives are more about socio-political welfare than individual wellbeing, thus often requiring a therapeutic ‘fictional coherence’ involving entire affected communities in traumatic stories. This case study specifically intends to illustrate how such transcription norms come to be challenged by different ‘situated narratives’ whose ‘deviating coherence’, transferred to ELF, reflects different knowledge systems, symbols and expectations associated with traumatic experiences culturally embedded within non-Western contexts of armed conflict and torture. In fact, in such cultural contexts, the experience of physical and psychological violence is often perceived more as a collective (supernatural and even political) shock than as a private abuse. This is reflected in the systematic disruption of the scientific-discourse 551
Maria Grazia Guido
conventions observed in the trauma narratives by West-African asylum seekers who use their own ELF variations into which they transfer their L1 narrative structures (Guido 2008). Relevantly, also the ‘labels’ conventionally attached to trauma disorders in traditional psychiatry do not include the ‘mental imagery’ developed by West-African refugees in order to conceptualize, in their own metaphorical terms, the traumatic events experienced in situations of war. Such mental imagery informs the refugees’ native ‘idioms of distress’ (Gibbs and O’Brien 1990) and trauma-narrative structures that are directly reflected in the ELF variations they use in narrating their experiences. The objective of this case study, therefore, is to suggest alternative hybrid ELF registers accommodating divergent categorizations of trauma experience and that may be used in medical encounters in immigration contexts. The selected extracts are drawn from two corpora of, respectively, (a) scientific articles from the Transcultural Psychiatry Journal (TPJ) applying Western textual norms to the description of war-trauma effects on non-Western populations, and (b) transcribed protocols of trauma narratives by West-African immigrants (Guido 2008). Hybrid ELF registers were then elaborated to suggest a possible accommodation of divergent textualizations of the trauma experience. It has been noted that, in conventional PTSD registers, lexis is non-negotiable and consistent with APA labels, and that the tone is typically tentative, due to the frequent use of epistemic modal verbs and hedges which diminish the therapist’s commitment to interpreting different non-Western ways of experiencing and narrating trauma, as evident from the following extract from a TPJ article (emphasis added): Very little is known about the consequences of trauma exposure in the survivors’ lives. [...] After exposure to some traumatic event, one’s initial response may include symptoms in the domains of physiology (e.g., rapid heart rate, body heat, sleep disturbance, appetite disturbance, nausea, shortness of breath, dizziness and palpitations, chocking sensation, chest tightness, shaking, sweating, chills/hot flashes and numbness/tingling). In non-Western ELF-mediated trauma narrative, instead, idioms of distress diverge from APA definitions as they represent first-person traumatic effects in terms of third-person animate subjects affecting patients and compelling them to undertake political action aimed at healing. The ‘compelling orders’ that symptoms impose upon patients are often rendered through the use of deontic modals of obligation, as evident from the following extract drawn from a Sierra Leonean refugee’s oral report, where physical reactions are ‘embodied’ by means of experiential metaphors: I suffer wind sickness, fonyo kurango we say [in Mandinka], when I smell burning, like my village burning. / Wind attack my brain and rise. I hear wind inside ears, like woo woo (blood-pressure perception → panic attack). It rise rise and press the eyes and I see black and my brain spin and I must fall (fainting). / I must go for pick all them and burn them and them village and them families and so wind must end. In developing ‘hybrid ELF registers’, the suggestion is to accommodate together both the lexical and pragmatic conventions of the Western specialized discourse and the idioms of distress and the use of the deontic modality of the non-Western trauma narrative, disambiguating metaphors through the use of similes and ‘as if’ clauses, as in the following example referring to the extract of the refugee from Sierra Leone reported above: 552
ELF in migration
West-African people usually somatise trauma effects and describe them as if they were real beings that must attack them – e.g., they describe sensations like feeling woozy, sick and fainting when they recall sensations of panic as if wind was blowing in their brain and fog dimming their eyes to make them collapse. Such symptoms must be treated by helping patients to achieve social justice within their own communities.
Conclusion This chapter has analysed three case studies accounting for the ways by which experts in intercultural mediation speaking expanding-circle ELF variations interact with African migrants who speak their own nativized outer-circle ELF variations. Analysis has shown how both groups of participants in the interactions differently interpret and authenticate events by activating their different native linguacultural schemata which, eventually, come into conflict. By focusing on these three case studies, the chapter has aimed at showing evidence of the process by which each participant transfers native pragmalinguistic and socio-cultural behaviours to their use of ELF, which is, in turn, perceived as formally ‘deviant’ and pragmatically ‘marked’ by the other participants. Therefore, given such unequal type of encounters, to achieve successful communication, the experts in charge of such interactions should develop accommodation strategies of ELF reformulation and hybridization to make culture-bound discourses conceptually accessible and socially acceptable to all the participants. This would entail the development of ELF-specialized registers as hybrid discourse typologies both shaping and being shaped by the participants’ subjective cognitive stances and communicative behaviours from which meanings and socio-cultural patterns evolve. This would uphold new social practices that, in cases like this, related to immigration and asylum situations, will foster a co-construction of a just and ethical intercultural action.
Notes 1 Schemata here refers to the background knowledge of culturally determined linguistic and social behaviours stored in the minds of the members of a specific speech community (cf. Carrell 1983) and thus informing not only their native ‘social-semiotic’ cognitive frames (Halliday 1978), but also the actualization of such frames into the grammar structures of their L1. 2 Conversation symbols: [ ] → overlapping speech; underlining → emphasis; ° ° → quieter speech; (.) → micropause; (..) → pause; :: → elongation of prior sound; hhh → breathing out; .hhh → breathing in; > < → speed-up talk; = → latching. 3 The probably unfamiliar NPE cues are also reported in conventional orthography and syntactic structure. 4 The unfamiliar Krio ELF variation – characterized by plural and pre-verbal markers, like NPE – is also rendered in conventional orthography and syntax.
Related chapters in this handbook 2 Baker, English as a lingua franca and intercultural communication 5 Leung and Lewkowicz, English language teaching: pedagogic reconnection with the social dimension 6 Hall, Cognitive perspectives on ELF 23 Jenks, Uncooperative lingua franca encounters 553
Maria Grazia Guido
Further reading Katrijn Maryns. 2006. The Asylum Speaker: Language in the Belgian Asylum Procedure. London: Routledge. Maria Grazia Guido, 2008. English as a Lingua Franca in Cross-Cultural Immigration Domains. Bern: Peter Lang. Mariarosaria Provenzano, 2008. The EU Legal Discourse of Immigration: A Cross-Cultural Approach to Accessibility and Reformulation. Milan: Franco Angeli.
References Agbo, M. 2009. Subject–object switching in Igbo verbs: a revisit. Iranian Journal of Language Studies, 3, 209–224. American Psychiatric Association. 2015. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Anagbogu, P.N. 1995. The semantics of reduplication in Igbo. Journal of West African Languages, 25, 43–52. Blommaert, J. 1997. The slow shift in orthodoxy: (re)formulations of ‘integration’ in Belgium. In Briggs, C. (ed.) Conflict and Violence in Pragmatic Research. Special Issue of Pragmatics,7, 499–518. Carrell, P.L. 1983. Some issues in the role of schemata, or background knowledge, in second language comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 1, 81–92. Corder, S.P. 1981. Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eckman, F. 1977. Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27, 315–330. Ericcson, A.K. and Simon, H.A. 1984. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Fabunmi, M.A. 1970. Yoruba Idioms. Lagos: Pilgrim Books. Gibbs, R. and O’Brien, J. 1990. Idioms and mental imagery: the metaphorical motivation for idiomatic meaning. Cognition, 36, 35–68. Greenberg, J.H. (ed.), 1973. Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Guido, M.G. 2008. English as a Lingua Franca in Cross-Cultural Immigration Domains. Bern: Peter Lang. Guido, M.G. 2012. ELF authentication and accommodation strategies in cross cultural immigration domains. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(2), 219–240. Gumperz, J.J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Hymes, D. 2003. Now I Know Only So Far: Essays in Ethnopoetics. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kachru, B. 1986. The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions and Models of Non-Native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books. Langacker, R.W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume II: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Linde, C. 1993. Life Stories: The Creation of Coherence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mattingly, C. 1998. Healing Dramas and Clinical Plots: The Narrative Structure of Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nwachukwu, P.A. 1976. Stativity, ergativity and the -rV suffixes in Igbo. African Languages, 2, 119–143. Peltzer, K. 1998. Ethnocultural construction of post-traumatic stress symptoms in African contexts. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 8, 17–30. Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Selinker, L. 1992. Rediscovering Interlanguage. London: Longman. 554
ELF in migration
Selinker, L. and Lakshmanan, U. 1992. Language transfer and fossilization: the ‘multiple effect principle’. In Gass, S. and Selinker, L. (eds) Language Transfer in Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 197–216. Silverstein, M. 1998. Contemporary transformations of local linguistic communities. Annual Review of Anthropology, 27, 401–426. Sweetser, E.E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Urban, G. 1996. Entextualization, replication and power. In Silverstein, M. and Urban, G. (eds) Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 21–44. Widdowson, H.G. 1991. The description and prescription of language. In Alatis, J.E. (ed.) Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics. Linguistics and Language Pedagogy: The State of the Art. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 11–24.
555
44 Global languages and lingua franca communication Sonia Morán Panero
Introduction The current situation of English in the world is most commonly defined in academia by the unprecedentedness of its global status and functions. Although the world has seen previous lingua francas being used internationally, and although English is not the only set of linguistic resources operating as a lingua franca at present, the degree of global reach achieved by English has not been recorded in any language before (see e.g. Crystal, 1997; Murata and Jenkins, 2009: 1). In ELF studies, as in other academic fields that seek to understand language mobility in an era of globalisation, scholars have sought to critically explore the linguistic, social and theoretical consequences that result from such unprecedented ‘globality’ (Ammon, 2010: 101). This crucial line of enquiry has been largely motivated by the understanding that, in addition to economic and political changes, globalisation processes have led to alterations of major relevance at societal, cultural and linguistic levels as well (see Coupland, 2010; Dewey, 2007; Fairclough, 2006; Giddens, 1999). Not only are some languages seen as global nowadays, but they also play a crucial role in the development of globalisation and they are affected by global processes in significant and unexpected ways. For instance, mobility and interactional patterns have been intensified and complexified by new and faster forms of transport and communication (see Coupland, 2003, 2010; Mar-Molinero, 2010) and as a result, linguistic resources are also being mobilised around the world at unprecedented rates. Deeper levels of interconnectivity are therefore making the interaction between people with different sets of linguistic resources more diverse than ever. All of these changes are having important sociolinguistic consequences in terms of how we use, value or label ways of speaking, in terms of the different multiple groups with which we may (wish/be able to) be affiliated, and in terms of the different ways in which we may perform new and old identities (e.g. Pennycook, 2007; Otsuji and Pennycook, 2010). Unsurprisingly, the context of a globalised world where transcultural communication is especially evident has highlighted scholars’ need to understand the evolving landscape of language use at global as well as local levels. Of course, academic scrutiny has not only been restricted to the study of the globality of English. Other world languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Portuguese or Spanish have also been largely recognised as worthy of the global 556
Global languages and LF communication
label. The evolution of each of these global languages, the roles or functions they perform, and the impact of their international spread are also being closely analysed in academia (see, e.g., Mar-Molinero, 2010 on Spanish; Paulo and Moita-Lopes, 2015 for accounts of Portuguese; Tsung and Cruickshank, 2010 on Chinese; and Versteegh, 2015 on Arabic). In addition to the relevance and value attached to the global status and international prestige of isolated languages (i.e. socially bounded and labelled sets of linguistic resources), a great deal of attention has been put by scholars, governments, international organisations, language authorities, educational institutions and the general public to examining how these languages interact with and/or influence each other. As Maurais and Morris (2003) point out, further global integration and interconnectedness have highlighted the perceived need for further ‘direct’ communication (i.e. through the ‘same’ language), and seem to have fostered a continuous and dynamic relation of competition between languages to fulfil a lingua franca function across international borders. Thus, a task of high importance for language experts and non-experts alike seems to be the prediction of which language, languages or what medium or mode will cover the need for global lingua franca communication in a shortand/or long-term future. This chapter seeks to examine the benefits, challenges and potential blind spots that emerge from the identification and study of global languages as well as from attempts to describe, quantify and predict which linguistic resources are or will be fulfilling an international lingua franca function. I begin by critically reviewing the indicators that are usually examined to classify and rank the global status of world languages, and briefly consider some of the reasons for which being able to attribute globality and a lingua franca function to some resources seems to be highly valued. Then, I reflect on how different academic approaches to the study of language in a context of globalisation influence the representations and analysis that we construct of the globality of English and other world languages, and consider how these approaches have informed (and/or are being informed by) different waves of ELF studies. Throughout the article I also discuss the importance that analysing (changing) ideas, evaluations and theorisations of language can have as part of such descriptive and predictive endeavours, even though these aspects have not always been held as significant indicators.
The globality of world languages: (how) can we tell? There seems to be a great deal of consensus among scholars on the most significant indicators to study when wishing to establish whether a language may currently be conceived as ‘global’, how global in comparison with other languages, in relation to which functions and domains and when trying to predict whether the language will continue to be so in a foreseeable future (e.g. Ammon, 2010; Crystal, 2008; Graddol, 2006). Demographic information such as the present and future population size of the speakers of a language, their migratory movements, or their distribution are among the most well-known measures for the global status of a language. However, even if estimated numbers of different groups of speakers are available (e.g. ‘native’, ‘second’, and/or ‘non-native/foreign’), these do not necessarily work as evidence of international language use, and they do not seem to tell us much about the functions, prestige and values that may be ascribed to such languages. Thus, the political and/ or legal status that a language has in different countries, supranational organisations and multinational companies, is also seen as a useful indicator and predictor (e.g. official and working status). Equally relevant is establishing the degree of presence, promotion and maintenance that a world language enjoys in international domains such as scientific/academic ones, 557
Sonia Morán Panero
as well as for technological, internet, or media use and other forms of cultural production (see Mar-Molinero, 2008 on Spanish-speaking music and television outputs). Of course, the economic status of the countries, institutions and/or multinationals where the language is spoken and/or studied are also significant (e.g. Gross Domestic Product calculations of native and second-language speakers). As Ammon (2010) points out, economic strength may make a language seem more attractive to prospective learners even if comparatively it has smaller numerical strength. Perhaps the economic strength indicator may also point to the amount of resources and power that can be deployed to further promote a language in international spheres. It is clear that analysing these indicators requires different forms of quantification and categorisation. Counting not only applies to speakers, it is also required to produce numbers of spaces in which a language is spoken officially, to number its scientific publications or to establish in how many schools it is used for instruction. The resulting figures are often organised in the form of rankings (see Tables 44.1, 44.2 and 44.3), and are generally assigned high degrees of relevance. For instance, the data published by Ethnologue (e.g. Paul, Simons and Fennig, 2015) is often cited as a widely respected source of global languages ranking in academia. States, governments and a variety of organisations (e.g. language academies, educational and/or research institutions) also follow the movement of ranking positions over time, and may use them to inform their language policies or to guide decisions on the cost of their linguistic investments. As these rankings are increasingly blogged about, shared and commented on by social media users (e.g. Lucas López’s 2015 infographic for the South China Morning Post), it is clear that such quantitative data also seems to have currency and recognition outside experts and linguists’ circles. Table 44.1 Example of global languages ranking by L1 population indicator Languages
Native-speaker population in millions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1197 399 335 260 242 203 189 166 128
Chinese Spanish English Hindi Arabic Portuguese Bengali Russian Japanese
Source: adapted from Ethnologue’s 2015 figures (Paul, Simons and Fenning, 2015).
Table 44.2 Example of global languages ranking by internet users Sample of top languages
Number of internet users
Percentile growth of users since 2000 (%)
English Chinese Spanish Arabic Portuguese
872,950,266 704,484,396 256,787,878 168,176,008 131,903,391
520.2 2,080.9 1,312.4 6,592.5 1,641.1
Source: adapted from 2015 data published at www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm (accessed 15 January 2016).
558
Global languages and LF communication Table 44.3 Example of rankings by estimated figures of non-native speaker ‘learners’ Language
Estimated non-native speakers (in millions)
English French Chinese Spanish German
1,500 82 30 14.5 14.5
Source: adapted from Ammon, 2010; Crystal, 2008; Lucas López, 2015.
Overall, the indicators that show the lingua franca function of a language (i.e. communication in a language that is classifiable as ‘additional’ or ‘foreign’ for at least some of the speakers involved) seem to be achieving the highest value among the variety of measurements that can determine the globality of a language. For instance, Ammon (2010: 101–102) distinguishes between ‘global status’ (i.e. geographical spread of speakers and status) and ‘global function’ (i.e. use for global communication) as two different aspects of the globality of a language, and prioritises the latter as a measure that allows us to define a language as being ‘more’ global or international than another. He illustrates his point by suggesting that while Spanish enjoys a similar global status to English, its global function is considerably lower. The author even suggests that a lingua franca which extends over several languages [i.e. a lingua franca that is used among non-native speakers] can be given more weight than a language of bilateral asymmetric use [i.e. a lingua franca that is mainly used between native and non-native speakers], and that this is what distinguishes English most noticeably from other languages. (Ammon, 2010: 103, emphasis added) Other linguistic resources, whether neatly bounded and labelled as ‘global languages’ or not, are of course used for lingua franca communication as well. Nevertheless, scholars normally specify that these resources are restricted to specific regional or supranational areas and to a narrower range of domains. Godenzzi (2006), for example, identifies four different types of contexts in which Spanish is used as a lingua franca. These include lingua franca interactions with/between speakers of different creoles and indigenous languages in Spanish-speaking contexts, interactions in borderlands or contact areas with other languages such as in Brazil or the Amazonian Forests, bilingual education systems, and interactions with transnational migrants (e.g. tourists) and other global uses (e.g. international commerce collaborations in MERCOSUR). Therefore, Spanish as a lingua franca or ‘SLF’ interactions seem to be taking place on a rather smaller scale still. Although, as Ammon (2010: 208) observes, the number of additional/lingua franca speakers is on the rise for Spanish, Chinese, Japanese and possibly for Arabic and Portuguese too, English is still championed, at least for now, as the language with the highest degree of global function. In fact, if we abandon conventional understandings of what may count as a ‘native speaker’, English would actually lead all indicators measuring the globality of a language. It is then not surprising that most academic predictions on the future global linguistic landscape of the twenty-first century (or at least its first half), still concur with Graddol’s (2006) suggestions that English will maintain its predominant position, while also experiencing more pressure from the growing importance of Chinese, Spanish and possibly also 559
Sonia Morán Panero
Russian, Hindi and Portuguese. Although so far this projection seems to hold, commentators warn us of the potential long-term effects that may emerge from unexpected economic and socio-political turns such as the global 2008/2009 economic crisis (Ammon, 2010; Pennycook, 2010), austerity cuts in many parts of the world (Coupland, 2010), the slow down and potential stagnation of the Chinese economy, the apparent upsurge of regional retreat (e.g. Catalan and Scottish nationalisms, Brexit) or the recent growth in visibility of xenophobic attitudes, at least in Europe and the USA. As Jenkins rightly puts it (2009: 234), ‘you can probably do little more than make educated guesses in relation to some of these issues . . . and wait and see what happens’. In addition to the uncertainty of predictions, the actual description and classification of global languages at present are also anything but problem free. The shortcomings of these quantifications are manifold and have been pointed out by numerous scholars on multiple occasions (e.g. Busch, 2016; Pennycook, 2010; 2012). To begin with, censuses are not always able to capture unofficial information. For instance, some census may report on the linguistic repertoires of citizens in a country, but have no information on legal or illegal immigrants. Also, distinctions between the actual use of ‘official’, ‘working’ and/or ‘de facto’ languages are not always adequately reflected. Another major issue is the categorisation of speakers and the subjective and controversial decision-making and boundary-setting that lie behind such categorisations. Studies on the use of English as a lingua franca and of other global languages show that classifications of ‘L1’, ‘L2’, ‘foreign’, ‘native’ or ‘non-native’ speakers are difficult to make, and many have questioned the representability, reliability and usefulness of such constructs (see Busch, 2016 for a critical deconstruction of categorymaking processes in statistical offices and the ideological assumptions reproduced in such categories). For instance, whether a speaker may be considered a (foreign/additional language) ‘user’ or a ‘learner’ by an observer may not be that informative, given that, there is no objective way of drawing a line between the two social constructs. Establishing standard ways of assigning this label would not make it more representative, given the multiple ways in which different users may conceive and label themselves and their own use. Similarly, the ranked languages seem to be neatly separated and ‘boxed up’, but even deciding what counts as ‘English’, ‘Chinese’ or ‘Spanish’ use is difficult to establish. For instance, in order to represent the use of world languages online, some kind of decision has to be made on whether variations from idealised standards, perceived ‘errors’, or the ‘mix’ of multilingual/hybrid resources often found in informal social media platforms, count towards the use of one specific or various languages. A well-known example of translanguaging phenomena that would be difficult to classify is ‘parquear la troca’ – a series of linguistic resources used to say ‘parking the truck’ that are often labelled as ‘Spanglish’ and that linguists would normally dissect as a ‘mix’ between and adaptation of English and Spanish morphemes. Thus, placing boundaries around the language use that is included in or excluded from the rankings, and establishing who has the right to make that decision, are all highly controversial. The difficulty in representing different ways of thinking about what constitutes a language puts in sharp relief the risks of uncritically taking the estimates of these rankings to support scholarly claims or predictions on the spread of different sets of linguistic resources (see Pennycook, 2012 for a scholarly discussion on Chinese, English and different modes of thinking about language in the Western and Eastern world). But, if painting an accurate picture of the world’s current global languages and their lingua franca use is that difficult – if not impossible – if our best rankings only offer relative, distorted and partial results and if predicting the future of language is mainly a ‘speculative business’ (Pennycook, 2010: 677), 560
Global languages and LF communication
we may be left wondering why governments, language and/or research institutions fund the production of such statistics, why they seem to inform policy-making, or even why we write book chapters, articles and even monographs in academia about the global status and function of world languages.
Global languages and lingua francas: (why) do they matter? The globality and international prestige of different labelled languages continues to be a relevant and polemic feature for a variety of reasons. For instance, large or global languages are thought to have a higher communicative value for the reason that those languages can be used with a higher number of speakers (De Swaan, 2001; 2010). In turn, this value is thought to work as a self-expanding force, attracting more prospective language learners. For similar reasons, global languages are thought to grant access to global markets and to foster business competitiveness (Heller, 2010). As Blommaert (2010 :12) suggests, ‘bits’ of global languages such as idealised accents or standards, are often associated with promises of social, scalar or territorial mobility as well as with a variety of identification possibilities. On the whole, practices of value and meaning attribution of this sort can have significant consequences for individuals, institutions and other forms of social organisation. Heller (2010: 359) puts it well when she suggests that: [i]ndividuals worry about what kind of linguistic repertoire they need in order for them or their children to profit from current conditions, and states worry about whether their citizens have the language skills they need in order to function under those conditions. In other words, global languages can work as gatekeepers to a series of opportunities, goals or life-trajectories. While acquiring global languages is expected to open up mobility, and transfer value and prestige to the speakers and institutions that know and/or use them, this apparent benefit may clash with other local and/or global interests. These clashes may include the perceived curtailment of the domains of local languages, perceptions of power asymmetries, or the emergence of tensions between notions of what national/regional/ speech community identity is and how it ties in with language use and the shape of people’s linguistic repertoires. In addition to concerns over the need to acquire or provide access to linguistic resources thought to be necessary to succeed in a global world, interest in the globality of a particular language may also come from desires of promoting its spread for private and/or national gain. As Ammon (2010: 120) argues, promoting a country’s own mother tongue internationally is highly cherished by nation-states because of the belief that ‘knowledge of one’s own language abroad enhances the diffusion of one’s own values and favourable attitudes towards one’s own country, and consequently helps to improve economic and other international relationships’. In fact, the actual process of encouraging the learning of a language globally can result in economic profits in itself for the organisations behind its promotion (see e.g. Heller, 2003 on the commodification of French). Overall, predictions over which language(s) will be the global communicative mode of the future can be useful, in theory, for individuals and states with economic and organisational resources to plan which linguistic investment may be more fructiferous in the long-term (e.g. which ‘foreign’ languages to learn/teach, if any). Institutions behind the active promotion of international languages (e.g. Instituto Cervantes) might also find them helpful to design or rethink their commodification and expansion strategies. These predictions could even inform the future plans of action of groups concerned with the protection 561
Sonia Morán Panero
of language diversity and multilingualism, or groups with fears of perceived ‘lack of fairness . . . in communication . . . but also in establishing international relations’ (Ammon, 2010: 120). Perhaps more importantly, in creating and discussing ‘futuribles’ (i.e. possible future scenarios), we may also be intentionally or inadvertently creating discourses that influence language users and their learning choices, and we may ultimately affect forthcoming linguistic developments (see De Swaan, 2010; Fairclough, 2006) – although influencing discourses are likely to be multiple, variable, mutually contradictory and of unpredictable effects. In addition to the observed rivalry between labelled sets of resources, the idea that global languages can provide access to certain opportunities also fosters tensions ‘within’ them, that is, struggles over who is more qualified to produce, teach and distribute them, over who gets to decide what counts as ‘good’ or ‘legitimate’ language use, and therefore over who gets to control or exert power on the present and future form of a particular language (see e.g. Gal, 2013; Heller, 2003; 2010: 358). On the one hand, different institutions or individuals may compete to act as linguistic authorities and to control processes of standardisation and top-down prescription that dictate how a language should be used and learned, and what counts as valuable and ‘authentic’ use. On the other hand, these authorities are constantly being contested by language users themselves. As Heller (2010) reminds us, this contestation may take place through the development of actual explicit discourses of resistance (e.g. discourses on language rights, challenges to native-speaker ideology identified in ELF research) and/or through variable, hybrid and unexpected linguistic practices that vary from prescribed standards and/or beliefs about correct language use (see Blommaert, 2010 on polycentricity of perceived authorities). In order to capture and understand concerns, interests and social, symbolic or linguistic consequences of this kind in depth, it is necessary to look at the global spread and use of linguistic resources from perspectives that go beyond counting and ranking (Coupland, 2010; Pennycook, 2012). In other words, it is necessary to seek qualitative insights of contextual use and interpretation, and to consider emerging social, linguistic and discursive practices around global linguistic resources. As I explain next, this realisation is what has driven research undertaken across different waves of ELF studies, as well as other approaches to translingual and transcultural flows. This body of work has not only helped problematise some of the measurements typically used to assign globality to world languages – among other language constructs and categorisations (see e.g. Cogo and Dewey, 2012) – it is also urging scholars to reconsider the ways in which language and linguistic boundaries are treated to make descriptions and predictions of the global linguistic landscape, in academia and in language education at large.
From global languages to sociolinguistic and multilingual resources: furthering the descriptive and predictive challenge Despite the complex problems involved in the ranking practices introduced so far, these forms of quantification have inspired scholars to develop theoretical frameworks for the study of language in a global context. A widely known example is De Swaan’s (2001, 2010) language systems framework, and similar approaches that have also maintained metaphors of ecology dynamics and language constellations. De Swaan introduces a hierarchical typology of languages based on the numbers of speakers and functions that particular languages have in specific constellations or geographical spaces (i.e. ‘peripheral’ languages at the bottom,
562
Global languages and LF communication
connected by ‘central’ languages, followed by ‘supercentral’ languages, and with English at the top as the ‘hypercentral’ language of global communication). De Swaan intended to provide a macroscopic framework that explains how 6,000 groups of language speakers are connected globally through multilingualism and lingua franca communication. The typology also seeks to explain how varying numbers of speakers, together with largely shared expectations about the utility or communicative value of particular linguistic resources, can affect the vitality of the different world languages composing the global system. According to De Swaan, the dynamics in this system tend to boost languages at the top of the pyramid because of their higher communicative possibilities, thus threatening the world’s linguistic diversity and cultural capital (e.g. English is compared to a black hole that ‘devours’ all languages it comes in contact with). Quantifications, classifications and metaphors of this sort have been influential, to different extents, in much research on the study of global languages. For instance, the realisation that non-native speakers of English had largely outnumbered native speakers, and claims over English functioning as the international medium of communication per excellence, were often cited by scholars in the initial stages of ELF studies as a motivation for the careful and empirical investigation of the use of English as a lingua franca (e.g. Jenkins, 2000: 1). In fact, more than 10 years later, the hypercentrality of English is still being invoked in some ELF publications (e.g. Hülmbauer and Seidlhofer, 2013), to justify the appropriateness of ‘putting the main focus of a research task specifically on the use of English rather than any other language as a lingua franca’ (p. 391). Although De Swaan’s framework engages critically with complex matters of choice, expectations and power inequalities, therefore emphasising the need to understand the dynamics between global languages ‘as inherently political’ (Blommaert, 2010: 18), such top-down approaches have also been heavily criticised (see e.g. Heller, 2010). Frameworks on global languages systems have been accused of providing acontextual and ahistorical generalisations, and therefore of failing to address the ‘detail, contradiction and complexity’ (Blommaert, 2010: 18) that characterise the mobilisation or flows of linguistic resources through geographical, indexical and social spaces. In other words, there seems to be a lack of empirical explorations on which agents are involved in actual processes of change, how and with what specific effects. It also seems to me that, while a great deal of weight is granted to seemingly rational decision-making based on the communicative value of languages, sufficient attention is not given to the exploitable potential that ‘non-native’ users of a super/hypercentral language may have to perform functions that go beyond referential meaning exchange (see Baker, 2011 on how ELF communication is neither culture- or identity-free). Thus, the frameworks do not appear to consider how this potential may affect value assignation patterns at local levels of interaction or how they may influence speakers’ decision-making on which languages to invest in. Top-down approaches have also been criticised for favouring a focus on ‘whole’ languages and neglecting to examine the spread of genres, styles and registers, perceived accents or idealised standard forms, for relying on dubious language labelling and speaker categorisations, and for reproducing nationalistic associations between nations, languages and cultures in the ecologically framed treatments of language death. As Coupland (2010: 10) puts it, distributional sociolinguistic accounts of global languages seem to have operated with understandings of linguistic flows ‘as transference – as movement of codes and people across predefined and unchanging boundaries – rather than in terms of transformation and transcendence’. As a result, crucial developments of language such as ‘hybrid’
563
Sonia Morán Panero
or superdiverse uses, the meshing of linguistic resources in multilingual repertoires, the potential re-semiotisation, re-valorisation and variation of linguistic resources as they are re-embedded into different contexts of use, and/or the transformation of the varying contexts in which they are re-embedded, are left unexplained in these frameworks. Although speaker quantifications and distributional approaches to global languages as separate bounded units have informed ELF studies, the field has – also from its initial stages – moved beyond, and sought to empirically address most, if not all, of the gaps outlined in the previous paragraph. As Dewey (2007) explains, ELF studies also take a transformationalist approach (see Held, McGrew, Goldblatt and Perraton, 1999) to the study of language globalisation. For instance, the first wave of ELF studies (i.e. ‘ELF1’ in Jenkins, 2015) was mainly concerned with exploring the transformation of English linguistic form. The second wave of ELF studies (i.e. ‘ELF2’ in Jenkins, 2015) sought to explore and understand the sociolinguistic and pragmatic functions that motivate the linguistic sameness and variability that are observed in ELF interactions, therefore also investigating which kind of re-valorisations, referential and social meaning changes, and identificational possibilities could be performed by all English users in ELF interactions and in what ways (e.g. Baker, 2011; Kalocsai, 2014; Kitazawa, 2013). It is by now clear that the way in which scholars explore language in a context of globalisation has varied and diversified over time. The analysis of actual use in local contexts seems to be forcing us to reconsider the approaches and frameworks with which we try to describe and explain global languages and translocal linguistic flows, and they are even leading us to question the adequacy of looking at languages as isolated, autonomous, bounded entities. A growing body of scholars supports conceptualisations of language as emergent social practice instead (e.g. Baird, Baker and Kitazawa, 2014; Jenkins, 2015; Pennycook, 2007, 2010, 2012), and some advocate for focusing on linguistic resources instead of languages, and understanding these resources as a set of semiotic signs through which people construct referential and social meanings (e.g. Blommaert’s 2010 sociolinguistics of mobile resources). From this perspective, both languages and boundaries between them are seen as ideological constructs, but constructs with ‘real’ social and communicative consequences and therefore constructs that still need to be attended to (e.g. Canagarajah, 2013). By not making already fixed boundaries between languages the starting point of our descriptive and predictive efforts, we reduce the risk of excluding linguistic uses that do not necessarily fit with pre-existing ideas, categories and labels from our data analysis. Also, by not reducing our attention solely to the evolution and/or loss of fixed, bounded, labelled languages (e.g. language decay, death), we will be better prepared to record and explain emergent linguistic and labelling practices that may not have been granted official recognition yet or which may never achieve it, but which still play a significant role in language use at local and or global levels (e.g. Spanglish practices mentioned earlier). As Otsuji and Pennycook (2010) evidence with their ‘metrolingualism’ approach, from this position we are able to see how old and new labels, boundaries, identity and/or cultural relations may be (re)created in (meta)linguistic practice. Once more, the opportunities, consequences and challenges that the study of mobile linguistic resources has for academic practice, as opposed to the study of bounded languages or codes, are also being addressed by ELF scholars. This is especially the case within what Jenkins’ (2015) identifies as the third wave of ELF studies or ‘ELF3’. Jenkins spells out the need to re-theorise ELF studies in a way that truly reflects the maxim that ‘ELF is a
564
Global languages and LF communication
multilingual practice and research should . . . explore how ELF’s multilingualism is enacted in different kinds of interactions’ (2015: 63). While similar observations about ELF’s multilingualism had been brought up before, Jenkins’ point is that its implications had not been fully integrated into ELF theorising or in the analytic and interpretative practices of its researchers. For instance, the author argues that in ELF2 the focus had been maintained on resources that we call ‘English’, while relegating other multilingual resources to the periphery. Thus, Jenkins urges us to better conceptualise the constant presence or influence that other languages have in ELF interactions, hence going beyond notions of code-switching or L1-transfer. It seems to me that the implications of consistently treating ELF as multi-/trans-lingual practice would require a clearer ontology of boundaries between linguistic resources than what has been offered before. For instance, a well-defined conceptualisation of boundaries would be necessary to theorise further the interaction (i.e. ‘leakage’ or ‘flow’ in Jenkins, 2015: 75) that takes place between different sets of linguistic resources in ELF interaction, and to theorise what it is that we understand by speakers’ multilingual ‘repertoires-in-flux’ (p. 76). While concerns over establishing boundaries and ascribing labels have already been voiced in ELF literature, so far there seems to have been a certain degree of theoretical ambiguity around them. For example, Hülmbauer and Seidlhofer (2013: 399) indicate that ‘language forms are no longer clearly assignable to a particular code when they emerge from the dynamics of intercultural encounters’, a point that I believe can have implications for the terminology we use ourselves when attempting to explain the social phenomena we study. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether these authors maintain that such codes do not exist outside the realm of ideology construction or whether they hold that there are virtual codes, but we just cannot be sure of which code is influencing which in the performance observed (see Vetchinnikova 2015 for a discussion of the incompatibility between ‘usage-based’ and ‘virtual language/code’ ontologies of language). Jenkins explicitly stated the need to address this ambiguity in ELF3, when she reminded us that ‘the extent to which it is possible to identify “any boundaries” between languages is open to empirical investigation and further debate’ (Jenkins, 2015: 68). I propose that, in order to do this, we need to understand how speakers themselves conceptualise language boundaries and multilingualism (e.g. as added monolingualism, or as translanguaging), and their role in ELF. Although much ELF research has explored users’ perceptions and evaluations of linguistic resources that usually fall under the label of ‘English’, we need a better understanding of how users of English as a lingua franca draw boundaries and assign new and/or old labels to linguistic resources themselves. In addition, we need to understand what kind of ideological work is done through such labelling practices, for what pragmatic and communicative purposes and with what social effects (Morán Panero, 2016). The reasons that would motivate us to carefully examine users’ own labelling and boundary-drawing practices are several. First, as linguistic anthropology and indexicality scholars argue, it is through metalinguistic, ideological or discursive practices that we give shape to linguistic resources or semiotic signs, and turn them or ‘sediment’ them into different labelled languages, varieties, dialects, accents or any other perceived collective ways of speaking (see e.g. Irvine and Gal, 2000; Johnstone, 2010). If we take language boundaries to be ideological constructions that emerge from people’s ideas and discourses, it seems necessary to look at the processes of conceptualisation and metalinguistic practices in which speakers engage to constitute, challenge or modify such boundaries. Also, from this perspective there seems to be no principled reason for which linguists’ labelling
565
Sonia Morán Panero
practices may be more legitimate to explain social phenomena than users’ own. As I have shown before (Morán Panero, 2016), knowing how users apply labels and boundaries may actually be crucial to avoid essentialising tendencies in our research; that is, we need to avoid the risk of imposing our fixed notions to interpret data and to draw conclusions, if they do not correspond with those of our participants or do not represent them consistently (see e.g. Baker, 2013 for a discussion on essentialising treatments of cultures). Finally, if we see ideas and ideologies about language as influential resources that form part of our sociolinguistic repertoires (Blommaert, 2010: 102), it is necessary to examine the role that users’ understandings of language, multilingualism and language boundaries can have in actual linguistic developments. Ammon (2010), for instance, reminds us that ideas and attitudes towards what ‘linguistic fairness’ may mean in international communication can have a great impact on regulation and promotion of certain linguistic uses. The same goes, he adds, for positions on how identity relates or should relate to language use, ideas about the cost or value of multilingualism, and general beliefs on perceived rules of communication and interaction (e.g. speaking a client’s language for a business transaction, or whether translanguaging practices are acceptable or not in formal encounters). As Pennycook (2010: 675) rightly emphasises, in our descriptive and predictive efforts ‘we need to think not only in terms of the ways languages reflect the political economy, but also in terms of the language ideologies that underpin our ways of thinking about language’.
Conclusion In this chapter I have discussed two main approaches in the study of labelled global languages and lingua franca communication, and I have shown how the field of ELF studies has been moving from working with metaphors of pluralisation of varieties and languages to the study of linguistic and sociolinguistic resources as social and multilingual practice. I have argued that one of the main future challenges that we face in the description and prediction of English as a multilingua franca (and potentially other multilingua francas where English resources are not available) is incorporating the implications of a clear ontology of boundaries between languages to our academic practice. This ontology should inform the theorisations and terminology we produce (e.g. language ‘leaking’ in multilingual repertoires), the methodologies that we design to collect and analyse data (see also Cogo, 2016) and the research interpretations and conclusions that we draw. In particular, I have emphasised that, if the starting point in ELF3 is that ‘mixed language is normative’ (Jenkins, 2015: 68), we need to explore how this works at ideological and indexical levels for language users. As labelling and boundary-drawing practices are variably applied by different language users, and even from moment to moment by the same speaker (e.g. Morán Panero, 2016), we need to understand the pragmatic intentions and effects that they may serve, and critically reflect on the extent to which it may be justified to prioritise linguists’ conceptualisations of languages and their boundaries, when these do not correspond to the ones held by our own research participants. Finally, if the goal in ELF3 is to avoid giving more centrality to English than to the multi-/trans-lingual nature of ELF, it may be necessary to rethink the validity of claims about English having more ‘weight’ in global rankings because of its lingua franca function, and thus rethink the usefulness of attempting to quantify which labelled languages are used as lingua francas on the whole. In order to treat ELF as multilingual practice, we may even need to examine the adequacy of reproducing the idea that ‘English’ is the most widely used lingua franca (see Pennycook, 2012 on a discussion of how this claim could be a ‘truism’) as a motivator for ELF studies in our writing. 566
Global languages and LF communication
Related chapters in this handbook 24 Kimura and Canagarajah, Translingual practice and ELF 29 Cogo, ELF and multilingualism 42 Baird and Baird, English as a lingua franca: changing ‘attitudes’ 47 Jenkins, The future of ELF?
Further reading Blommaert, J.M.E. (2010). The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coupland, N. (ed.) (2010). Handbook of Language and Globalization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice, 2(3), pp. 49–85. Maurais, J. and Morris, M.A. (2003). Languages in a Globalising World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rubdy, R. and Alsagoff, L. (2013) (eds), The Global–Local Interface and Hybridity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
References Ammon, U. (2010). The concept of world language: ranks and degrees. In Coupland, N. (ed.) The Handbook of Language and Globalization. Malden, MA and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 101–122. Baird R., Baker, W. and Kitazawa, M. (2014). The complexity of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(1), pp. 171–196. Baker, W. (2011). Culture and identity through ELF in Asia: fact or fiction? In Archibald, A. Cogo, A. and Jenkins, J. (eds) Latest Trends in ELF Research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 35–55. Baker, W. (2013). Interpreting the culture in intercultural rhetoric: a critical perspective from English as a lingua franca studies. In Belcher, D. and Nelson, G. (eds) Critical and Corpus-Based Approaches to Intercultural Rhetoric. Ann Arbor, MA: The University of Michigan Press, pp. 22–45. Blommaert, J.M.E. (2010). The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Busch, B. (2016). Categorising languages and speakers: why linguists should mistrust census data and statistics. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies, 189, pp. 1–18. Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual Practice. London: Routledge. Cogo, A. (2016). Repertoires and boundaries: questionning multilingualism in ELF. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca, Lleida, 27–29 June 2016. Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. 2012. Analysing English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-driven Investigation. London: Continuum. Coupland, N. (2003). Introduction: sociolinguistics and globalisation, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), pp. 465–473. Coupland, N. (2010). Introduction: sociolinguistics in the global era. In Coupland, N. (ed.) Handbook of Language and Globalization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1–27. Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (2008) Two thousand million? English Today, 24(1), pp. 3–6. De Swaan, A. (2001). The World Language System; A Political Sociology and Political Economy of Language. Cambridge: Polity Press. De Swaan, A. (2010). Language systems. In Coupland, N. (ed.) Handbook of Language and Globalization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 56–76. Dewey, M. (2007). ‘English as a lingua franca and globalisation: an interconnected perspective’. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(3), pp. 332–353. Fairclough, N. (2006). Language and Globalisation, London: Routledge. 567
Sonia Morán Panero
Gal, S. (2013). A linguistic anthropologist looks at English as a lingua franca. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(1), pp. 177–183. Giddens, (1999). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press Godenzzi, J. (2006). Spanish as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, pp. 100–122. Graddol, D. (2006). English next: why Global English may mean the end of English as a foreign language. London: British Council, available at: www.britishcouncil.org/learning-research (accessed August 2015). Held, D. McGrew, A. Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. (1999). Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Blackwell. Heller, M. (2003). Globalization, the new economy, and the commodification of language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), pp. 473–492. Heller, M. (2010). Language as a resource in the new globalised economy. In Coupland, N. (ed.) Handbook of Language and Globalization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 349–365. Hülmbauer, C. and Seidlhofer, B. (2013). English as a lingua franca in European multilingualism. In Berthand, A. Grin, F. and Liidi, G. (eds) Exploring the dynamics of multilingualism: the DYLAN Project. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 378–406. Irvine, J. and Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In Kroskity, P. V. (ed.) Regimes of Language: Language Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. New Mexico: School for American Research Press, pp. 35–79. Jenkins. J. (2000). The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2009). World Englishes: A Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge. Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice, 2(3), pp. 49–85. Johnstone, B. (2010). Indexing the local. In Coupland, N. (ed.) Handbook of Language and Globalization. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 386–405. Kalocsai, K. (2014). Communities of Practice and English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Kitazawa, M. (2013). Approaching Conceptualisations of English in East Asian Contexts: Ideas, Ideology, and Identification. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Southampton. Lucas López, A. (2015). Infographics: A world of languages. South China Morning Post. www.scmp. com/infographics/article/1810040/infographic-world-languages?page=all (accessed November 2015). Mar-Molinero, C. (2008). Subverting Cervantes: language authority in global Spanish. International Multilingual Research Journal, 2(1), pp. 27–47. Mar-Molinero, C. 2010. The spread of global Spanish: from Cervantes to reggaetón. In Coupland, N. (ed.) The Handbook of Language and Globalization. Malden, MA and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 162–181. Maurais, J. and Morris, M.A. (2003). Languages in a Globalising World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morán Panero, S. (2016). Multilingualism, boundaries and labelling-practices: exploring speakers’ perspectives. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca, Lleida, 27–29 June 2016. Murata, K. and Jenkins, J. (2009). Global Englishes in Asian Contexts: Current and Future Developments. London: Palgrave Macmillan Otsuji, E. and Pennycook, A. (2010) Metrolingualism: fixity, fluidity and language in flux. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(3) pp. 240–254. Paul, L.P., Simons, G.F. and Fennig, C.D. (eds) 2015. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Eighteenth edition. Dallas, TX: SIL International. www.ethnologue.com [accessed: November, 2015]. Paulo, L. and Moita-Lopes (2015). Global Portuguese: Linguistic Ideologies in Late Modernity. Abingdon: Routledge. Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. Pennycook, A. (2010). The future of Englishes: one, many or none? In. Kirkpatrick, A. (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 637–687.
568
Global languages and LF communication
Pennycook, A. (2012) Lingua francas as language ideologies. In Kirkpatrick, A. and Sussex, R. (eds) English as an International Language in Asia: Implications for Language Education. London: Springer, pp. 137–154. Tsung, L and Cruickshank, K. (eds) (2010). Teaching and Learning Chinese in Global Contexts. London: Continuum International. Versteegh, K. (2015). An empire of learning: Arabic as a global language. In Stolz, C. (ed.) Language Empires in Comparative Perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 41–54. Vetchinnikova, S. (2015). Usage-based recycling or creative exploitation of the shared code? The case of phraseological patterning. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(2), pp. 223–252.
569
45 Language assessment The challenge of ELF Luke Harding and Tim McNamara
Introduction The sociolinguistic reality of English as a lingua franca (ELF) communication represents one of the most significant challenges to language testing and assessment since the advent of the communicative revolution. ELF research not only destabilises the central place of the native speaker in determining acceptable and appropriate language use, but also forces us to reconsider the nature of language proficiency itself, and to recognise the important role played by accommodation and interactional communicative strategies. The implications for language assessment are radical: they involve at the very least a reconsideration of the criteria for judging successful performance, as well as a fundamental redefinition of the test construct to include more of what Hymes (1972) called “ability for use”, general cognitive and non-cognitive abilities not specific to language. The shifting of focus towards accommodation and interactional strategies also calls into question the policy of exempting participants in ELF communication who have native-language proficiency from being tested at all, given what studies have revealed of the role of native-speaker behaviour in communicative failure in ELF, particularly in high-stakes contexts such as aviation and medicine. This chapter will discuss the challenge of English as a lingua franca for language assessment in four sections. The first section has introduced the issue of ELF and language assessment. The second section will describe the specific challenges ELF presents for language assessment, and connect these with broader debates around the nature of communicative competence. The third section will discuss how research in language testing and assessment has addressed the ELF challenge thus far, showing that tangible progress has been slow and more work needs to be done. The fourth section will discuss what an ELF construct for assessment purposes might look like, and how this construct could be operationalised through tasks. The conclusion will discuss future challenges for integrating ELF perspectives into language assessment.
Conceptualising the ELF challenge As discussed in other chapters within this volume, ELF research has undergone a series of transformations over the past 20 years. Early studies typically represented attempts to describe 570
Language assessment: the challenge of ELF
regular features of ELF; that is, to identify common features of usage – phonological, syntactic, lexical, pragmatic – across English language communicative situations where interactants do not share the same first language (L1) (see Seidlhofer, 2005). Jenkins’ (2000) Lingua franca core is characteristic of this “first wave” of ELF research: a set of pronunciation features deemed crucial for speech intelligibility within ELF contexts. In this early stage, as described by Jenkins (2015), ELF shared commonalities with the World Englishes paradigm (e.g., Kachru, 1992) in its focus on description of a new variety with a view to establishing its legitimacy. Like the World Englishes movement, early ELF research also served to disrupt the assumption that native-speaker norms were central to successful communication: if interlocutors in ELF situations routinely communicate without recourse to native speaker norms, then for many language users, the native-speaker model would lose relevance. This view eventually transformed into the current focus of much ELF research: revealing what makes communication in English successful in fluid and dynamic contexts (see Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey, 2011). Driven by insights gained from corpora (see Seidlhofer, 2011), ELF research has identified a range of elements crucial for communicative success including accommodation (adjusting to an interlocutor’s speech style) and the use of various strategies to pre-empt or negotiate misunderstandings, for example, requests for clarification, self-repair, repetition and paraphrasing (Jenkins et al., 2011). These strategic behaviours and linguistic repertoires are deployed in each new interaction in order to make meaning and achieve communicative outcomes. In this sense, ELF communication is purely a “context driven phenomenon” (Leung and Lewkowitz, 2006), or as expressed by Canagarajah (2007: p. 926), ELF is “intersubjectively constructed in each specific context of interaction . . . negotiated by each set of speakers for their purposes”. Emerging from this research, the ELF challenge for language assessment comes in two parts: (Challenge 1) that native-speaker norms should no longer be considered the standard in language assessments, and (Challenge 2) that language assessment is wrongly focused on judging against a “stable variety” (Jenkins and Leung, 2013, p. 4), whether this be a native-speaker variety, or a legitimised L2 variety. Challenge 1 overlaps, to a certain extent, with a parallel critique posed by the World Englishes paradigm that large-scale, standardised tests based on “inner-circle” norms of English routinely penalise features of new or emerging varieties, and target features of native-speaker varieties that may be irrelevant for many L2 users (see Davies, Hamp-Lyons and Kemp, 2003; Lowenberg, 2000, 2002). This critique is not confined to discrete measures such as tests of grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation, but extends to considerations of rubric development and rater training in the assessment of writing and speaking, as well as the selection of input texts for reading and listening assessment. Challenge 2 is ELF-specific. Jenkins and Leung explain the nature of the critique thus: [ELF speakers] are not necessarily oriented towards a particular variety of English (native or otherwise) ... [t]herefore the language assessment issues raised by ELF transcend questions of proficiency conceptualized in terms of a stable variety; they are concerned with what counts as effective and successful communication outcomes through the use of English that can include emergent and innovative forms of language and pragmatic meaning. (2013, p. 4) The critique is, therefore, that there is a need to fundamentally reconfigure our understanding of language proficiency itself. This perspective is articulated at greater length in 571
Luke Harding and Tim McNamara
Canagarajah’s (2006) paper: “In a context where we have to constantly shuttle between different varieties and communities, proficiency becomes complex . . . One needs the capacity to negotiate diverse varieties to facilitate communication. The passive competence to understand new varieties” (p. 233). This type of capacity requires a shift away from viewing language proficiency as a static ability, and towards a view which foregrounds adaptability (Harding, 2014). For Canagarajah, the particular skills that would support this type of adaptability might include “proficiency in pragmatics . . . sociolinguistic skills . . . style shifting . . . interpersonal communication . . . conversation management and discourse strategies” (2006, p. 233). There is a resemblance here to the area of communicative competence described by Hymes (1972) as “ability for use”. In his famous and influential model of communicative competence, Hymes argued that underlying the ability to communicate were not only knowledge of language forms and pragmatic conventions but both other kinds of knowledge (for example, areas of professional competence) and a range of non-cognitive factors such as motivation (1972, p. 283). He quotes Goffman (1967) to specify some of the likely dimensions of ability for use: “capacities in interaction such as courage, gameness, gallantry, composure, presence of mind, dignity, stage confidence” (cited in Hymes 1972, p. 283). The possession of relevant features of “ability for use” cuts across the distinction between native and non-native speakers in two ways. First, not all native speakers are equally endowed with the capacities Hymes has in mind. Native speakers differ in their ability to tell jokes successfully, for example, a performance that involves a good memory for the joke, mimicry ability, a sense of timing, confidence in front of an audience, a sense of humour, and so on, not all of which native speakers possess to the same degree. Second, a non-native speaker may have the relevant non-linguistic knowledge or personal capacities to the same or to a greater degree than a native speaker. This implies that in terms of those capacities other than simple linguistic knowledge that underlie the ability to communicate, there is a level playing field between native and non-native speakers; native speakers have no natural advantage, and in fact may be deficient in ways that their non-native speaker interlocutors are not. If motivation, for example, as Hymes argues partly determines competence, then a native-speaker’s unwillingness to engage in those things that research has shown to facilitate successful communication in ELF settings may compromise their likelihood of success in those settings, compared to a motivated non-native speaker (see Lindemann, 2002). This is only one of many ways in which what interlocutors bring to ELF communication may not correspond at all to the abilities that are the focus of the native/ non-native distinction. And exclusive focus on these latter abilities (let us call it language proficiency for short) misses the target of what should be our focus in determining who is competent in ELF communication and who is not.
Addressing ELF challenges in language testing research Researchers from within the language testing community have responded in a serious, if sporadic, way to the two challenges raised by ELF. A number of conceptual papers over the past 10 years have discussed ELF (or more typically the broader issue of EIL (English as an international language), which is a conflation of ELF and WE concerns), and the opportunities these developments afford language testers in re-thinking constructs (Brown, 2014; Elder and Davies, 2006; Elder and Harding, 2008; McNamara, 2011, 2012, 2014; Sawaki, 2016; Taylor, 2006). These conceptual papers range from those that are strongly critical of 572
Language assessment: the challenge of ELF
current language testing practice (e.g. McNamara, 2011), through to those that provide a defence of the field in light of critiques (e.g., Brown, 2014; Elder and Harding, 2008; Taylor, 2006). Generally, the defence is in three parts: 1) that the field has engaged in useful research that provides greater insights into ELF concerns, 2) that language testing has already moved in the direction of prioritising communicative effectiveness, and 3) that other constraining factors around the assessment process – the need for clear measurement models, the avoidance of bias, acceptability among test-takers – make it difficult to initiate change. Given that these arguments were first advanced by Taylor in 2006, it is instructive to consider the current status of each defence. Empirical research relevant to ELF in language assessment On the first point, while there has been research interest into ELF issues from within language assessment, the range of topics has been limited, and arguably this research interest has mostly been concerned with Challenge 1 – the general notion that the native speaker should be displaced in language assessment. Research connected with this area has concentrated on three main areas: the use of non-native raters in judging speaking and writing assessment; the use of L2 accents in listening assessment; and the focus on intelligibility (rather than level of foreign accent) in pronunciation assessment. Example studies associated with each research area are shown in Table 45.1. Results from these studies have provided useful empirical insights into the effects of shifting away from orthodox positions in the design and administration of language assessments. However, these studies have also raised numerous questions. For example, while the use of non-native speaker raters in speaking assessment has been shown to result in equivalent test scores (e.g., Zhang and Elder, 2011), the features of performance that raters attend to appear to differ according to their background. This is an acknowledgement of the inevitably greater variability involved in the assessment of ELF communication; while this is a real issue, it does not mean that the need to determine adequate means of assessing such communication can be wished away. Similarly, the use of L2 accents in listening assessment has shown occasional shared L1 effects, suggesting that L2 listeners are advantaged when listening to a speaker who shares their L1. This raises the problem of the potential for a small amount of bias. However, as Harding (2012a) has argued, the alternative to introducing bias is an impoverished test construct. In sum, while research has explored these issues, findings are rarely unequivocal, and usually point to the complexity of ELF scenarios. The decision around implementing change to assessment practices, therefore, often becomes one of testing policy rather than an issue that can be resolved empirically, although a commitment to Table 45.1 Illustrative studies addressing ELF concerns in language assessment Topic area
Studies
L2 users as raters in speaking/ writing assessment L2 accents in listening assessment Prioritising intelligibility in pronunciation assessment
Johnson and Lim (2009); Kim (2009); Zhang and Elder (2011) Abeywickrama (2013); Harding (2008, 2011, 2012a); Major et al. (2002) Sewell (2013); Isaacs (2008); Kim and Billington (2016)
573
Luke Harding and Tim McNamara
the necessary program of research to identify and further understand the issues in assessing ELF communication should also be a priority for the field. The shift towards communicative effectiveness On the second point, Taylor (2006), Elder and Harding (2008) and Brown (2014), for example, all point out that language testing – particularly those tests that have emerged from the communicative tradition – has already experienced a general shift from a focus on formal accuracy to one of communicative effectiveness. One example of this kind of shift has been seen in some scales of pronunciation ability, such as the “delivery” part of the TOEFL iBT speaking scale, which makes no reference to native speaker norms, and instead refers only to intelligibility. Similarly, writing or speaking scales that include a criterion for grammar may focus more on appropriateness or effective conveyance of meaning than formal accuracy. Yet, as McNamara (2012) points out, the native speaker still “lurks” within many scales and proficiency frameworks either explicitly, or implicitly (e.g., in references to “naturalness”). In the speaking sub-scales of the Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe, 2001), for example, the assumption throughout is that the L2 user whose capacities the framework offers to define is engaged in communication with a native speaker, rather than another L2 user. Egregious instances within the framework descriptors make this painfully clear, as in the following characterisation of ability to hold a conversation at B2 level: “Can sustain relationships with native speakers without unintentionally amusing or irritating them or requiring them to behave other than they would with a native speaker” (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 76). This privileging of the native speaker is also reflected in policies that assume that separate assessments are required of the communicative skills of native and non-native speakers, with native speakers automatically granted exemption from assessment (for example, in current policies governing entry into the international aviation workplace: Kim and Elder 2009, 2015). In fact, however, research has for many years, and again recently, demonstrated the variability of native-speaker performance on cognitively demanding language assessment tasks (Hamilton et al., 1993; Hulstijn, 2007, 2011), so that the assumption of the superiority of native-speaker performance is unwarranted, especially at levels of proficiency beyond the basic. Elsewhere, there has been discussion of paired speaking as a potential type of test format currently in use (e.g., in the Cambridge English: Advanced) where ELF competences may be targeted (see Taylor and Wigglesworth, 2009). By nature, paired- (and group-) speaking tasks create the conditions for ELF communication: they include NNS–NNS communication, and as a result test-takers may need to negotiate meaning, deal with unfamiliar variation, accommodate their interlocutor and repair communication breakdown. However, even in a paired-speaking test, ELF strategies may not be activated if no “complication” is introduced in the interaction (e.g., if the interaction progresses smoothly there may not be any reason to negotiate meaning; if interactants have high levels of proficiency there may be no opportunities to negotiate form). In addition, rating scales for these tasks continue to focus more on “language proficiency” as described above. For example, the publicly available rating scale for the Cambridge English: Advanced (Cambridge English Language Assessment, 2015, pp. 86–87) makes reference to “negotiation”, but this is in relation to the need to bring the conversation towards an outcome (conversation management). There are no references to self-repair, re-formulation, repetition or paraphrase, and indeed the descriptors for the “discourse management” criterion suggest that a candidate may be penalised for 574
Language assessment: the challenge of ELF
repetition or hesitation. Paired-speaking tasks are useful additions to the repertoire of tasks used in language assessments, but they do not necessarily provide evidence of a candidate’s ability to operate in a challenging ELF communication environment. Managing constraints A number of barriers to adopting an ELF approach in language testing have been identified in discussion of assessment of ELF communication, but in our view none of them are insurmountable, or are in fact nullified if there is a clear purpose-driven need for operationalising the ELF construct. Underlying much of the discussion is an ideological conservatism, really an institutionalised conservatism, which often prevents change from taking place. The first barrier is what might be called a concern for stability. Test-takers generally prepare for examinations, and preparation is usually more straightforward when there is a particular standard or body of knowledge which needs to be mastered rather than a novel situation that needs to be coped with. To some extent of course all language assessment, especially when formalised in language examinations, is a game with rules; the necessary artificiality of assessment procedures contributes to this perception of the test on the part of test-takers. While one can have some sympathy with this preference for the known and for what can be prepared for, the nature of English as a lingua franca communication is inevitably unpredictable, and we cannot allow a focus on test preparation to distract us from the construct we are intending to assess. Second, there are concerns for fairness, the avoidance of bias and threats to reliability (see Brown, 2014; Elder and Harding, 2008). These are of course important professional considerations for all test developers. As stated earlier, a comprehensive program of research is required to identify the greater of these threats and ways to overcome them; language testing research has a history of identifying and solving problems in communicative language assessment on which it can draw. The articulation of a clear ELF construct derived from a domain analysis would be a useful starting point in constructing an interpretation/use argument (Kane, 2013). Third, there are concerns for acceptability: the fear that test-takers may not “accept” changes to norms. This also has an impact on the commercial viability of large-scale tests. Of course any changes require “selling” and proper communication. In teaching about, and researching, ELF communication and assessment, we have encountered enthusiastic responses, particularly from non-native English-speaking students, when they understand the nature of the change and its motivation in terms of fairer and more relevant assessments, and the level playing field between native and non-native speakers in ELF communication, which they welcome. The ideological conservatism resisting this change is likely to come more from native speakers and the language teaching and language testing industries dominated by organisations in English-speaking countries than from the learners themselves. Native speakers will not relinquish their privilege easily, but commercial forces can be harnessed to bring in the change, if creative means of teaching and assessing ELF communication continue to be developed.
Towards a model of ELF assessment One position agreed upon by all commentators is that assessment decisions should be governed by test purpose, and that design decisions should proceed from clear view of the purpose of the test (e.g., Brown, 2014; Sawaki, 2016). This position is perhaps the clearest form of 575
Luke Harding and Tim McNamara
support for attempting to assess ELF competences across a range of domains. Arguably, an ELF approach would be extremely valuable in many language for specific purposes (LSP) assessment contexts: aviation (Kim and Elder, 2009, 2015); diplomacy and international relations (Kirkpatrick, 2010); business communication (Rogerson-Revell, 2007), call-centre communication (Lockwood, 2010); English for academic purposes (Smit, 2010); and health communication (Roberts, Atkins and Hawthorne, 2014). To take the example of aviation English, Kim and Elder (2009) demonstrated that language proficiency assessment policies governing access to the international aviation workplace have got it wrong about who is safe to be admitted, and who is not, a failure that has had led to a covert boycott of the policy by a number of national aviation regulating bodies. Kim’s PhD research (Kim 2009) investigated what were the contributing factors to communication failure involving English as a lingua franca communication in “near miss” situations at Seoul’s Incheon airport, using introspective accounts from experienced Korean pilots and air traffic controllers as they listened to recordings of the episodes of communication failure. Many factors were found to contribute. Above a minimum threshold of proficiency, factors such as situation awareness, experience and cooperativeness in this ELF situation were found to contribute most; native-speaking pilots were found to contribute to the failure as much as or more than non-native speaking pilots or air traffic controllers. Yet native speakers are often considered by definition exempt from the communication assessment regime required by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. A proper understanding of the nature of English as a lingua franca communication, which is in fact properly reflected in some of the conventions for communication in the international workplace, but that are often not observed by more proficient speakers, particularly native speakers, would significantly alter the appropriate assessment regime. Developing a construct It is clear that compelling reasons exist for the assessment of ELF competences, particularly in English for specific purposes contexts. However, to date there is little guidance on what an ELF construct would involve, and how it might be operationalised. Elder and Davies (2006) explored the feasibility of an “ELF test”, proposing two different models. The first was a test where special consideration was given to ELF users by way of, for example, avoiding NS-centric vocabulary, recruiting highly proficient ELF users as interlocutors in speaking exams, training raters to ignore non-standard features that did not impact on understanding, and involving ELF users in the standard-setting process. This model of ELF assessment connects with Challenge 1, described above. The second proposal was more in line with Challenge 2. Elder and Davies suggested a range of tasks where strategic competence, adaptability and task fulfilment would be prioritised, such as listening tests featuring multiple accents and role-play speaking assessments where interlocutors were from different linguacultural backgrounds, and different proficiency levels. Beyond Elder and Davies’ (2006) suggestions, there has been little written on the practical steps that would be required to move beyond discussion of ELF assessment, and to develop a workable construct definition that could then be operationalised. Recognising this gap, and drawing on the previous work of Elder and Davies, as well as Canagarajah (2006), Harding (2012b) proposed a set of competences that might provide a starting point for developing an ELF construct for assessment purposes:
576
Language assessment: the challenge of ELF
•• •• •• •• •• ••
The ability to tolerate and comprehend different varieties of English: different accents, different syntactic forms and different discourse styles. The ability to negotiate meaning when meaning is ambiguous. The ability to use those phonological features that are crucial for intelligibility across speakers of different L1 backgrounds. An awareness of appropriate pragmatics (e.g., awareness of politeness in cross-cultural situations). The ability to accommodate your interlocutor, to make yourself understandable to whomever you are speaking with. The ability to notice and repair breakdowns in communication.
Although some of these competences could be targeted through more traditional proficiency tasks (e.g., the first competence might be assessed by introducing a greater range of spoken varieties in listening assessment), the ELF construct would arguably be most efficiently assessed through a purpose-built assessment task designed to capture the various competences within the same communicative task. An illustrative example of a study exploring the feasibility of a purpose-built task of this kind is described below. Operationalising an ELF construct In order to test how the list of competences above might be operationalised in practice, Harding (2015) conducted a pilot study of a purpose-built ELF assessment task. Using the earlier description of the ELF construct as a starting point, Harding mapped out the specific features of a task designed to elicit those features (Table 45.2). A suitable task was identified in the map tasks collection of the Human Communication Research Corpus [HCRC] (see Anderson et al., 1991). The task is an information-gap activity where one speaker takes the role of “information provider” (IP) and must explain a route on the map to an interlocutor, the “information receiver” (IR). Differences in landmarks provided on each map provides a complicating factor that requires the negotiation of meaning. The task can also be designed to provide challenges on a linguistic level (such as consonant clusters or unfamiliar vocabulary), which are anticipated to provoke negotiation of form. In this sense, the map task met all of the requirements listed in Table 45.2.
Table 45.2 Features of a purpose-built ELF assessment task Task
•• •• •• ••
Rating criteria
••
Set-up
•• •• ••
Interactive, goal-oriented Elicits negotiation of both form and meaning Breakdowns in communication are anticipated Tasks where meaning must be co-constructed are carried out by two or more interlocutors and complications are built-in Rating criteria that prioritise and reward strategies required for successful ELF communication Possible elements: accommodation, negotiation, interaction management Interlocutors do not know each other Ideally, interlocutors have little familiarity with each other’s L1
Source: Harding, 2015, p. 25.
577
Luke Harding and Tim McNamara
Two participants, who were unknown to each other, took part in the pilot study: May (a Thai L1 adult student) and Ricardo (a Spanish L1 adult student). Evidence of repetition and clarification strategies were observed at different points in the interaction, such as the example shown in Excerpt 1 below, where Ricardo – who was following May’s directions, but did not have “pelicans” marked on his map – repeats the word “pelicans” as a clarification check, and reformulates “your right hand” as “on my right” for the same purpose: Excerpt 1 May: and from Saxon barn (1.6) ah: (.6) go down the hill again (.) and you see pelicans Ricardo: (1.6) pelicans (.) [where where are the pelicans= May: [yes =pelicans is on your right (.) your right hand= Ricardo: =on my right um: (Harding, 2015, p. 25) What is notable about this exchange is that it does not appear typically “fluent” – both interlocutors pause frequently and at length. However, the focus of the interaction is on successful communication, which the speakers appear to achieve in this particular exchange. Elsewhere, there was evidence of further requests for clarification and repetition, as well as accommodation in the form of self-repair (reformulating mispronunciation). While discourse-level data from the pilot task suggested that ELF-like competences were being elicited at points throughout the task, the major challenge was how to capture these for scoring/rating purposes. A simple holistic rubric was trialled with 10 judges based on the competence areas described in Table 45.3, which in turn was based on aspects of ELF communication that have emerged from the literature (Jenkins et al., 2011). While there was broad agreement about which of the interlocutors demonstrated more of these features, it was far from clear what judges were attending to in the performances, or indeed whether the scale was being interpreted in any meaningful way. The pilot study led to some useful observations about the potential of a task such as this to tap into ELF competences. For one, the task selected had some features that could be usefully translated into more specific testing contexts (e.g., its goal-oriented, information-gap nature; the inclusion of specific complications); however the task lacked authenticity and would therefore be likely to have negative washback. Of equal importance, the scoring of Table 45.3 Competence areas for a holistic rubric Competence area
Description
Accommodation
Making self intelligible to interlocutor Adjusting to interlocutor’s speech style/accent Clarification Self-repair Repetition Paraphrasing Turn-taking Using appropriate politeness strategies
Negotiation
Maintaining smooth interaction Source: Harding, 2015, p. 26.
578
Language assessment: the challenge of ELF
an ELF task raises enormous practical challenges. What is observable through an analysis of discourse may be very difficult for raters to detect in practice. Further research is therefore required to explore the potential for more authentic tasks which include the features described in Table 45.2, and also to develop data-driven rating scales which capture the ELF-related strategic behaviour observed.
Conclusion Implications of ELF for constructing language assessments The above discussion points the way to a need for purpose-built ELF assessment tasks. Existing assessments may not be easily re-tooled for ELF assessment purposes, but in situations where ELF assessment is desirable, tasks might include features that would allow the elicitation of ELF performance (essentially, tapping into “ability for use”). Alternatively, it seems more likely that ELF is, at least in the short term, not going to replace more static proficiency constructs, but rather would function as an add-on in contexts of language assessment where ELF competences are expected to come into play (which may be all situations). An example of this kind of gradual change can be found in the project for reforming the criteria for assessing spoken competence in a major test of English for health communication, the Occupational English Test (OET) (Elder, 2016). Investigation of what counts for clinical supervisors in judging clinical trainee communication with patients led to recommendations for the revision of the criteria used to assess performance on the clinically based roleplay tasks in the OET speaking test. Two criteria additional to the traditional proficiency criteria were recommended, focusing on the clinician’s management of the interaction and their engagement with the patient (Pill, 2016). The option was given of reporting performance against these two criteria separately from performance against the proficiency criteria. It may be symptomatic of the difficulty of reform that there is no sign at the time of writing that the owners of the test, which includes Cambridge English Language Assessment, will heed these recommendations. Implications of ELF for determining language assessment policy As we have seen in the discussion of the aviation setting above, ELF assessment opens up the question of who is to be tested; removing the privileged status of the non-native speaker, who may have no natural advantage over a non-native speaker in achieving successful ELF communication. We have argued, however, while ELF assessment flows naturally from a deep understanding of the communicative demands of particular language domains, so that there should be no implicit barrier in determining whose language is to be assessed in these terms, this would represent a radical shift for language assessment generally. We can see the difficulties involved if we consider again the case of aviation. Despite variations in the implementation of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) language proficiency requirements for aviation English, in many cases native speakers are assessed in quite different ways from non-native speakers in order to determine (or indeed, confirm) only that their proficiency is at “Expert Level 6” (see Estival et al., 2016). We would argue that the widescale adoption of these practices – which often effectively exempt native speakers from needing to demonstrate language skills crucial to ELF communication – provides evidence of an institutionalised conservatism, discussed above, around the place of the native speaker in language assessment policy. Further, the profession of language testing, through its international organisation the International Language Testing Association (ILTA), has 579
Luke Harding and Tim McNamara
focused its efforts to support the existing ICAO policy by offering to validate the quality of the assessment instruments used by national authorities. However, this process may have at the same time granted legitimacy to misguided practices in the assessment of native speakers under the ICAO guidelines. We can look to a long struggle ahead in this and in other domains where ELF assessment presents a fundamental challenge.
Related chapter in this volume 46 Shohamy, ELF and critical language testing
Further reading Brown, J.D. (2014). The future of World Englishes in language testing. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(1), pp. 5–26. Canagarajah, S. (2006). Changing communicative needs, revised assessment objectives: Testing English as an international language. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(3), pp. 229–242. Elder, C. and Davies, A. (2006). Assessing English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, pp. 282–304. Jenkins, J. and Leung, C. (2013). English as a lingua franca. In A. Kunnan, ed., The companion to language assessment. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1607–1616. McNamara, T. (2011). Managing learning: Authority and language assessment. Language Teaching, 44(4), pp. 500–515.
References Abeywickrama, P. (2013). Why not non-native varieties of English as listening comprehension test input? RELC Journal, 44(1), pp. 59–74. Anderson A.H., Bader M., Bard E., Boyle, E., Doherty, G., Garrod, S., Isard, S., Kowtko, J., McAllister, J. Miller, J., Sotillo, C., Thompson, H.S. and Weinert, R. (1991). The HCRC map task corpus. Language and Speech, 34(4), pp. 351–366. Brown, J.D. (2014). The future of World Englishes in language testing. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(1), pp. 5–26. Cambridge English Language Assessment (2015). Cambridge English advanced: Handbook for teachers for exams from 2015. Cambridge: Cambridge English Language Assessment. Canagarajah, S. (2006). Changing communicative needs, revised assessment objectives: Testing English as an international language. Language Assessment Quarterly: An International Journal, 3(3), pp. 229–242. Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91(s1), pp. 923–939. Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davies, A. Hamp-Lyons, L. and Kemp, C. (2003). Whose norms? International proficiency tests in English. World Englishes, 22(4), pp. 571–584. Elder, C. ed. (2016). Exploring the limits of authenticity in LSP testing. Special Issue. Language Testing, 33(2). Elder, C. and Davies, A. (2006). Assessing English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, pp. 282–304. Elder, C., and Harding, L. (2008). Language testing and English as an international language. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 31(3), pp. 1–34. Estival, D., Farris, C., and Molesworth, B. (2016). Aviation English: A lingua franca for pilots and air traffic controllers. London and New York: Routledge. Hamilton, J., Lopes, M., McNamara, T.F. and Sheridan, E. (1993). Native-speaker performance on tests of English for Academic Purposes. Language Testing, 10, pp. 337–353.
580
Language assessment: the challenge of ELF
Harding, L. (2008). Accent and academic listening assessment: A study of test-taker perceptions. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 13(1), pp. 1–33. Harding, L. (2011). Accent and listening assessment: A validation study of the use of speakers with L2 accents on an academic English listening test. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Harding, L. (2012a). Accent, listening assessment and the potential for a shared-L1 advantage: A DIF perspective. Language Testing, 29(2), pp. 163–180. Harding, L. (2012b). Language testing, World Englishes and English as a lingua franca: The case for evidence-based change. Invited keynote address, CIP symposium 2012, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Harding, L. (2014). Communicative language testing: Current issues and future research. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(2), pp. 186–197. Harding, L. (2015). Adaptability and ELF communication: The next steps for communicative language testing? In J. Mader and Z. Urkun, eds, Language testing: Current trends and future needs. IATEFL TEASIG. Hulstijn, J.H. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), pp. 663–667. Hulstijn, J.H. (2011). Language proficiency in native and nonnative speakers: An agenda for research and suggestions for second-language assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(3), pp. 229–249. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes, eds, Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, pp. 269–293. Isaacs, T. (2008). Towards defining a valid assessment criterion of pronunciation proficiency in non-native English-speaking graduate students. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), pp. 555–580. Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice, 2(3), pp. 49–85. Jenkins, J. Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44(3), pp. 281–315. Jenkins, J. and Leung, C. (2013). English as a lingua franca. In A. Kunnan, ed., The companion to language assessment. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1607–1616. Johnson, J.S. and Lim, G.S. (2009). The influence of rater language background on writing performance assessment. Language Testing, 26(4), pp. 485–505. Kachru, B.B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kane, M.T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), pp. 1–73. Kim, Y.H., (2009). An investigation into native and non-native teachers’ judgments of oral English performance: A mixed methods approach. Language Testing, 26(2), pp. 187–217. Kim, H. and Billington, R. (2016). Pronunciation and comprehension in English as a lingua franca communication: Effect of L1 influence in international aviation communication. Applied Linguistics. doi:10.1093/applin/amv075. Kim, H. and Elder, C. (2009). Understanding aviation English as a lingua franca: Perceptions of Korean aviation personnel. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(3), pp. 23.1–23.17 Kim, H. and Elder, C. (2015). Interrogating the construct of aviation English: Feedback from test takers in Korea. Language Testing, 32(2), pp. 129–149. Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Leung, C. and Lewkowicz, J. (2006). Expanding horizons and unresolved conundrums: Language testing and assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), pp. 211–234. Lindemann, S. (2002). Listening with an attitude: A model of native-speaker comprehension of nonnative speakers in the United States. Language in Society, 31(3), pp. 419–441. Lockwood, J. (2010). Consulting assessment for the business processing outsourcing (BPO) industry in the Philippines. In G. Forey and J. Lockwood, eds, Globalization, communication and the workplace (pp. 221–241). New York: Continuum International.
581
Luke Harding and Tim McNamara
Lowenberg, P. (2000). Non-native varieties and the sociopolitics of English proficiency assessment. In J. Hall and W. Eggington, eds, The sociopolitics of English language teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lowenberg, P. (2002). Assessing English proficiency in the expanding circle. World Englishes, 21(3), pp. 431–435. McNamara, T. (2011). Managing learning: Authority and language assessment. Language Teaching, 44(4), pp. 500–515. McNamara, T. (2012). English as a lingua franca: The challenge for language testing. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), pp. 199–202. McNamara, T. (2014). 30 years on: Evolution or revolution? Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(2), pp. 226–232. Major, R.C., Fitzmaurice, S.F., Bunta, F. and Balasubramanian, C. (2002). The effects of nonnative accents on listening comprehension: Implications for ESL assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 36(3), pp. 173–190. Pill, J. (2016). Drawing on indigenous criteria for more authentic assessment in a specific-purpose language test: Health professionals interacting with patients. Language Testing, 33(2), pp. 175–194. Roberts, C., Atkins, S. and Hawthorne, K. (2014). Linguistic and cultural factors in the membership of the Royal College of General Practitioners examination. London: Centre for Language, Discourse and Communication, King’s College London with the University of Nottingham. Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007). Using English for international business: A European case study. English for specific purposes, 26(1), pp. 103–120. Sawaki, Y. (2016). Large-scale assessments of English for academic purposes from the perspective of English as a lingua franca. In K. Murata, ed., Exploring ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts: Conceptualisation, research and pedagogic implications. New York: Routledge, pp. 224–239. Seidlhofer, B. (2005). English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 59(4), pp. 339–341. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sewell, A. (2013). Language testing and international intelligibility: A Hong Kong case study. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(4), pp. 423–443. Smit, U. (2010). English as a lingua franca in higher education. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Taylor, L. (2006). The changing landscape of English: Implications for language assessment. ELT Journal, 60, pp. 51–60. Taylor, L. and Wigglesworth, G. (2009). Are two heads better than one? Pair work in L2 assessment contexts. Language Testing, 26(3), pp. 325–339. Zhang, Y. and Elder, C. (2011). Judgments of oral proficiency by non-native and native English speaking teacher raters: Competing or complementary constructs? Language Testing, 28(1), pp. 31–50.
582
46 ELF and critical language testing Elana Shohamy
Introduction and background This chapter provides a critical perspective on the uses of language assessment practices in relation to English as a lingua franca (ELF), pointing to the gap that exists between the ELF construct and testing theory, ideology and practices. This critical view is anchored within the widely accepted view that ELF is perceived as fluid, open and non-standard in nature, commonly used by the English users who acquired the language not as native speakers but through school learning and/or through a variety of informal contexts. The types of English resulting from these learning paths differ significantly from the English acquired as a native language variety in a number of features. Critical language testing (CLT) (Shohamy, 2001a and 2001b) refers to multiple questions about language tests intended to evaluate the quality of tests in terms of whether they measure the language construct, which they are meant to measure as well as the values, consequences, intentions and impact of the tests on its users (Messick, 1994). This chapter will point to the gap that exists between the fluid ELF and testing theories that build on constructs that are fixed, standard and stable. This gap leads to inaccurate scores and negative consequences of test-takers’ lives and present and future opportunities. The chapter concludes with preliminary proposals of alternative types of ELF assessment. Major problems exist with the notion that language learning represents a continuum, where learners’ proficiency begins at zero level and after a period of time of language learning it reaches a standard native variety that is identical to those born and schooled in the language. This is so since most second-language learners of English acquire and use a language variety that is different to that of native speakers with regards to various features of the language (Jenkins, 2000, Seidlhofer, 2004) and hence are not able to reach a native variety. Not only is not possible for many users to reach it, it is not always a desired goal, since many ELF users consider it as a legitimate use of English that enables effective and creative communication. The implications for test-takers are that low scores are generally obtained on English standard tests, which do not reflect the actual ELF construct as their language is always being measured in relation to the standard of native variety. The claim here is that language 583
Elana Shohamy
testers whose tasks are to assess English proficiency should address this gap and develop tests that match and reflect the ELF construct (see also Jenkins, 2006; McNamara 2012; Jenkins and Leung, 2014; McNamara 2014; Jenkins in press, 2016).
Validity and discrimination The different criteria of English language performance imply that these types of tests suffer from lack of validity, defined as the extent to which the tests possess evidence that demonstrate that they reflect the construct that is being assessed. Lack of validity means that tests do not match the actual English knowledge and the evidence is that the ELF users perform at a lower level than those for whom English is a native language. This phenomenon is unethical since most ELF learners, regardless of their age and learning experiences, are not perceived as capable users of the standard variety in the totality of its features and are penalized accordingly. This means that regardless of the language teaching and learning experiences they were exposed to in schools and/or in other contexts, they continue to use the new language with ample features from their L-1 and other inputs, drawing on these in adaptive, strategic ways to achieve communicative success. Thus, the test-takers’ scores need not be compared to those who were born to the native language, be it English or any other language learned in schools. In fact, one can argue that even in cases when test-takers reside in a country that they immigrated to many years ago, this cannot drastically change their use of ELF, which becomes stabilized over the years, while also retaining its dynamic and hence unstable nature. This phenomenon can be observed by the number of features: the oral production can be functionally communicative and is used with a marked accent that in many cases triggers questions in the form of ‘where are you from?’, even after many years of residence speaking English in the places they moved to. This creates a classification of the speaker as ‘foreign’ to the place where they currently reside, often leading to derogatory attitudes viewed as not deserving to belong and, at times, even leading to calls that they should be expelled and return to the places they came from (Shohamy, 2009). Discrimination against non-native speakers extends beyond the ELF users, and not only with regards to English. While throughout this handbook ELF refers to English since it is a world global language, this very phenomenon in fact applies to a number of additional languages as regional lingua franca such as Chinese, Russian, Swahili and Arabic used widely as common languages across certain regions or for certain ethnic groups. It should further be extended to national languages in their dominant, majority and official status in the many cases when minorities, non-native speakers of the dominant language, are expected to reach native-like proficiency and are assessed in schools and society on the native variety. The issue of test discrimination therefore needs to incorporate also national, official and elite languages where the non-native varieties are not recognized for immigrants and minority groups. While the language used by minority groups is influenced by the various mother tongues, in most societies this is viewed as a problem and an intrusion and not as a natural and constructive speech. The situation where immigrants are required to pass a test in the majority languages in order to be granted permission for residence and citizenship is a case in point that involves a variety of mother tongues. In many countries worldwide, knowledge of the national languages on a high level serves as a requirement for residence and citizenship. This means that immigrants, adults and children and minority groups residing in the country for many years but using different home languages, are expected to reach high levels of language 584
ELF and critical language testing
proficiency in the language of the country they are in, and are unlikely to reach native-like proficiency. These language users – children and adults – are always compared and judged by the standard of the native variety and hence tend to obtain lower scores. This policy is practised in spite of research showing that it takes students and adults many years to achieve such levels of proficiency. This obviously also has an effect on learning school content when the language is not fully acquired and there is very little attention in schools to these limitations. Most studies demonstrate that it takes immigrants a long time to arrive at a similar level of academic language in comparison to those born into the language. These studies will be described further in this chapter.
Constructive alternatives As was mentioned above, for many learners (Seidlhofer, 2011; Jenkins, 2012) native-like proficiency in the language is not desired nor possible for reasons such as lack of motivations to reach that goal as they are not willing to erase their language identity, which is often is based on their own past national ideology and prestige in their own language versus English which is often considered ‘the language of the other’. This is especially relevant in this day and age where many people refuse to change their identity, not willing to be associated with ‘the language of the others’ in spite of residence in the place where the language is used. Those people may have the desire to integrate into the society on a number of levels but not on the level of language as they find they can communicate in their own terms and in their own contexts. Another reason is that it is often not possible to acquire native-like variety even though they have the desire, as native language cannot be reached in spite of the strongest motivation beyond a certain age (Shohamy, 2009). Thus, even with the most effective teaching by native-speaker teachers, second-language learners will not be successful in acquiring native-like proficiency as language learners continue to carry their own L1 with them, which results in a mixed variety of L1 alongside L2, resulting in a unique and personal ‘variety’. Other factors can be related to place, time and context where the English had been learned.
Construct validity There is a need to acknowledge that ELF has a built-in contradiction with assessment in terms of ‘what is being tested’, which is the central question in the process of test construction, referred to as construct validity. This means that if the definition of ‘the what’ of the test does not match current and updated definitions of language, then language tests cannot be considered to be construct valid. The main implication of the lack of construct validity is that for those who are being assessed by these tests, their scores do not reflect their real knowledge of what it means to know a language. Indeed, there is an expectation that those who construct tests will follow updated and current theories and definitions of language knowledge as these change over time, based on ongoing research about the construct. This is an important requirement for test designers, especially given the powerful role of tests in society and their influence on teachers and learners (Shohamy 2001a, 2001b, 2006; Cheng 2004). Language tests – their questions and scoring criteria – deliver and promote direct messages about what language is. Thus, language tests are being interpreted as de facto curriculum and tend to be more influential than research findings about the language construct. This is the case in research 585
Elana Shohamy
about ELF: while ample research is available about it, the language tests continue to overlook it and to use standard native criteria and goals. This is even more complicated given the field of psychometrics (i.e. testing theories), whose theories and principles are based on constructs that are fixed, stable, finite and standard. In that way, they differ from ELF, which is flexible and dynamic. In this day and age, notions of translanguaging (e.g. Garcia and Li Wei 2014), multilingualism, ‘disinvented languages’ (Makoni and Pennycook 2007), and mixed codes are increasing their influence and offer major challenges to language testers. Yet testing theories at this point do not offer a solution for these, as language tests cannot resolve this type of variability and continue to utilize theories of standard and stable language. Thus, the native variations of English continue to serve as the only criterion for judging the quality of English. Still, as of now some initiatives are taking place even in prestigious testing institutions such as Educational Testing Service (Lopez et al. in press). As to ELF, new thinking on the topic is taking place as well proposals for new understandings of assessing ELF (Jenkins and Leung, in press) as it is clear that one – size does not fit all, especially when it comes to English. It is clearly the case that it is not possible to create tests that are tailor made for each individual English user and hence there is a need to consider the vast research on ELF showing that native and non-native uses of English differ drastically, and that non-native speakers will be able to communicate in the new language but not in the same way as native speakers, whose English, in any case, has been shown not to be the most effective in intercultural communication. These new tests need to build on the construct and its definitions (i.e., free, open, innovative, creative) as the criteria for effective communication (Canagarajah, 2006). Further, given that tests are powerful devices that have strong effects on learning, teaching, self concept and identities, using tests that do not match the ELF construct means that ELF will not be further recognized as a legitimate use of English since tests have substantially more impact on learning, recognition and prestige than official curricula language (Cheng, 2004; Cheng and Tsagari, in press; Shohamy, 2011). One point that needs to be emphasized here with regards to ELF is the urgent need to develop tests for native speakers in comprehension of ELF communication.
Critical language testing: unjust tests The arguments made above can be contextualized within the framework of critical language testing (Shohamy, 2001b, 2006; McNamara, 2014, in press). The aim of this is to raise questions about test validity, and according to Messick (1994), the uses and consequences of tests are an integral part of construct validity. Further, questions relate to challenges of test use, and along with that, attempts to reform and change tests according to these challenges. One of the major questions thus refers to whether the tests we use reflect the current and updated understanding of the construct that is being assessed, as well as making efforts to make tests more democratic and inclusive, given their power. Here are some additional questions regarding how tests are being used in education and society are posed? What are their reasons and agendas (explicit and implicit) for introducing tests? and what are their consequences? (Shohamy, 2001a, 2001b). This is a short list for a substantially larger number of questions that emerge from the enormous power of tests that is manifested from the re-definition of language knowledge and referring to the changes that tests can bring about. For example, tests have a strong impact on teachers’ views about what learning consists 586
ELF and critical language testing
of, especially in the case of external tests, which are designed and administered by central bodies like Ministries of Education and national examination boards. The power of tests can also determine people’s future (Blackledge, 2009), not only in schools but also in society and at the workplace, as in the cases of adult immigrants being tested in the new language of the country they immigrated to as the primary condition for obtaining citizenship or even residence (Eades, 2009; Extra, Spotti, Van Avermaet, 2009; McNamara and Shohamy, 2008; Shohamy, 2009). Additional criticism about tests as part of CLT relates to the implicit (or ‘hidden’) goals of introducing language tests as these are often based on ideologies rather than on realities of language use. This is in fact one of the claims of ELF, which is that second-language learners of English are able to reach a high level of proficiency in the new language after a relatively short time of residence, including those who lack literacy in their L1. This is a relevant point given that that many immigrants do not have the appropriate time and conditions to learn the new language. Not enough courses for learning it are available so that for many immigrants it is not possible to acquire a new language. Policy makers often believe that if they force immigrants to acquire the language via tests they will increase their motivation to learn the language and hence to get integrated into the new society and drop their home languages. Yet, such goals are not realistic in the same way that forcing people to learn a language does not necessarily result in accepted proficiency. Such policies reflect an ideology of decision makers than reality, especially within the short time allocated to learning a new language. Thus, language tests are used as tools for ideology and for unrealistic goals of the ‘native-like’ proficiency. The main conclusion in terms of ELF is that there is a need to think of and develop tests that are based on a realistic view of what can be acquired. i.e., what type of tests are considered to be equal, realistic and socially just.
Connecting ELF with CLT Three main components make up the design of tests and these are related to our discussion here: one is the ‘what’, known as ‘the construct’ or ‘the trait’; the second is ‘the how’, or ‘the method’ referring to strategies of assessment; and the third is ‘the impact’, referring to the consequences and effects that tests have on knowledge, uses, learning ethicality and justice, known also as ‘washback’ (Messick, 1994; Cheng, 2004; Cheng and Tsagari, in press; Shohamy and Hornberger, 2008; Menken, 2010). As to the trait, this addresses the question of what is the very language that will be assessed so that mastery of that language will provide evidence of the person’s language quality. This is very relevant to the case of ELF since it poses deep questions about the very knowledge that should be included on tests or ‘make up’ the tests. The second component, the method, aims to identify the specific procedures and strategies that are used to assess the trait, include multiple choice items, various performance tasks and other ways known to be useful for assessing the trait that had previously been defined. The third component, the impact, relates to the consequences that tests have on individual test-takers, educational systems and often society as a whole (Messick, 1994; Cheng, 2004; Shohamy, 2006; Shohamy and Hornberger, 2008; Cheng and Tsagari, in press). It is often the case that even well-defined traits that utilize high-quality and reliable testing methods can still end in negative consequences for the test-takers, for schools and the educational system. Thus, the call made here is to introduce ELF as a central trait in English tests; this is backed by extensive research with its unique characteristics showing that ELF consists of specific English in its own right and these characteristics need to be incorporated and 587
Elana Shohamy
manifested into language testing and assessment. As of now, tests are still based on the notion of the native speaker as the ideal criterion for language quality. This is in contrast to the view that ELF should be used as a target of knowledge emerging from its status as a lingua franca. The major advances in language testing over the past decade created adjustments mostly on ‘the how’, i.e., statistics, data analysis, scores, ratings scales but no advances in matching these test methods to the new definitions of language as described here and elsewhere. As to the component relating to consequences, this is related directly to the discussion made above that CLT need to examine the uses and consequences of tests for individuals, on teaching and society at large.
Unique features of language in the current era As was mentioned earlier in the chapter, it is relevant to mention here that other constructs have been introduced in the past few years. These refer to ‘trans-languaging’ (Garcia and Wei, 2014) ‘bi-multi-languaging’, hybridity and multi-modality. Common among all these are the deconstruction of traditional language constructs of correct, accurate, native-like and standardized languages. Testers then are faced with the challenges of these new paradigms of language consisting of various types of diversities. Below are unique features of language that are applicable to the changes in the construct, whether ELF, translanguaging, multiligualism or hybridities, multimodality and others (Shohamy, 2006): •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••
Language is dynamic, energetic, diverse, fluid and constantly evolving; no fixed boundaries, creative, but rather open, resulting in fusions, hybrids and ‘non-native’ varieties. Language is not static, rather it is negotiated, interacted and mediated in attempts to make meanings, to communicate, to create contact. Language is manifested also ‘beyond words’, via multi-modal forms of images, signs, music, clothes, food and other ways of ‘languaging’. Language competence is perceived nowadays as multilingual, multi-modal, mixed codes, dialects and modalities that exist harmoniously, i.e., multilingual and multimodal. Language knowledge often implies transition among different skills and languages: speak in one language, read in another, discuss in the third and often switch ‘codes’. Language is not limited to what people say but also to how they choose to represent themselves in the ecology via signs, personal cards, names, graffiti and other forms of linguistic landscapes. Language is also uniquely personal – ‘my language is not yours’, even within the same language, in terms of voice, sound, rhythm, young–old, male–female, choice of words, etc. The above result in new and creative mixes of accents, words, tones, spellings, sounds, intonations, voices, as well as codes, icons, images and sounds, constructed harmoniously.
Still, when it comes to tests and assessment these features are ignored as tests are used for other agendas such as to impose ideological monolingual agendas and practices and standardization of national languages. Take for example, major tests used in the US such as No Child Left Behind, or the Common Core, or tests for citizenship that are used in most of the European countries. All these assess national languages in their standardized form and do not accept variations. Thus, language tests are high-stake encounters that continue to assess English (or other national languages), in their native form and refuse to accept the construct of ELF or any other less-standardized language variations. Most tests use standardized rating 588
ELF and critical language testing
scales, such as the main tools for judging the quality of the language, and rating scales such as the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference) become instrumental in perpetuating uniformity based on homogenous monolingual constructs. The CEFR is a global tool used extensively in many contexts beyond just Europe, i.e., Asia, South/Central America and elsewhere, to define and categorize levels of language proficiency in all situations and in most languages according to six categories. The CEFR is known to affect teaching methods, materials, textbooks, testing, accreditation systems and learning, in and out of classrooms, a new accepted way to view language (Fulcher, 2004). Governments adopt the CEFR, no questions asked and view it as the ultimate definition of language proficiency. Huge financial resources are spent on buying prestigious tests and textbooks that claim to align/fit/ match/link to the CEFR. Reputable institutions such as ETS rush ‘to link’ their tests to the CEFR realizing that failing to do so will result in loss of sales, profits and prestige. The CEFR is a communicative and appealing tool for multiple stake holders, especially politicians, governments and other decision makers. In many situations the criteria included in the CEFR replace high-quality local criteria that have been in place in the past as the CEFR is viewed as a ‘mega’ tool, as big as the English language supported by governments, testing agencies. Not surprisingly, the most frequent use of the CEFR is with the English language, along with the goal of reaching the highest level of language proficiency. As we can observe, even the highest level of the CEFR defines it as a ‘native variety’ and does not recognise ELF as it emerges in ELF research. See for example the description below of the C-2 level, the highest of the CEFR levels. It is clear that the level that is presented here refers to a very high level such as that of a native speaker and not of an ELF user. ELF researchers should be able to create a similar scale, which is based on the features that ELF users can do on their highest level. C2 – Mastery Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarize information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in the most complex situations. The CEFR is a finite system that has become a form of identity, an ideology, a common ‘language’ to define the world. Thus, saying someone is A1 or B2 on the CEFR brings about a common language, a familiar meaning, an assigned category, an identity. When two languages are assessed this is done in total separation, each language at a time, with separate scores, and not in the multilingual fluidity, or trans-languaging as mentioned above. One is penalized for bringing in words from the ‘other’ languages. Indeed test-takers are penalized for their L1 use in spite of the fact that immigrants, minority groups and second-language learners continue to use, rely, depend on and trust, their L1 for a very long time, if not for life. ELF users rely and build on their L1 and other sources, especially in interpretations of content. It is important to note in observing the scales how ELF is presented as a problem and not as a language that is appropriate. In fact many features of speaking utilize accents, code-switching from the L1, which are all are part of the repertoire of ELF. Similarly, are grammar, lexicon, word order, discourse, pragmatics, etc. In writing as well L2 learners continue to bring in features of their L1 or another language they have learned before they acquired English, yet always feel their 589
Elana Shohamy
ELF is not good enough and therefore always seek ‘a native English speaker’ to edit their article, especially in the case of writing academic journal articles, which still require Standard English and do not recognize ELF. Similarly, in reading it is also often the case that comprehension of texts requires additional knowledge, contextual information and terminology of specific contents.
Test accommodation A common practice in recent years has been the use of ‘test accommodation’; these are based on the realisation that L2 learners continue to use their L1 and hence are being granted help until they become like the ‘native speakers’ (Abedi and Lord 2001; Abedi, 2004; Abedi, in press). Yet, the real agenda behind that policy is to perpetuate the goal of the need to acquire L2 and overlook the L1, which is not valued, especially in contexts of immigration of children in schools in spite of the fact that language learners continue to employ their L1s, and that is part of their expanded language repertoire. Ignoring the L1 of second-language learners and ELF users results in invalid tests and low performance of language users as they may never acquire the new language in its ‘native’ form. Demanding native variety is a form of discrimination that can never be overcome. The use of test accommodations give students the illusion that they can get there, while the reality is not so.
Evidence through data In this section, some evidence obtained from a number of research studies will be discussed, to support the claims made above. In one study (Levin, Shohamy and Spolsky, 2003; Levin and Shohamy, 2008), it was shown that it takes immigrants from the former Soviet Union in ninth grade, took 9–11 years to reach a similar level of academic language as those born into Hebrew. This means that during all these years those students could not interpret full meanings of what was delivered in Hebrew. Another finding from this study showed that students who immigrated from Ethiopia and whose languages are Amharic or Tigrinya, did not arrive at similar levels of those who were born into Hebrew during their school years. The last study showed that those students who immigrated From the former Soviet Union and were tested in a bilingual version of Hebrew and Russian performed significantly higher than those who were tested in Hebrew alone, pointing to the fact that students continue to rely on their home languages and this bilingual format helps them get higher grades on the test. These data then provide some more empirical evidence to support the arguments made in this chapter, where the first language of the students play a major role in functioning in the second new language that is being acquired and this lasts for up to 12 years.
Preliminary proposals Initial proposals of ELF/ bilingual translanguaging tests can be adopted as follows, but not before conducting intensive research. 1 2 3 590
using academic-content texts in ELF; writing in ELF but focussing on message, hybrids; reading in L-1 but processing in ELF;
ELF and critical language testing
4 5 6 7 8 9
discussing a text in one language orally based on texts in ELF; ELF rubrics/rating scales relating to different domains; group tests consisting of role plays using ELF, multiple languages, interpretation, translating, trans-languaging, etc.; cognitive work on language and content processing; test mediations in two languages referring to the use of a L1 of the students to interpret the ELF texts.
As to ELF specifically, the vast amount of research on ELF should be channeled into the development of ELF tests, rating scales and rubrics. These findings are instrumental in developing the testing construct that can be used for the quality and especially noticing the differences between ELF and native English.
Questions and challenges In the spirit of CLT, many questions need to be addressed as the use of ELF assessment would be a revolutionary way of thinking of assessment in non-native English use. The move from the native variety as the ‘it’ to the acceptance of ELF requires a lot of work in convincing others about it. As is the case today, convincing the public at large about the existence of ELF is still controversial, let alone the issue of ELF testing and assessment and the need to create tests that are geared towards ELF users. Testing institutes are not in a hurry to adopt such changes, although institutes such as the Educational Testing Service in the US mentioned above are initiating such research (see for example, the chapter on assessment of multilingual competence by Lopez, Turkan and Guzman (in press, 2017). Here are some of the questions, out of a much larger pool that should be posed about the topic: 1
What are the differences between ELF and other language variations such as ‘translanguaging’ and bi-multi-lingual and multi-modality? 2 How are these manifested with regards to the different competences in the different phases of language proficiency and use? 3 How do different L-2 users utilize L-1, L-2 and L-3 in production vs. processing? 4 What criteria can be used for ‘good ELF’? Is it hierarchical? Sporadic? Holistic? 5 How is ELF manifested when students are encouraged and not penalized, to utilize their L-1 or other strategies (images) of free expression? This chapter is a preliminary attempt calling for the need to match the testing procedure with ELF; it is the large amount of research about ELF that should feed into specific initiatives to develop ELF tests to match this new construct. It is only when there will be tests of ELF that recognition of ELF (and the range of institutionalized postcolonial varieties of English) will be accepted and used. The powerful role that tests have also means that at times, the power of tests need to be utilized to shift people’s view about non-standard homogenous forms. Such a shift will result in higher levels of construct validity and the realistic need of English users. Current tests serve the system; they are not based on how languages ARE used, but on how some think they SHOULD be used. Hence, we are looking forward to the development of creative ways of applying ELF and other broader contextual traits that will include 591
Elana Shohamy
a fuller repertoire of individuals’ and groups’ languages. These will be more ethical, create a better impact and expand our understanding of language repertoires that are appropriate for the world today.
References Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4–14. Abedi, J. (in press, 2017). Test accommodations. In E. Shohamy and I. Or (eds), Language testing and assessment. Vol. 7 of S. May (ed.) Encyclopedia of language and education 2nd edn. Berlin: Springer. Abedi, J. and Lord, C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(3), 219–234. Blackledge, A. (2009). As a country we do expect: the further extension of language testing regimes in the United Kingdom. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(1), 6–16. Canagarajah, A.S. (2006). Changing communicative needs, revised assessment objectives: testing English as an international language? Language Assessment Quarterly 3(3), 229–242. Cheng, L. (2004). The washback effect of a public examination change on teachers’ perceptions toward their classroom teaching. In L. Cheng and Y. Watanabe with A. Curtis (eds), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 147–170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cheng, L and Tsagari, D. (in press, 2017). Washback, impact and consequences. In E. Shohamy and I. Or (eds), Language testing and assessment. Vol. 7 of S. May (ed.) Encyclopedia of language and education, 2nd edn. Berlin: Springer. Eades, D. (2009). Testing the claims of asylum seekers: the role of language analysis. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(1), 30–40 Extra, G., Spotti, M. and Van Avermaet, P. (eds) (2009). Language testing, migration and citizenship: Cross-national perspectives. London: Continuum. Fulcher, G. (2004). Deluded by artifices? The Common European Framework and harmonization. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1(4), 253–266. Garcia, O. and Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2006). The spread of EIL: a testing time for testers. ELT Journal 60(1), 42–50. Jenkins, J. (2012). English as a lingua franca from the classroom to the classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (in press, 2016). International tests of English: are they fit for purpose? In H. Liao (ed.) Critical reflections on foreign language education: Globalization and local interventions. Taipei: The Language Training and Testing Center. Jenkins, J. and Leung, C. (2014). English as a lingua franca. In A. Kunnan (ed.) The companion to language assessment (Vol. 4, pp. 1607–1616). Malden, MA : John Wiley & Sons. Jenkins, J. and Leung, C. (in press, 2017). Assessing English as a lingua franca. In E. Shohamy and I. Or (eds) Language testing and assessment. Vol. 7 of S. May (ed.) Encyclopedia of language and education, 2nd edn. Berlin: Springer. Levin, T. and Shohamy, E. (2008). Achievement of immigrant students in mathematics and academic Hebrew in Israeli schools: A large-scale evalation study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34(1), 1–14. Levin, T., Shohamy, E. and Spolsky, B. (2003) Academic achievements of immigrants in schools. Report submitted to the Ministry of Education (in Hebrew). Israel, Tel Aviv University. Lopez, A.A., Turkan, S. and Guzman, O. (in press, 2017) Assessing multilingual competence. In E. Shohamy and I. Or (eds) Language Testing and Assessment. Vol. 7 of S. May (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd edn. Berlin: Springer. McNamara, T. (2012). English as a lingua franca: the challenge for language testing. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1/1. McNamara, T. (2014). ‘Thirty years on: evolution or revolution. Language Assessment Quarterly 11, 226–232. 592
ELF and critical language testing
McNamaara, T. and Shohamy E. (2008). Language tests and human rights. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 89–95. Makoni, S. and Pennycook, A. (2007) Disinventing and reconstituting languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Menken, K. (2010). No Child Left Behind and English language learners: the challenges and consequences of high-stakes testing. Theory into Practice, 49(2), 121–128. Messick, S. (1994) The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessment. Educational Researcher, 23, 13–23 Seidlhofer, B. (2003). A concept of international English and related issues: From ‘real English’ to ‘realistic English?’ Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Language Policy Division DG IV – Directorate of School, Out-of- School and Higher Education. Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209–239. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shohamy, E. (2001a). Democratic assessment as an alternative. Language Testing, 18(4), 373–391. Shohamy, E. (2001b). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. London: Pearson. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London and New York: Routledge. Shohamy, E. (2009). Language tests for immigrants: Why language? Why tests? Why citizenship? In Hogan-Brun, G., Mar-Molinero C. and Stevenson, P. (eds), Discourses on language and integration (pp. 45–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Shohamy, E. (2011). Assessing multilingual competencies: Adopting construct valid assessment policies. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 418–429. Shohamy, E. 2015. Critical language testing and English lingua franca: how can one help the other? Waseda Working Papers in ELF (English as a Lingua Franca), 5, 37–51. Waseda ELF Research Group, Waseda University, Tokyo. Shohamy, E. and Hornberger, N.H. (eds), 2008. Introduction. In E. Shohamy and I. Or (eds) Language Testing and Assessment. Vol. 7 of S. May (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Education (2nd edn, pp. xvii–xxii). Berlin: Springer.
593
47 The future of English as a lingua franca? Jennifer Jenkins
Introduction: from where and when it all began . . . Readers may find it odd for a chapter on the future of ELF to start by looking back at its past. But as we draw to the end of this lengthy first-ever ELF handbook, it seems to me that before we turn to the hypothetical future of ELF, it is important to pause and take stock of when and where it all started, and to consider what has been accomplished in the astonishingly short time since then. It was in March 1996, to my knowledge, that the term ‘English as a lingua franca’ and its acronym ‘ELF’ were first used in public to refer to the phenomenon that has been the subject of the chapters of this handbook. The occasion was a PhD research seminar in the (then) Department of TESOL at the University of London Institute of Education (ULIE, now University College London-Institute of Education), where I had completed my PhD late the previous year. The focus of my PhD research had been variation in ELF users’ pronunciation, although until the day of the seminar in question, I had not publicly used the term ‘ELF’ to refer to the communication among English users from different first languages that I had been investigating. Instead, I had been using the term ‘English as an international language’ and its acronym ‘EIL’, which were already in circulation in relation to the postcolonial Englishes, most notably, although by no means exclusively, in the works of Larry Smith (e.g. in the title of his 1983 edited volume). I switched from EIL to ELF early in 1996 on reading an article by Sissy Gika, a PhD student who, by chance, was also studying at ULIE at the time, although in international relations rather than TESOL. In her article, Gika argued that “we teach this language [English] to help people communicate easily, talk to each other without linguistic and even cultural barriers, understand each other better . . . to bring people closer” (1996: 15), and that the term ‘foreign’ is unhelpful in this respect. She went on to ask “how foreign can it [English] be internationally, since people all over the world communicate in English?” (ibid.). Reading Gika’s words was a eureka moment in that it made me realise that ‘ELF’ would be a far more effective, transparent term than the ambiguous ‘EIL’ to refer to the use of English across linguistic and cultural boundaries. I therefore decided to try out the new
594
The future of English as a lingua franca?
term on the assembled group of PhD students and staff (including the head and deputy heads of department, Henry Widdowson and Guy Cook) at the March 1996 ULIE seminar where I was presenting my completed PhD research for the first time. I began by showing the following on the overhead projector (this being long before the availability of PowerPoint): EFL ELF The seminar participants were asked to guess what the acronym ‘ELF’ stood for. A couple of minutes of puzzlement ensued until a PhD student from Brazil tentatively asked if it could be English as a lingua franca. Once revealed and explained the term was well received by the majority present, although some remained ambivalent including, initially, Widdowson himself. He nevertheless found my ELF perspective and the research that underpinned it of great interest, and invited me to submit a book proposal to the Oxford Applied Linguistics series of which he was then editor. This ultimately became my first book on ELF (Jenkins 2000)1 as well as the first book-length empirical study of ELF. Meanwhile, with the encouragement of the then chair of IATEFL (International Association of Teachers of EFL), Chris Kennedy, a couple of months later I published a short piece in IATEFL’s newsletter outlining why I thought we should replace ‘EFL’ with ‘ELF’ (Jenkins 1996; see also Jenkins 2000: 10–11). This was not the first time English had been described in print as a having the role of international lingua franca: the phenomenon had been reported much earlier by two German scholars, Hüllen (1982) and Knapp (1987/ 2015), with Knapp using the term “E. as a lingua franca (Elf)” (1987/2015:178). However, Knapp did not use the term ‘English a lingua franca’ or its acronym ‘ELF’ as such, and neither his nor Hüllen’s short piece was underpinned by empirical work, or its ideas further developed at the time (see Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey 2011). March 1996 thus marks the first spoken and written naming of the field as we now know it.
To ELF’s development from then to now . . . The previous chapters in this handbook have covered the key empirical and conceptual developments in ELF studies since the time of that first ELF seminar (coincidentally 20 years almost to the day as I write this chapter in March 2016). But as mentioned above, it will be useful to summarise these developments in order to contextualise what might happen ELF-wise in the future. As pointed out in the Introduction, although several other languages including English had served as lingua francas at various times over previous centuries and continue to do so, no other lingua franca had hitherto experienced anything like the global spread or number of speakers as ELF. And perhaps as a result, in the earliest days of ELF research, there was no similar research paradigm with which to compare it. Because of this, early ELF researchers followed the example of World Englishes, and initially conceptualised ELF as a number of varieties each with its own features, as well as features that most, if not all, ELF users seemed to share, and produced initial empirical corpus data that seemed to support this conceptualisation. Later, the increasing amount of empirical data began to demonstrate that the use of this lingua franca was too diverse and fluid to be captured within a ‘varieties’ paradigm, and attention shifted to exploring and explaining ELF’s fluidity in light of the
595
Jennifer Jenkins
many functions that it was found to serve. Most recently, ELF’s multilingual nature has been foregrounded, and ELF seen as being positioned within a framework of multilingualism rather than multilingualism being an aspect of ELF use. For as Pitzl (2016: 17) points out, although the multilingual dimension has always been part of ELF research, it has indeed become more central in recent years, leading Jenkins to propose that the theorizing of multilingualism with ELF – and of ELF as an integral part of multilingualism research – might well constitute a central third phase in ELF research [see Jenkins 2015b for a discussion of these three phases as ‘ELF 1’, ‘ELF 2’ and ‘ELF 3’]. During the past 20 years, and particularly from around 2000, the conceptual developments outlined in the previous paragraph were driven by the empirical work being carried out, slowly at first, but rapidly accelerating as increasing numbers of applied linguists, including many PhD students, became attracted to this new and exciting field of research. The first major empirical development following Jenkins’s (2000) ELF pronunciation study was the collection of ELF corpora, beginning with the establishment of VOICE (Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English), the first large-scale ELF corpus, in 2001 (see Seidlhofer 2001). This was followed by the ELFA Corpus (Corpus of English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings), which, as its name implies, involved data from higher education contexts (see Mauranen 2003), and was the first ELF corpus to be completed. The next major ELF corpus chronologically was ACE (Asian Corpus of English) set up by Andy Kirkpatrick in 2009, covering nine countries within East and South-East Asia (see Kirkpatrick 2014). While these three largest ELF corpora focused entirely on spoken ELF, Mauranen has more recently established WrELFA (the Corpus of Written ELF in Academic Settings), which is currently in progress. The availability of rich ELF corpus data has enabled ELF researchers to explore ELF forms and functions in a plethora of domains. The two most researched ELF domains have always been business ELF, or BELF (e.g. Cogo 2012; Ehrenreich 2009; Kankaanranta and Louhiala-Salminen 2007, Chapter 25 this volume), and academic ELF in both English Medium Instruction, or EMI, (non-English mother tongue) and English-dominant (English mother tongue) settings (see e.g. Jenkins 2014; Mauranen 2012; Smit 2010). This is not in the least surprising in view of the fact that these two domains involve particularly large numbers of ELF users from a very diverse range of first-language backgrounds. The many other domains and contexts of ELF research include asylum seeking encounters (e.g. Guido 2008), teacher education (e.g. Dewey 2012), language assessment (e.g. Jenkins and Leung 2014), as well as many other areas of human experience such as humour (e.g. Pullin, Chapter 27 this volume), uncooperative communication (e.g. Jenks 2012, Chapter 23 this volume), miscommunication (e.g. Deterding 2013), ELF use among couples (e.g. Pietkäinen 2014), language regulation in ELF (e.g. Hynninen 2016), cognitive perspectives on ELF (e.g. Hall, Chapter 6 this volume), and written ELF (e.g. Horner, Chapter 33 this volume ). Meanwhile, ELF researchers have investigated the phenomenon at every linguistic level, focusing more recently, in line with the shift from the earlier study of form to concerns with function, particularly on pragmatics rather than on forms per se. And several researchers into intercultural communication (or using the more recently preferred term, ‘transcultural’, see Baker 2016) have explored their subject from an ELF perspective, most notably Baker (e.g. 2015, 2016, Chapter 2 this volume) and Zhu Hua (e.g. 2015), amply demonstrating the many synergies between the two fields.
596
The future of English as a lingua franca?
Despite the vast amount of empirical work and conceptual effort that has gone into ELF research over the past 20 years, it is important to point out that ELF remains controversial: that is, there appears still to be a substantial if rapidly decreasing minority who are ill-disposed towards ELF, whether the phenomenon itself or the research. These ‘antiELFers’ divide broadly into two camps, one who dislike the phenomenon of ELF because of its threat to ‘Standard’ English (whatever they mean by this ambiguous term), and the other who (mistakenly) see the ELF research paradigm as proposing a new monolithic kind of English: a new global standard. The first tend to be ELT professionals and the second to be World Englishes scholars, although this is, of necessity, a simplification as there have been published attacks on ELF from those of various other ideological persuasions including Marxism, as well as those who simply object to the global spread of English in any guise (although, amusingly, they regularly choose to publish in English themselves!). However, the very fact that ELF is interpreted in two such diametrically opposite ideological ways is evidence in itself that both cannot be right; and ELF researchers would argue that both are wrong. As an example of anti-ELF sentiment, the following comes from an anonymous reviewer’s comments on a submission about ELF in 2016 to a major international journal (emphasis added): The author appears to have accepted the concept of ELF, as put forward by Jenkins, Seidelhofer [sic] etc., uncritically. There is important literature which critiques the concept fashioned by these authors which the author does not cite. He needs to engage with critical work such as Ian MacKenzie’s book (Routledge) and O’Reagan [sic] (2014, Applied Linguistics). The present article does not make clear at all why Japanese students should primarily expect to use English as a LF rather than inner circle-oriented English. Although ELF is a relatively new field of research, the concept is not so new that it needs to be questioned every time an author chooses to write about it or to adopt an ELF approach to their subject. To my knowledge, this is not expected when people write about other fields of linguistic enquiry, even those such as World Englishes, which are also relatively new. In this particular case, the author of the submission had spent three years researching ELF in relation to Japanese users of English, and was entirely clear as to why ELF rather than native English would be more relevant to Japanese learners of English. Rather more so, I venture to hazard, than the reviewer him/herself, who seems to hold a strongly pro-native English position regardless of the context of use. Having said this, it would be a serious misrepresentation if I were to leave readers with the impression that such orientations to ELF are the norm. For although they are deeply entrenched, these kinds of views, whether the result of failure to keep up to date with the ELF literature, and remain stuck in ELF 1 thinking, of a fascination with Standard English, or for some other reason, characterise only a small minority of ELF commentators. We should not lose sight of the fact that ELF has its own annual conferences, its own journal, its own book series, an AILA Research Network, a host of books, journal articles, book chapters, and PhD theses, and now its first handbook. This is all the more remarkable in light of the relatively short time that ELF has been the focus of research, and demonstrates clearly the extent to which it has gripped the imaginations of those working in English language and linguistics (and even some outside these areas, such as the world of business), and gained
597
Jennifer Jenkins
respect as an important scholarly field. What the next decades will bring is still to a great extent a matter of conjecture, but it is to this that I now turn.
To what others have (and have not) predicted . . . As part of my preparation for writing this chapter, I explored what other scholars have (or have not) had to say about the future of English and/or ELF in four previous handbooks in the field. Admittedly, as this is the first handbook of ‘ELF’ as such, I was not expecting earlier handbooks of ‘World Englishes’ and the like to focus particularly, or even specifically, on the future of ELF as such. Rather, I anticipated, they would talk about the future of English(es) more generally and refer to ELF only in passing, if at all. It was therefore something of a surprise to find that ELF is in fact mentioned in three of the four other handbooks, although in respect of the future, only in two of them. The earliest of the four, and the only one not to mention ELF at all, is Cheshire’s (1991) volume, English around the World. However, this volume was published before the notion of ELF had been publicly articulated at all, and it would therefore have been impossible for Cheshire and her contributors to address it. Instead, taking a sociolinguistic and primarily variationist approach, the various authors explore English in a selection of regions in which the English language has official status, beginning with the mother tongue countries, and moving on to a number of postcolonial English-using countries in Asia and Africa. There is no discussion of either ELF (or of non-postcolonial English-using countries, i.e. Kachru’s expanding circle, in general) or of the future. The next of the four handbooks to be published after Cheshire’s is Kachru, Kachru and Nelson’s (2006) Handbook of World Englishes. While the focus of this handbook, as with Cheshire’s, is on the English varieties of the inner and outer circles, the approach is rather different in that it is concerned not only with linguistic features, but also with issues of ideology, identity, intelligibility and standards. Although placed within a section that deals with regional varieties, Modiano’s chapter on ‘Euro-Englishes’ at least includes some discussion of ELF, albeit from the earliest (ELF 1) varieties perspective. And to the extent that ELF is discussed in respect of the future in this chapter, it is in line with the view that Europe will develop its own endonormative English(es). The other main discussion of the future occurs not in a final chapter, but in Bolton’s chapter, ‘World Englishes today’, in which there is a short section on ‘Futurology’ where the author presents the opposing claims of Crystal (1997) and Graddol (1997). That is, Crystal’s argument that a ‘World Standard Spoken English’ will develop, as contrasted with Graddol’s view of a “polycentric future for English standards” (Bolton 2006: 260). In the light of ELF and multilingualism research conducted during the 10 years since Bolton’s chapter was published, however, his short piece on the future and especially the two even older publications he discusses, already seem somewhat dated. The only handbook of the four to consider the future more extensively is Kirkpatrick’s (2010) Routledge Handbook of World Englishes, in which the entire final section consists of Pennycook’s chapter, ‘The future of Englishes: one, many, or none’. As the title suggests, Pennycook covers all the main possibilities but finally opts for what he calls ‘Translingua franca English’, which he describes as including “all uses of English” rather than only “expanding circle use or so-called NNS-NNS interactions” (2010: 685; his emphasis). I infer from this that Pennycook believes ELF involves only the expanding circle and communication among non-native English users, beliefs that the chapters in this volume have 598
The future of English as a lingua franca?
amply demonstrated to be misguided (and misguiding). Much of what Pennycook goes on to say about so-called ‘Translingua franca English’, albeit based on conceptualisation rather than empirical data, nevertheless holds equally true for ELF, and I will therefore return to his chapter later. The final volume of the four, The Oxford Handbook of World Englishes (Filppula, Klemola and Sharma, which is currently in press although some of its chapters, my own included, were written some time ago. On the one hand, this volume has an entire chapter on ELF (mine), although only in relation to the expanding circle (the topic I was allocated) rather than more widely, perhaps because, like Pennycook, the volume editors understood ELF to be restricted to, or at least primarily related to, this one ‘circle’. On the other hand, somewhat surprisingly, there is no chapter on the future of English. This is left, instead, to a few comments at the end of the chapter on ELF, which talks mainly about future conceptual and research needs: for more clarity in defining ELF and what this means in how ‘error’ is understood; for more research into written ELF; and for more insight into the potential global effects of accommodation among ELF users. It seems, then, that up to now, with the exception of Pennycook’s (2010) conceptualbased chapter, there has been a fair degree of reluctance in these supposedly comprehensive volumes on English to follow through their extensive coverage of the past and present with discussion of possible future developments. Not so this volume. Although much of what follows in the next section is to an extent guesswork, hence my borrowing of Graddol’s (1997) question mark in my chapter title, it is based on empirical evidence drawn primarily from research into English as a lingua franca and, to a lesser extent, multilingualism.
Conclusion . . . and finally to my own thoughts on ELF’s future From what has already been said in this chapter, it will be clear that ELF has evolved substantially in both theory and practice, or as both conceptualisation and real-world phenomenon, since it was first named as such. The question, then, is what is likely to happen to ELF in the nearer and more distant future. And as Pennycook (2010) points out in his own chapter on the future of Englishes, political developments, many of which are unpredictable, may play an important role. For example, as I write, the UK is about to have a referendum on whether the country should remain within the EU (European Union). By the time this ELF handbook is published, the result of the referendum will have been known for some time. What will be far less certain is the future role of English within the EU. We might hypothesise that if the UK votes to remain, then English will continue as the EU’s primary de facto working language. On the other hand, if ‘Brexit’ (British exit) wins and the UK leaves the EU, the question is not only whether English will be retained by the remaining countries, some of whom may see Brexit as an opportunity to replace it with their mother tongue, but what kind of English it will be once there are no longer any British native English speakers involved. Even if the UK votes to remain, the very fact that there was a referendum at all may affect the other 27 countries’ orientation to the UK and hence to its mother tongue, or at least to native-like English. And if the EU dispenses with English altogether or retains it but no longer favours native-like English, this may have an influence on how the rest of the non-Anglophone world orients to English. There are thus several unknowns relating to both possible outcomes of the UK EU referendum.2 But we turn now to a number of other hypothetical scenarios. As Pennycook (2010) covers almost all eventualities in his ‘one, many or none’ framework, I will follow his framework for the greater part of my own discussion. Starting with 599
Jennifer Jenkins
‘none’, regardless of events in the EU, and the outcome of the UK referendum, I predict that this option is highly unlikely, at least in the nearer future. Other languages have often been suggested as possible replacements as the primary global language, particularly Mandarin Chinese, Arabic and Spanish. But there has been so much investment of time and money in the learning of English as an additional (second or subsequent) language by so many people – including mother tongue speakers of these three languages – that it is doubtful whether the majority would want to switch to a different language as their lingua franca unless, perhaps, it was their own mother tongue that was chosen. In addition, while Mandarin has the most native speakers of all languages, its global spread and cultural influence are relatively small compared to those of English, and the Chinese script (admittedly shared by speakers of Mandarin and many other Chinese languages) is notorious for taking even Chinese native speakers many years to learn. We should also bear in mind that as well as having more native speakers of Mandarin than other languages, China also has the largest number of English users, possibly as many as 430 million (see Jenkins 2015a). The Chinese are thus in a good position to influence the development of English in its global uses. More plausible than Mandarin (or any other language) taking over from English, then, is the possibility that English may at some stage share its lingua franca role with other languages, a situation that Graddol (1997) discusses in detail. However, it is worth noting that it is almost 20 years since Graddol predicted this possibility and so far, it has not materialised to any great extent. The only exception is the internet, where the use of Chinese continues to grow (see www.interenetworldstats.com/stats7.htm), although this use is more likely to be among Chinese native speakers than as a lingua franca. Turning to the possibility of ‘one’ English, this again, I would maintain, is unlikely. Some years ago, Trudgill argued that English lexis was likely to converge and become increasingly homogenised as a result of what he described as the “Americanisation of the English language – homogenisation in the direction of North American usage” (1998: 31). He explained this as the result of widespread exposure to the American-English dominated media and film industry. Trudgill, however, was speaking before the massive international growth in the use of the internet and particularly in social media. And even in 1998, Trudgill was ambivalent as to whether English grammar would converge or diverge, while he considered that the native varieties of English, phonology-wise, were “slowly diverging from one another” and that “we must expect this trend will continue for the foreseeable future” (p. 35). His focus was, of course, on mother tongue Englishes, and apart from pointing out that English has more non-native than native speakers, he did not comment further on the former. Crystal (1997), though with a focus on all users of English, non-native and native, had also argued around that same time in favour of convergence, claiming that English users would become bidialectal in their own English variety or other language and in what he called “World Standard Spoken English”, or “WSSE”, an English variety that would “guarantee internationally intelligibility” (p. 138). As with Trudgill’s prediction about English lexis, Crystal predicted that WSSE would be most influenced by US English. Nearly two decades later, it is clear that neither of these scenarios of convergence has come about, and the evidence is that neither is likely to do so in future. Instead, it seems that the “many” Englishes of Pennycook’s framework is winning out. Rapidly increasing global mobility, both temporary sojourn and permanent migration, and a massive international rise in internet use in recent years, have led to the superdiverse (Vertovec, e.g. 2007) Englishusing multilingual societies, real and virtual, in which many of us nowadays live and work. And this brings us straight back to ELF.
600
The future of English as a lingua franca?
I referred earlier to conceptualisations of ELF as having fallen so far into three phases which, for the sake of clarity, I have called ELF 1, ELF 2 and ELF 3 (Jenkins 2015b). If English remains the world’s primary lingua franca for any great length of time, there will undoubtedly be further reconceptualisations as global political circumstances change and ELF use evolves so as to fit them better. But as far as the nearer future, the main focus of this chapter, is concerned, it is ELF 3, or the concept of English as a multi-lingua franca that is arguably most relevant, not only among the conceptualisations of ELF to date, but also among predictions about the future of Englishes/ELF. By saying this, I mean that for the foreseeable future there will most likely be many kinds of Englishes used predominantly in transcultural communication among multilingual English speakers, who will make use of their full linguistic repertoires as appropriate in the context of any specific interaction. This means, in turn, that their language will involve a good deal of translanguaging, which, as García explains, “is not simply going from one language code to another” but “posits that bilinguals have one linguistic repertoire from which they select features strategically to communicate effectively” (2011: 1). Translanguaging, then, involves “multiple discursive practices in which bilinguals engage in order to make sense of their bilingual worlds” and “goes beyond what has been termed code-switching although it includes it as well as other kinds of bilingual language use and bilingual contact” (García 2009: 45). According to this translanguaging approach, the future English in (multi)lingua franca communication is essentially bound up with the future of other languages (see Cogo 2016, which investigates ELF as a translanguaging phenomenon). What we are observing, then, is not ELF in its ELF 2 sense where multilingualism was seen as one among several features of ELF communication. Neither are we observing multilingualism in its broader sense, as this does not necessarily include English, there being plenty of multilinguals around the world who do not speak English. Rather, we could call ELF in its ELF3 sense multilingualism-with-English. The future of ELF is thus a future of ‘many Englishes’ for two reasons. First, the majority of users of English as a multilingua franca, i.e. all those who are not mother tongue English speakers, have similects that reflect both aspects of their mother tongue, to a greater or lesser extent, and influence from their interlocutors in the ELF communities in which they participate (see Mauranen 2012, and Chapter 1 this volume). And second, the increasingly diverse range of similects that are coming into contact across the globe means that ELF interlocutors’ repertoires are constantly in flux as they negotiate their diversity and adjust (or accommodate) their language, more often in transient encounters than in more established communities of practice (see Jenkins 2015b) in order to communicate successfully with each other. This is how I see ELF developing at least over the next two to three decades: an ELF future that will become both increasingly multilingual, and increasingly contingent and fluid. This view has much in common with Pennycook’s (2010) notion of ‘Translingua franca English’, although it takes the argument still further by shifting the emphasis from multilingualism within English to English within multilingualism. And as I write, the first doctoral student (to my knowledge) is beginning his PhD research not into ELF per se, but into EMF, English as a multilingua franca: perhaps the first of many more to come. My chapter could, and perhaps for the sake of clarity, should, end here. However, I turn finally to a possibility that has not to my knowledge, been mentioned to date in the linguistics literature on the future of English: the role of the internet, and more specifically emoji as possible competitors for the role of global lingua franca. In their expanded account of translanguaging, García and Li Wei describe the phenomenon as “signal[ing]
601
Jennifer Jenkins
a trans-semiotic system with many meaning-making signs, primarily linguistic ones, that combine to make up a person’s semiotic repertoire” (2014: 42). While linguistic signs, according to this account, are still primary, the reference to “semiotic repertoire” allows plentiful scope for other kinds of signs, and one such kind of sign that seems to have taken particular hold over the past few years is emoji. These pictograms originated in Japan in the 1990s, began to spread further afield especially from 2011 when Apple added them to the iPhone, and in November 2015, by which time over six million emoji were being sent daily, the emoji, ‘face with tears of joy’, became Oxford Dictionaries’ word of the year. Meanwhile, a number of literary works, including Moby Dick and Alice in Wonderland, as well as The Bible, have been translated into emoji. Vyvyan Evans, a leading expert on emoji, argues that: [emoji] better enable us to convey emotional expression, and nuance how the text should be interpreted. And in turn, this enables greater empathic resonance on the part of our digital addressee. A robust research finding is that emoji in fact enable users to better express their emotions. Emoji are more than just happy faces, noodles and poodles. They have real communicative value, and represent an important step in making our text-speak fit for purpose in our early twenty-first-century digital lives. (‘Does emoji spell the death of language?’ www.21stcentury.co.uk, 7 December 2015) While Evans is not, for now at least, arguing that emoji will replace all digital language let alone all written language, he highlights a crucial communicative function that they provide and that may well lead to their continued increasing use across contexts, languages and generations in years to come, perhaps supplementing rather than replacing written script, if, as seems likely, global internet use itself continues to grow. Having said that, it is far too early to predict what will happen to emoji in the future and the extent to which they may have implications for the future of ELF, written or even spoken, or, indeed, for any other future global lingua franca that should arise later on. I therefore close my chapter, and this first ELF handbook, by reverting to what I see as the most likely development in the nearer future, that of ELF as increasingly multilingualismwith-English, and as such, continuing to change over time and space in line with the changing needs of its growing range and number of users. For, as Mauranen points out: English will keep changing as it has done throughout its history, with secondlanguage users as an increasingly important influence in the thoroughly globalised contemporary world. It is unlikely to supplant local languages in its function as a lingua franca, but to complement the linguistic diversity that lives on locally and regionally. The rate of change is harder to forsee – language change never takes place at even speed – but one might surmise that the magic number of three generations, which holds for a variety of social changes including language shift might be something to go on in predicting major changes in the use and forms of English. At present, we are really talking about the first global generation of ELF, if we date it back to roughly the adoption of the Internet. The one thing we can predict with certainty is that English will keep changing. (2015: 49; emphasis added)
602
The future of English as a lingua franca?
Or, to paraphrase Mauranen’s final sentence, as T.S. Eliot said way back in 1945: For last year’s words belong to last year’s language And next year’s words await another voice. (Little Gidding, Four Quartets Book 4, lines 118–119) What that voice will be, however, remains to be seen – and heard.
Notes 1 The decision was made to use the term ‘English as an international language’ rather than ‘English as a lingua franca’ in the 2000 book’s title as it was considered at the time that very few potential readers would have heard of ELF. 2 Since I wrote this chapter, the UK referendum has taken place and resulted in a small majority (52 per cent) in favour of leaving. It is nevertheless far too early to predict what the linguistic impact of this will be.
Related chapters in this handbook 2 Baker, English as a lingua franca and intercultural communication 7 Seidlhofer, Standard English and the dynamics of ELF variation 29 Cogo, ELF and multilingualism 44 Morán Panero, Global languages and lingua franca communication
Further reading Jenkins, J. 2015. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice 2/3: 49–85. De Gruyter Open, available at: www.degruyter.com/view/j/eip.2015.2.issue-3/ issue-files/eip.2015.2.issue- 3.xml Pennycook, A. 2010. The future of Englishes: one, many or none? In A. Kirkpatrick ed. The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 673–687. Svartik, J., G. Leech and D. Crystal 2017. English – One Tongue, Many Voices, Chapter 12. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
References Baker, W. 2015. Culture and Identity through English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Baker, W. 2016. English as an academic lingua franca and intercultural awareness: student mobility in the transcultural university. Language and Intercultural communication 16/3: 437–451. Bolton, K. 2006. World Englishes today. In B.B. Kachru, Y. Kachru and C. Nelson (eds) 2006. The Handbook of World Englishes. New Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 240–269. Cheshire, J. (ed.) 1991. English around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cogo, A. 2012. ELF and super-diversity: a case study of ELF multilingual practices from a business context. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2/2: 287–313. Cogo, A. 2016. Conceptualizing ELF as a translanguaging phenomenon: covert and overt Resources in a transnational workplace. Waseda Working Papers in ELF Vol 5: 61–77. Crystal, D. 1997. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deterding, D. 2013. Misunderstanding in English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
603
Jennifer Jenkins
Dewey, M. 2012. Towards a post-normative approach: learning the pedagogy of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1/1: 141–170. Ehrenreich, S. 2009. English as a lingua franca in multinational corporations: exploring business communities of practice. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds) English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 126–151. Filppula, M., J. Klemola and D. Sharma (eds) 2017, in press. The Oxford Handbook of World Englishes. New York: University of Oxford Press. García, O. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. García, O. 2011. Theorizing translanguaging for educators. In Translanguaging: A CUNY Guide for Educators. New York: CUNY-NYSIEB. Available at: nysieb.ws.gc.cuny.edu (accessed January 2016) García, O. and Li Wei 2014. Translanguaging. Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gika, S. 1996. ‘Foreign’ in English language teaching: meaning, role and appropriateness. IATEFL Newsletter 130: 14–17. Graddol, D. 1997. The Future of English? London: British Council. Guido, M.G. 2008. ELF in Crosscultural Immigration Domains. Berlin: Peter Lang. Hermans, F. 2014. Near-native pronunciation? Who cares? Speak Out! Newsletter of the IATEFL Pronunciation Special Interest Group. September 2014: 42–46. Hüllen, W. 1982. Teaching a foreign language as ‘lingua franca’. Grazer Linguistische Studien 16: 83–88. Hynninen, N. 2016. Language Regulation in English as a Lingua Franca: Focus on Academic Spoken Discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Jenkins, J. 1996. Native speaker, non-native speaker and English as a foreign language: time for a change. IATEFL Newsletter 131: 10–11. Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. 2014. English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Politics of Academic English Language Policy. Abingdon: Routledge. Jenkins, J. 2015a. Global Englishes: A Resource Book for Students, 3rd edition. Abingdon: Routledge. Jenkins, J. 2015b. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice 2/3: 49–85. De Gruyter Open, available at: www.degruyter.com/view/j/ eip.2015.2.issue-3/issue-files/eip.2015.2.issue- 3.xml Jenkins, J. and C. Leung 2014. English as a lingua franca. In A. Kunnan ed. The Companion to Language Assessment. Maldon, MA: Wiley, pp. 1607–1616. Jenkins, J., A. Cogo and M. Dewey 2011. Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching 44/3: 281–315. Jenks, C. 2012. Doing being reprehensive: some interactional features of English as a lingua Franca in a chat room. Applied Linguistics 33/4: 386–405. Kachru, B.B., Y. Kachru and C. Nelson (eds) 2006. The Handbook of World Englishes. Maldon, MA: Blackwell. Kankaanranta, A. and L. Louihiala-Salminen (2007). Focus on teaching: business communication in BELF. Business Communication Quarterly 70: 55–59. Kirkpatrick, A. (ed.) 2010. The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes. London: Routledge. Kirkpatrick, A. 2014. Researching English as a lingua franca in Asia: the Asian Corpus of English (ACE) project. Asian Englishes 13/1: 4–18. Knapp, K. 1987/2015. English as an international lingua franca and the teaching of intercultural communication. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4/1: 173–189. Mauranen, A. 2003. The corpus of English as a lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL Quarterly 22/4: 513–527. Mauranen, A. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mauranen, A. 2015. What is going on in academic ELF? Findings and implications. In P. Vettorel (ed.) New Frontiers in Teaching and Learning English. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 31–52. Modiano, M. 2006. Euro-Englishes. In B.B. Kachru, Y. Kachru and C. Nelson (eds) The Handbook of World Englishes. New Malden, MA: Blackwell. 604
The future of English as a lingua franca?
Patsko, L. and K. Davies 2014. Learner needs and goals. Who cares? Speak Out! Newsletter of the IATEFL Pronunciation Special Interest Group. September 2014: 47–55. Pennycook, A. 2010. The future of Englishes: one, many or none? In A. Kirkpatrick (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes. London: Routledge, pp. 673–687. Pietkäinen, K. 2014. ELF couples and automatic code switching. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3/1: 1–26. Pitzl, M.-L. 2016. Investigating multilingual practices in BELF meetings with VOICE: a corpus linguistic case study with methodological considerations. Waseda Working Papers in ELF 5: 15–40. Seidlhofer, B. 2001. Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a Lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11/2: 133–158. Smit, U. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca in Higher Education. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Smith, L. (ed.) 1983. Readings in English as an International Language. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Trudgill, P. 1998. World Englishes: convergence or divergence? In H. Lingquist, S. Klintborg, M. Levin and M. Estling (eds) The Major Varieties of English: Papers From MAVEN 97. Växjö: Acta Wexionensia. Vertovec, S. 2007. Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30/6: 1024–1054. Zhu, H. 2015. Negotiation as the way of engagement in intercultural and lingua franca communication: frames of reference and Interculturality. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4/1: 63–90.
605
Index
ability for use 572 absence of plural marking 259, 260 Abstand 120 abstraction 16–17 academic discourse communities 12 academic ELF 596 academic literacies 417, 428, 430, 431–2 academic talk 361–2 academic writing: ideology 415; WAELF 413–26 accents 375, 573 acceptability 575 acceptance, norms and 269, 271, 272–5 accommodation 13, 16, 32–3, 249, 377, 571, 578; test accommodation 590 accuracy 78 accusative clausal structure 547 ACE (Asian Corpus of English) 138, 140, 169, 203, 471, 596 Achimova, A. 55 action planning 461, 462 admissions policies 428–9 affinity with imagined communities 156, 157–8 Africa, South and Southeast Asia region 259–60 African American English 106 African migrants 546–53 Afrikaans 187, 190, 194, 195, 393 Al-Haq, F.A. 131–2 Al-Hoorie, A. 57 Albl-Mikasa, M. 375, 376, 378–9 Alharbi, N. 40, 43, 44, 46 all-languages-at-all-times (ALAAT) 300 Alptekin, C. 77, 78 ambassador role 522–4 Amelina, M. 304–5 American culture 500, 501, 522–3 American Heritage Dictionary 55 American Psychiatric Association (APA) 551, 552 Americanisation 600 Americas and the Caribbean region 259–60 Ammon, U. 559, 561, 566 Anderson, B. 155 606
angloversals 248 anti-ELF views 597 applied conversation analysis 283 applied linguistics 95–6, 508 approximations 14, 18–19, 78–80, 109–10, 248, 251 Arab League 131 Arabic 127, 128, 130–2, 133–4 Arendholz, J. 281 ASEAN 138–50, 401, 402; development of the role of English 138–9; issues and challenges 146–8; nature of ASEAN ELF 139–43 ASEAN Charter 139 ASEAN Curriculum Sourcebook 146 Asia: East Asia 401, 402, 495–505, 538; increasing Asian presence in Europe 121–2; South and Southeast Asia 259–60; see also under individual countries Asian Corpus of English (ACE) 138, 140, 169, 203, 471, 596 assessment 570–82; addressing ELF challenges 572–5; critical language testing 583–93; ELF in ASEAN 146; ELF assessment 575–9, 590–2; higher education policies and practices 430, 435–6; implications of ELF for determining language assessment policy 579–80 assistant language teachers (ALTs) 495–6 Association of Southeast Asian Nations see ASEAN asylum seekers 548–53; trauma reports 551–3 asynchronous communication 346 attention, arousing 476, 478 attitudes: to ELF in the GCC states 131–3; ELF and interpreting 372–3; EMI students’ attitudes to ELF 407–8; language attitude research 531–43; teachers’ focus on themselves as users of English 462 attractor states 52–3 audio-lingual method (ALM) 524 Auer, P. 323 Ausbau 120 Australasia 259–60
Index
authenticity 63–7; exposure to authentic language 475, 476; helping learners pay attention to authentic input 475, 476–7 autonomous literacy 303, 418 autonomy 156–7 aviation English 576, 579–80 back-channelling 215, 217–18 Baird, R. 53, 54, 57, 202, 538–9 Baker, W. 27, 29–30, 31, 33, 202, 299, 472, 473 Bakhtin, M. 508 Balfour, R. 191 Bangkok Declaration 138 Bantu languages 187, 191 Bartlett, T. 249 Basic English 103, 104 basic writers 420 Basque 392 Baumgarten, N. 215, 217–18 Bayyurt, Y. 457, 458 beginner learners/users 521 behaviour 315, 316 behaviourism 479, 507 Beijing Education Examinations Authority 499 BELF see business ELF (BELF) beliefs: CLIL and language beliefs 484–6; norms 269, 272–5 Benesch, S. 431, 433–4 Benesse 495, 496 Beuls, K. 56 Bex, A.R. 86 bilingualism 369; CLIL 486–9; parallel language use as internationalised 391–2; in regional and national languages 392–3; Taiwan 500 Birdsong, D. 245 Björkman, B. 249, 250, 257 Black English vernacular (BEV) 106 Blackledge, A. 298 Blees, G.J. 120 blogging 361, 450 Blommaert, J. 151, 296, 302, 458, 509, 561 Bobda, S.A. 190 Bologna Declaration 400–1, 403 Bolton, D. 598 Bolton, K. 168 Bordini, M. 179 Borg, S. 451–2 boundaries: imagined communities 156, 158; language 563–6 Bovellan, E. 69, 485 Boxer, D. 337 Boyd, D.M. 347 Brand South Africa 186 Brazil 176–85; ELF in the national context 178–80; ELF in the regional context 180–2; internationalisation and language ideologies 177–8
Breiteneder, A. 249, 250 British colonialism 103, 126–7, 186–7 British Standard English 523 broker networks 418–19 Brown, P. 281, 334 Brubaker, R. 537 Brumfit, C.J. 540 Bull, T. 392 Burns, A. 68 business: increasing Asian presence in Europe 121, 122; mindset 314, 315; multilingualism 358–9, 363–5; processes and genres 314, 315, 316, 317, 318 business ELF (BELF) 309–20, 596; communities of practice 45–6, 47, 311–12, 317–18; GCC states 126, 130, 132–5; Japan 171–2; Saudi Arabia 126, 133–5 business knowledge concept 310–18 Bysouth, D. 286–7 Calvo, L.C.S. 178–9, 179–80, 180–2 Cambridge English Teacher website 451 Cambridge Grammar of English 92, 93 Cambridge International Corpus 469–70 Canagarajah, S. 32, 297–8, 299, 418, 431, 433, 572 Canale, M. 62 Carey, R. 80 Cargile, A.C. 533 Caribbean, the 259–60 categorisation 560; language attitude research 537, 538–40 CELTA 443, 454 Cenoz, J. 389, 392 censuses 560 Central Europe 116–17, 118, 119 CertTESOL 443–9, 453, 454; input sessions 444, 446–7, 453; integrating ELF 444–6; typical course structure 443–4 Chafe, W. 336 Chang, Y.J. 501 chat room 284–5 Cheshire, J. 598 China 121–2, 151–64, 600; ELT and ELF 494, 497–9, 502; future in the world system 161–2; imagined Chinese ELF community 157–62; National English Curriculum (NEC) 498; research strands in English and 153–4 Chinese pidgin English 153 Ching, G. 500 Chinglish/Chinese English 153–4 Chomsky, N. 93, 234, 508 Chou, C.P. 500 Chukyo University College of World Englishes (CWE) 167, 170–1 citizenship 584–5, 587; tests 588 civic domain 191–5 607
Index
classroom practice 498–9 Clayton, T. 143 Clementson, T. 64 co-construction: of humour 337–8; of utterances 215 code fixation 96–7 code-meshing 302, 303, 433 code-mixing 142 code-switching 46, 134, 218–29, 220; ELF couples 322–3, 327; ELF and multilingualism 357–62; in social ELF 321–3, 329 codification 190; recodifications 103 codified norms 269–70, 271, 272 cognates 358 cognition 10, 15–21 cognitive discourse functions 489 cognitive linguists 510 cognitive perspectives 74–84; language resources and language processing 78–81; NS/NNS dichotomy 77–8, 81; ontologies of English 75–7 Cogo, A. 27, 351, 358–9, 360, 363–5 Coleman, J.A. 401, 403 collocation 512, 513 colonialism 103, 126–7, 138, 186–7 Committee for Refugees’ Rights 549–50 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) 62, 93, 95, 484, 545, 574, 589 common ground 76 communal identity 103–4 communication 535; ELF and ELT teaching materials 476–7; function of English 103–4; ITELF and effectiveness of 379–80; language assessment and communicative effectiveness 574–5; prioritisation of over native speaker norms 524–5; synchronous and asynchronous 346; translingual orientation to 295–8 communicative capability 97 communicative competence 31–3, 62; intercultural 32, 33, 471 communicative conventions 47 communicative currency 90–1 communicative language teaching (CLT) 62–3, 69, 469, 511, 524, 525 communicative strategies 33, 46, 476–7, 571; ASEAN ELF 143; BELF in Saudi Arabia 134–5 communicative tasks 477 communion 155–6 communities of practice (CoPs) 12, 28, 37–50, 154–5, 156, 301, 310; business 40, 43, 44, 311–12, 317–18; criterial dimensions 39–44; features of 44–5; origin and applications 38–9; shared repertoires of ELF-based 45–8 community: and ELF 154–7; imagined communities see imagined communities; 608
macro perspective on ELF 10–12; speech communities 10, 48, 154, 155, 156, 263, 264, 532 community interpreting 380 comparatives 56 competence 93–5; communicative see communicative competence; performative 32; symbolic 32, 56; translingual orientation 296–7; see also native speakers competent users 521–2; complex adaptive systems (CASs) 20, 29; ELF as a CAS 53–5 complexification 107–8 complexity theory 8, 51–60, 75, 202; challenging native speaker privilege 55–6; implications for methodology 56–7; as a metatheory 52–3, 56 comprehension checks 213 computer-mediated communication (CMC) 345–6; see also electronically mediated intercultural communication (EMIC) comradeship 156 Comyns Carr, J. 448 concord 259 conferences 451–2; interpreting at 372–7 connection lists 348 consonant clusters see initial consonant clusters construct validity 585–6 construction grammar 80 contact languages 7, 8, 247–8 contact zones 11, 296–7, 310 content 315, 316 content-focussed speakers 42 content and language integrated learning (CLIL) 68–9, 403, 481–93; definition 481–2; ELF and CLIL at practice level 486–9; language beliefs 484–6; language management 483–4 contestive humour 334 context of situation 15 continua of multilingualism at the university 389 contrastive rhetoric 417–18 conventionality 76 convergence 600 conversation analysis (CA) 301–2 Cook, V.J. 520 Cooke, T. 460 Cooper, F. 537 cooperative principle 280–1 coping strategy 340–1 core modals 251 corpora of ELF 139–40, 203, 471, 596; ACE 138, 140, 169, 203, 471, 596; ELFA 140, 203, 387, 431, 434–5, 471, 596; VOICE 140, 203–7, 299, 471, 596; WrELFA 251, 303, 596 corpus of academic spoken English (CASE) 203 corpus-based research 301 corpus of misunderstandings 224–5
Index
correctness 92–3; China 153; norms and language regulation 270–5 correlation model 418 Cortés-Conde, F. 337 couple cultures 328, 329 coursebooks see textbooks court interpreters 194 covert multilingual resources 358–60 creativity 202, 233–43; dialogic 506–17; metaphorical 238–40; norm-following and norm-developing 234–5, 236–7; rationale for using creative idioms 240–1 Creese, A. 298 creoles 14 creolisation 108 critical academic writing 420 critical awareness 461, 462 critical EAP 431, 433–4 critical language testing (CLT) 583–93; connecting ELF with 587–8; construct validity 585–6; preliminary proposals 590–1; test accommodation 590; unique features of language in the current era 588–90; unjust tests 586–7; validity and discrimination 584–5 critical reflection 463 cross-cultural communication 25–6 Crystal, D. 474, 600 Culpepper, J. 282 cultural construction 348–9, 353 cultural identities 31, 240 cultural representation 348–9, 353 culture 15, 245, 522–3; American 500, 501, 522–3; ELT curriculum in ASEAN 144–5; emotional attachment to Chinese cultural roots 158–9; features of ASEAN ELF 141–2; and intercultural communication through ELF 26, 28–30; language and 29; parallel and contesting cultural dimensions in ELF couples 328–9 Cunningham, S. 448 curiosity 476, 478 curricular innovation 464 Curry, M. 418–19 Curzan, A. 55 custodian role 522–4 Cutting Edge Advanced (Cunningham, Moor and Comyns Carr) 448 Dafouz, E. 390, 395 D’Agostino, M. 509 Dalton-Puffer, C. 485, 488, 489 D’Angelo, J. 167–8 Davies, A. 576 Day, D. 287–8 De Swaan, A. 562–3 Dearden, J. 402, 403 declarative memory 77–8
defensive strategy 340–1 deficit view 246 dehumanisation 287 democracy 351–2 demographic information 557, 558 Deng, C. 470 Department of Arts and Culture (DAC) (South Africa) 193 Department of Correctional Services (DCS) (South Africa) 193–4 Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) (South Africa) 194 Department of Science and Technology (DST) (South Africa) 193 deployments of forms 419–20 Deterding, D. 143, 224, 226 Dewey, J. 67 Dewey, M. 27, 249, 448, 471, 473 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 551 dialects 9, 140 dialogic creativity 506–17 dialogic interaction 508–9 dichotomies 57 Dinh, T.N. 28 Dionysius Thrax 507 direct language attitude research 534 disciplinary language 489 discord 282–3 discourse: ASEAN ELF 141–2; text and 108–11 discourse markers 215–18 discrimination 584–5 discussion forums 450–1 disfluency 284–5 diversity 300–1 Dixon, J. 67 domestic labourers 129 Donatus 507 Donovan, C. 373, 376, 379 dual tagging system 204–7 Dubai 130 dubbing of audiovisual media 121 Dutch colonialism 186–7 dynamic interferences 375 dynamic model 418 dynamics of language use 66–9 Eales, F. 65 East Asia 401, 402, 494–505, 538; see also under individual countries Eastern Europe 116–17, 118, 119 Eckert, P. 38 ecological model 460, 461, 464 economic strength 558 education: higher see higher education; knowledge gained from research and 315, 316; primary see primary education; 609
Index
secondary see secondary education; South Africa 190–1 Educational Testing Service 586, 591 effectiveness, communicative 379–80, 574–5 Ehrenreich, S. 40, 41–2, 43, 311, 312 Eigo Kyoiku (English Education) 166 El Kadri, M.S. 178–9, 179–80, 180–2 Elder, C. 576 electronically mediated intercultural communication (EMIC) 345–56; definition and characteristics 345–7; ELF as a means of 350–1; on social network sites 349–50, 351–3, 354 ELF annual conferences 451 ELF assessment 575–9, 590–2; developing a construct 576–7; operationalising the construct 577–9 ELF-aware teaching and learning: benefits 462–3; challenges 463–4; phases of ELF-aware teacher education 460–2; Taiwan 499–502; teacher development 456–67 ELF corpora see corpora of ELF ELF couples 20, 322–30; avoiding miscommunication 323–4, 330; multilingual language identity 324–9, 330 ELF International Workshops 169 ELF Pronunciation 450 ELFA (English as a lingua franca in academic settings) corpus 140, 203, 387, 431, 434–5, 471, 596 ELFReN 450 Ellison, N.B. 347 ELT Chat 451 ELT teaching materials 468–80; ELF in 473–5; for ELF contexts 475–8; recent trends in ELT pedagogy and 469–70; social dimensions of language in ELT textbooks 63–6 Elyas, T. 132, 133 emergence 52; language 15 emergent modals 251 emergent norms 270 employability 485–6 emoji 601–2 Empower coursebook series 469 enactivism 16 endonormativity 159–60 engagement, mutual 39–41, 311, 317 English for academic purposes (EAP) 417, 429–30, 431; critical EAP 431, 433–4 English around the World (ed. Cheshire) 598 English as a business lingua franca see business ELF (BELF) English for Business Studies 475 English File (Latham-Koenig, Oxenden and Seligson) 63 English Global Communication 450 610
English as an international auxiliary language (EIAL) 104–5 English as an international language (EIL) 166, 167, 594 English language teachers see language teachers English Language Teaching (ELT) 2, 61–73; changing dynamics of language use 66–9; curriculum for ASEAN 144–5; and ELF in East Asian contexts 494–505; ELT-related ELF initiatives in Japan 170–2; ELT teaching materials see ELT teaching materials; GCC states 129–30 English as a lingua franca (ELF) 1–2; changing orientations of research 299–300; conceptualising 7–24; defining 8, 299; development 595–8; future of 598–603; macro perspective 8, 9–12, 19–21; meso perspective 8, 12–15, 19–21; micro perspective 8, 15–21; origins 594–5 English as a lingua franca in academic settings (ELFA) 140, 203, 387, 431, 434–5, 471, 596 English-medium education in multilingual university settings (EMEMUS) 390 English-medium instruction (EMI) 400–12; definitions from an ELF perspective 402–4; EMI policies and practices and ELF use 404–8; Japan 400, 401–2, 404–9; student-related and teacher-related issues 408 English as a multilingua franca (EMF) 404, 486, 600–1 English: No Problem (Quinones and Karol) 64 English-to-speakers-of-other-languages (ESOL) teachers 457 English for specific purposes (ESP) 102, 469 English Unlimited Intermediate (Rea and Clementson) 64 English without Borders (EWB) 177–8 Englishisation 393–5 enhanced cooperativeness 249–50 enhanced explicitness (explicitation) 13–14, 249–50 Enokizono, T. 172 entextualisation 548–53 entrenchment 16, 17, 76 ERASMUS programme 40, 43, 44, 400, 403 ergative clausal structure 546–8 Erling, E.J. 249 errors 55–6; correction 303–4 ethnography 302 ethnopoetic entextualisation 548–51 Europe 115–25, 362; increasing Asian presence 121–2 European Union (EU) 11–12, 115–25, 362, 402; Editing Units 378–9; ELF as alternative to other important languages 117–19; ELF as alternative to receptive multilingualism 119–20; ELF as alternative to translation/ interpretation 120–1; ELF in migration
Index
544–55; EMI 400–1, 403–4; expansion 116–17; language policy and CLIL 483–4; MEPs 370; multilingualism policy 370, 381; UK referendum on leaving 117, 599, 603 Evans, V. 602 exaptation 56 exonormativity 160 expanding circle 75, 128, 166, 402, 544, 545 expatriates 128–9 expectations: learners’ 464; norms as 269, 271, 272–5 explicitness 257; enhanced (explicitation) 13–14, 249–50 exposure: ELF-aware teacher education 460–1, 462; to English 407, 475, 476 extended tasks 64 external critical awareness 461, 462 face 334; threatening 286 Facebook 351–3 facilitator role 523–4 fairness 575 faux authenticity 66–7 feature overlap 258–61 feature spotting 244, 248–9 Filppula, M. 599 Firth, A. 143, 211, 262 fixing 18–19 flows 29–30 fluidity 67–8, 299–300 forensic transcription methods 548–51 former Soviet Bloc countries 116–17, 119; immigrants from 590 forms, deployments of 419–20 formulaic language 79–80 frames of reference 460 framing 541 Freeman, D. 54, 449 French 118–19 frequency 14–15, 17 functional approach 511 future: of ELF 598–603; imagined for Chinese ELF speakers 160–2 Galloway, N. 472 García, O. 601 generic knowledge 315 genre: academic genres 428; CLIL and 489 genuine language 66–7 German 118, 119 Gerritsen, M. 309 Gika, S. 594 Gimenez, T. 178–9, 179–80, 180–2 Global 30 Project 170, 171, 401–2 Global coursebook series 470, 474–5 global Englishes for language teaching (GELT) 472, 473
global function 559 global imagined community 157–62 global languages 556–69; and lingua francas 561–2; rankings 558–9; sociolinguistic and multilingual resources 562–6 Global Perspectives coursebook series 470 global status 462, 559 globalisation 7, 86, 151, 370, 556; internationalisation of higher education see internationalisation of higher education; language in a globalising world 509–10 globalism 394 goal-orientation 314, 315, 316, 317 Godenzzi, J. 559 Goffman, E. 16 Gong, Y. 498 Görlach, M. 94 Gorter, D. 389 Grace, G.W. 79 Graddol, D. 598, 600 grammar 61–2, 255; China 498–9; in ELF 244–54; Greek concept of 506–7 Grano, A. 179 Grau, M. 457 Greek, ancient 507–8 Greenbaum, S. 262 Grice, H.P. 280 Grin, F. 389 group project work 287–8 groupings 536–7, 538–40 Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states 126–37; BELF in Saudi Arabia 126, 133–5; ELF attitudes 131–3; English(es) and other languages 128–31; history 126–8 Habbash, M. 132 Hadisantosa, N. 147 Hall, C.J. 75, 78, 458 Han, H. 298 Handbook of World Englishes (eds Kachru, Kachru and Nelson) 598 Hannah, J. 87 Harding, L. 576–8 Harris, R. 535, 537 Harris, Z. 109–10 Hay, J. 334, 336, 340 Headway (Soars and Soars) 63 Hebrew 590 Heller, M. 561, 562 Herring, S.C. 347, 348 hierarchical typology of languages 562–3 higher education (HE): ASEAN 147–8; Brazil 176, 177–8; EMI in 400–12; GCC states 129–30; internationalisation of see internationalisation of higher education; Japan 170–1, 496–7; language policy perspective 387–99; South Africa 190; 611
Index
Taiwan 501–2; transforming language and literacy policies 427–38 Hino, N. 169, 171 historical contingency 53–4 historical perspectives 101–12, 594–8; communal and communicative functions 103–4; English as an international language 104–5; language variety and variation 106–8; prescriptions of appropriate language 101–2; recodifications 103; text and discourse 108–11; World Englishes and ELF 105–6 Hiver, P. 57 Hjelmslev, L. 507 Holden, N. 310 Holliday, A. 460 Holmes, J. 38–9, 333–4, 340 Hong Kong 146 Honna, N. 168 Horner, B. 303–4 House, J. 214, 215, 217–18, 361–2, 369 Hüllen, W. 595 Hülmbauer, C. 202, 300, 358, 362, 565 Human Communication Research Corpus (HCRC) map tasks 577–8 humour 159, 333–44; power-based 334, 338–40; psychological 334, 340–1; and relational work 333–4; solidarity-based 334, 335–8 Humphries, S. 68 Hüttner, J. 485 hybrid ELF registers 552–3 Hymes, D. 32, 62, 548, 572 Hynninen, N. 269, 274 ‘I don’t know’ discourse marker 216 ‘I mean’ discourse marker 216 I-registers 75 ‘I think’ discourse marker 216 IATEFL 595; conferences 452 ideal native speaker 508 ideational functions 240–1 identification 539; with English 325–7 identity 47, 105, 142; communal 103–4; cultural 31, 240; and intercultural communication through ELF 26, 27–8, 30–1; language and 30; multilingual language identity in ELF couples 324–9, 330 ideology 31; ELF and multilingualism 364–5; language ideologies 117, 177–8, 269, 415–16; language tests and 587; Standard English 88–91; twinned dominant ideologies of writing and language 415–16 idiom principle (IP) 79–81, 109 idioms 134, 233–43; metaphors and re-metaphorisation in ELF 235–7; rationale for use of creative idioms 240–1; types of variation in ELF 237–8 IELTS 428–9 612
Igbo 546, 547 Iino, M. 406–7 imagined communities 12, 155–7; imagined Chinese ELF community 157–62 immigrants 584–5, 587, 590; African migrants to Italy 546–53 impact of a test 587–8 imperfect learning 17 impoliteness 281, 283 in-group 337–8 ‘in my point of view’ 218 independence 156–7 India 127, 129 indirect language attitude research 533–4 individual multilingual repertoires (IMRs) 239 Indonesia 146 inference model 418 inferiority complex 522 information-gap tasks 63 -ing endings 205–6, 208 initial consonant clusters 224–32; changed 226, 230–1; consonant omission 225; simplified 225, 228–9, 231 initial teacher education 442, 443–9, 453 inner circle 391, 402, 544 innovations 55–6; language-internal 247 Inside Out coursebook series 470–1 intelligibility 573; mutual 144, 435–6 interaction: dialogic 508–9; maintaining smooth interaction 578; meso perspective 8, 12–15, 19–21; mutual and parallel interactions 152; pragmatics of ELF 215–18; uncooperative 280–3; uncooperative lingua franca encounters 283–8 interactional humour 333–44 interactive multimodal platforms (IMPs) 347 interactive view 511 intercultural approach 180 intercultural awareness (ICA) 33, 472 intercultural communication 25–36, 47, 596; BELF in Saudi Arabia 134–5; China and English 154; culture and through ELF 26, 28–30; electronically mediated (EMIC) 345–56; identity and through ELF 26, 27–8, 30–1; migration and intercultural miscommunication 544–55 intercultural communicative competence (ICC) 32, 33, 471 intercultural competence 31–3, 167; ASEAN-centred 144–5 interference 375 interlanguage 93, 153 internal critical awareness 461, 462 International Association of Teachers of EFL (IATEFL) 595; conferences 452 international auxiliary language 104–5
Index
International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) 576, 579–80 International English Language Testing System (IELTS) 428–9 International Language Testing Association (ILTA) 579–80 internationalisation of higher education 402–3, 414–15, 417, 427, 496–7; Brazil 176, 177–8; language policy 388–9, 393–5 internationalised bilingualism 391–2 internationally important languages 117–19 internet 346, 350–1, 509, 601–2; global languages ranked by internet users 558; see also electronically mediated intercultural communication (EMIC) interpersonal relationships 314, 315, 317–18 interpretation 122, 369–83; court interpreters in South Africa 194; ELF and 372–7; ELF as an alternative to in Europe 120–1; ITELF 369, 371–2, 379–80, 381 interpreter profession 372–7 intertextuality 508 IntlUni Erasmus Academic Network Project 390 intranational language use 104–5 invariant present tense forms 258, 259 invariant tags 258, 259–60 Iraq checkpoint encounter 286–7 Islam 127, 134 ITELF (interpreting, translating and English as a lingua franca) 369, 371–2, 379–80, 381 Japan 121–2, 165–75; challenges for ELF 172–3; documenting and promoting ELF 168–70; ELF in ELT 494, 495–7, 502; ELT-related ELF initiatives 170–2; EMI 400, 401–2, 404–9; higher education 170–1, 496–7; Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) 495, 496; potential value of ELF-informed views 166–8 Japan Association of College English Teachers (JACET) 169–70 Japan Association of Language Teachers (JALT) 170 Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) Programme 171, 495 Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) 172 Jarvis, S. 8 Jenkins, J. 1, 11, 15, 55, 68, 88, 300, 309, 401, 459, 531; academic English 434–5; assessment 430, 571; contact zones 11, 310; ELF-aware teacher education 460, 461; ELF3 564–5; EMLF 404, 486; intercultural communication 27; lingua franca core (LFC) 104, 224, 299, 304; virtual affinity 156 Jenks, C.J. 280 Johnson, D.C. 388, 389
Johnson, K. 449 joint cognition 76, 79 joint enterprise 41–3, 311–12, 317–18 Jordan, J. 305 Jordão, C.M. 180 Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 303 Kachru, B.B. 86, 89, 128, 166, 402, 518, 544, 598 Kachru, Y. 598 Kalocsai, K. 40, 43, 44, 301, 321–2, 362 Kankaanranta, A. 40, 309, 310 Karol, D. 64 Ke, I.C. 500 Kennedy, C. 595 Kerfoot, C. 432–3 Kim, H. 576 Kingman Report 90 Kirkpatrick, A. 143, 168–9, 249, 598–9 Kitazawa, M. 202, 538 Kjærbeck, S. 287–8 Klemola, J. 599 Klimpfinger, T. 360–1 Kloss, H. 120 Klötzl, S. 328 Knapp, K. 595 Knight, J. 388 Koh, T. 144 Konakahara, M. 406–7 Kontio, J. 487 Korea, South 121–2, 494 Kortmann, B. 258–9, 261 Kramsch, C. 32, 56 Krio English 548–61 Kubota, R. 304 L1-transfer 545–53 labelling practices 565–6 Labov, W. 88, 106, 108–9, 110–11, 201, 532 Laitinen, M. 251 Lambert, W.E. 533 Langacker, R.W. 76 Langlotz, A. 236 language assessment policy 579–80 language attitude research 531–43; development of 533–5; and ELF 536–41 language awareness 525–6 language beliefs 484–6 language brokers 419 language choice 325–7 language commenting 272–3 language consulting services 117 language contact 7, 19 Language Dynamics and Management of Diversity programme 119 language-focussed speakers 41–2 language ideologies 177–8, 269, 415–16; standard language ideology 117 613
Index
language learning aims 395 language of learning and teaching (LoLT) 191 language management 115–16, 483–4 language norms see norms Language Plan Task Group (LANGTAG) 194 language policy: China 497–9; CLIL and ELF 483–6; EU 483–4; exemplifying in higher education 391–3; modelling for higher education 389–90; perspective on higher education 387–99; Singapore 510–11; transforming higher education language policies 427–38 language as practice 506–17, 564 language processing 78–81, 374–7 Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers of English (LPATE) 146 language regulation 270–5 language resources 78–81 language roles 395–6 language separation 365 language for specific purposes (LSP) 576 language support policy 429–30 language as system 506–17 language systems framework 562–3 language teachers 518–28; challenging language teacher models 524–6; language learners vs language users 520–3; paradigm shift from custodians to facilitators 523–4 language universals 140, 247–8, 250 language users 520; language learners vs 206–7, 520–3 Languages without Borders (LwB) 178 langue 508 Larsen-Freeman, D. 54 Latham-Koenig, C. 63 Latin 508 laughter 335 Lave, J. 37, 38 Le Luong Minh 139 Lea, M. 430, 431, 432 learners vs users 206–7, 520–3 lects 9–10, 247; dialects 9, 140; similects 2, 9–10, 75, 133–4, 140, 155, 247 lecturer training 274–5 Leech, G. 262 legal status 557 LePage, R.B. 11 Lesznyak, A. 211 ‘let-it-pass’ principle 67–8, 143, 211, 226, 231, 279–80 Leung, C. 571 levelling 247, 248 Levin, M. 251 Levin, T. 590 Levinson, S. 281, 334 Levy-Tödter, M. 214 lexical simplification 17 614
lexical substitution 237–8 lexis 61–2, 498–9 Li, W. 154 Lillis, T. 418–19, 431–2 linear unit approach 109–10 lingua franca 7–8; global languages and lingua franca communication 556–69; languages used as 1; principles of the lingua franca approach 144–6; use as a language management 115–16 lingua franca core (LFC) 104, 224, 299, 304, 571 lingua franca environments 145 lingua receptive (LaRa) (receptive multilingualism) 119–20, 122 linguistic dualism 130 linguistic integrity 95–6 linguistic level 263 literacy policies, transforming 427–38 literacy studies 297, 302–3 Littlewood, W. 68, 69 Liu, H. 498–9 Llinares, A. 488–9 Llurda, E. 523 localisation 70, 180; local well-trained multilinguals 145 Louhiala-Salminen, L. 310, 477 Luckett, K.M. 195 macro perspective 8, 9–12, 19–21 Mahboob, A. 133 maintaining smooth interaction 578 Maiworm, F. 394–5 Malay 138, 141, 142 Malaysia 146 Mandarin 500, 600 many kinds of Englishes 600–1 map tasks 577–8 ‘marked’ interactions 545 market conditions 373–4 Marques, A.N. 180 Marra, M. 333–4, 340 Marshall, S. 432 Martin, P. 427, 428 Martinez, R. 79 mass nouns 140–1 mastery 589 matched-guise technique (MGT) 533 Matsuda, P. 167, 418 Mauranen, A. 1, 2, 27, 78, 80, 249, 417, 428, 602; approximations 109, 110, 248; code-switching 361; ELF as SLU 245; ELFA 140, 203, 387, 431, 434–5, 471, 596; ‘in my point of view’ 218; mutual and parallel interactions 152; other-repetition 214; similects 2, 75, 133–4, 140, 247; text description 109; WrELFA 251, 303, 596 McConnell-Ginet, S. 38
Index
McDonough, J. 473–4, 475, 478 McGrath, I. 470, 474 meaning 180; EMIC, multimodality and meanings 347; ephemeral, individual, dialogic and contextual 541; negotiation of 212–14, 220, 360 Medgyes, P. 518–19 media 130, 192 mediator role 523–4 Meierkord, C. 28, 210–11, 250 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) 370 mental resources 78–81 meso perspective 8, 12–15, 19–21 Mesthrie, R. 260 metalanguage 269 metalinguistic knowledge 512–13 metaphors 233–43; idioms, metaphors and re-metaphorisation in ELF 235–7; metaphorical creativity and multilingual resources 238–40; rationale for using 240–1 metatheory 51–2, 56 method of a test 587–8 methodology: complexity theory and 56–7; differences between translingual practice and ELF 301–2 Meyerhoff, M. 38–9, 42 Mezirow, J. 460 micro perspective 8, 15–21 migration 544–55; case-study analysis 546–53; issues in the use of ELF in migration contexts 544–6; see also immigrants Milroy, J. 87, 88, 89, 91–2, 94, 95 Milroy, L. 87 minimal response 215, 217–18 Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (Japan) 495, 496 miscommunication 224–32; ELF couples and avoiding 323–4, 330; ELF in migration 544–55 misunderstandings 226–31, 250; corpus of 224–5; words with changed initial consonant clusters 230–1; words with simplified initial consonant clusters 228–9, 231 mitigation of power 338–9 Moate, J.M. 485 mobility 10–11, 388, 509–10; EMIC 347; sociolinguistics of 296 mocking 286–7, 288, 289 modals 251 monolingualism 68, 391 Moor, P. 448 Moore, P. 487, 488 Mori, A. 165–6 morphosyntactic variation 238, 255–66; morphosyntactic features of varieties of English 258–61; problematizing variety 261–3
Mortensen, J. 54 Moser-Mercer, B. 374 mother tongue vs target language use 68–9 Mufwene, S. 57 Müller, H. 189, 191 multicompetence 361 multiculturalism 346, 351, 353 multilingua franca, English as 404, 486, 600–1 multilingual resources 302, 562–6; covert 358–60; English language teachers and 526; metaphorical creativity and 238–40; overt 358, 359; pragmatics of ELF 218–20 multilingualism 2, 9, 20, 46, 48, 596, 601; code-switching perspective 357–62; ELF and 357–68; ELF in ASEAN 145, 147–8; EMIC 346, 351, 353; language policy for higher education institutions 390, 393, 396, 431, 432–3; multilingual language identity in ELF couples 324–9, 330; receptive 119–20, 122; translanguaging perspective 357, 362–5 multilingualism-with-English 601, 602 multimodal resources 302, 303 multimodality 346–7, 348–9, 349–50, 353 multinational corporations (MNCs) 130 multiple modes of communication 348 multi-way communication 346 multi-word expressions (MWEs) 79–80 Murata, K. 169, 406–7 Muslims 127, 134 mutual engagement 39–41, 311, 317 mutual intelligibility 144, 435–6 mutual interactions 152 Myanmar 147 nation building 507–8 nationalism 103, 155, 161 native speakers 8, 144, 429, 538, 572; beginner learners and 521; challenging native-speaker privilege 55–6; cognitive aspects of the NS/ NNS dichotomy 77–8, 81; competence 93–4; ELT materials and native speaker norms 469–71; English language teachers 518–19, 520; GCC states 132; ideal native speaker 508; influence of native speakerism and norms in EMI contexts 404–6, 407, 408; Japan 495–7; language assessment 574; norms 267, 271, 273; prioritisation of communication over native speaker norms 524–5; Standard English ideology and 89–90 needs analysis 460, 476 negotiation 506, 578; of meaning 212–14, 220, 360; model 418; of norms 272–5 Nel, N. 189, 191 Nelson, C. 598 neologisms 487 network capital 11 network sociality 11 615
Index
networks 11; of brokers 418–19 neutrality 27 New Headway Intermediate (Soars and Soars) 63 New Inside Out 469 new mother tongues 190 next-turn proof procedure 283 Nickerson, C. 309 Nigerian immigrant 546–8 Nikula, T. 487, 488 non-canonical use of paradigmatic forms 205 non-conformities 167 non-English idioms 239 nonlinearity 52 non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs) 518–28 non-native raters 573 non-native speakers (NNSs) 74; cognitive aspects of the NS/NNS dichotomy 77–8, 81; discrimination against 584–5; rankings of global languages 559 non-standard forms 249–51, 252; ASEAN ELF 140–1 Nordic region 391 norm-developing creativity 234–5, 236–7 norm-driven languages 19 norm-following creativity 234–5, 236 norms 235; codified 269–70, 271, 272; concept of language norms 268–70; ELT materials 469–73; Grice 280–1; language norms in ELF 267–78; and language regulation 270–5; native speaker norms see native speakers; situated 271; uncooperative encounters 283 Oakes, S. 65 Occupational English Test (OET) 579 Oettinger, G. 121 Ogden, C.K. 103, 104, 111 Oman 129 ongoing professional development 442, 449–52, 453 online communication see electronically mediated intercultural communication (EMIC), social network sites (SNSs) online discussion forums 450–1 ontologies 75–7 open choice principle (OCP) 79–81 opportunities to use target language 475, 477 O’Reilly, T. 348 other-repetition 214 Otsuji, E. 298 outer circle 402, 544, 545 overt multilingual resources 358, 359 Overton, W.F. 51, 56 Oxenden, C. 63 Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (OALD) 92, 93, 208 Oxford Handbook of World Englishes (eds Filppula, Klemola and Sharma) 599 616
Pacific and Australasia region 259–60 paired-speaking tests 574–5 Paradis, M. 77 parallel interactions 152 parallel language use 391–2 paraphrases 213 PARSNIP acronym 64, 470 part-of-speech (POS) tagging 201, 203–7 part-whole indivisibility 540 Patsko, L. 443, 444, 448 Pavlenko, A. 8 pedagogy: differences between ELF and translingual practice 303–4; recent trends in ELT pedagogy 469–71 Pennycook, A. 298, 299, 350, 598–9, 599, 601 perceptions 540; ELF and interpreting 372–3; teachers’ perceptions about their roles 463; see also attitudes performance problems 374–7 performative competence 32 Perry, Commodore 165 personal growth 67 personal information, sharing 335–6 Philippines, the 146 phonology 263 phraseological units 218 pidgins 7, 14, 107; Chinese 153 Piekkari, R. 309–10 Pietikäinen, K.S. 322, 323–4, 359–60 Piller, I. 323, 326 Pitzl, M.-L. 596 Planken, B. 40 political status 557 Pölzl, U. 28, 321 population ranking of global languages 557, 558 POS tagging 201, 203–7 Posel, D. 188–9 postnormative approach 473, 475, 476 power 31, 297; mitigation of 338–9 power-based humour 334, 338–40 practice 311; language as 506–17, 564 pragmatic function 107–8 pragmatics of ELF 210–23; co-construction of utterances 215; interactional elements 215–18; multilingual resources 218–20; negotiation of meaning 212–14, 220, 360; self-initiated repair 214 Prague Linguistic Circle 507 Pratt, M.L. 11, 296 predictions: future of ELF 598–603; global languages and lingua francas 560–1, 561–2 pre-emption signals 212–13 pre-emptive strategies 323–4 prescriptions of appropriate language 101–2 pre-service teacher education 442, 443–9, 453 primary education: ASEAN 146–7; Japan 495–6; Taiwan 500, 502
Index
Priscian 507 privilege, native-speaker 55–6 procedural memory 77–8 processing 78–81; problems for interpreters 374–7 productive skills 525 professional conference interpreting 372–7 professional development, ongoing 442, 449–52, 453 proficiency levels 288–9, 376, 408 profiles 348 progressive, the 259, 260 projects 64 pronunciation 224–32 psycholinguistics 8 psychological humour 334, 340–1 psychological spaces 155 PTSD reports 551–3 qualitative similarities 250–1 qualitative turn 45–6 Quinones, K. 64 Quirk, R. 90–1, 262 radio 192 Rai, L. 470 Ranta, E. 250 ‘Rationalist’ cartoon 351–3 Rea, D. 64 receptive multilingualism 119–20, 122 receptive skills 525 recodifications of English 103 redundancy 257 reflexivity 70 Regional Language Centre (RELC) 168 regional languages: bilingualism in 392–3; ELF as alternative to in the EU 117–19; as lingua francas 584; multilingualism in 393; regional lingua franca environments 145 register shifts 376 regulation 270–5 regulative register 486–7 Reinecke, J.E. 153 Reithofer, K. 379–80 relational work 333–4 relevance systems 41 religiocentrism 134 re-metaphorisation 236–7 repertoire 363–4 repetition 213, 214 Represents 213–14 repressive humour 334 research: knowledge gained from education and 315, 316; methodology see methodology residence 584–5, 587 resistance to change 463
resources: mental 78–81; multilingual see multilingual resources; multimodal 302, 303; sociolinguistic 562–6 Rickford, J. 107 roles: of language(s) 395–6; and related tasks and measures 314, 315, 317–18 Rose, H. 472 Routledge Handbook of World Englishes (ed. Kirkpatrick) 598–9 Royal Society 102 rudeness 283 Russian 117, 118, 119 Samadi, O. 131–2 Sami university 392–3, 394 sarcasm 339–40 Saudi Arabia 127, 128, 129–30, 131–2; BELF research 126, 133–5 Saudisation 129 Saussure, F. de 507 Savova, L. 473 scales of integrated communication 535, 537 schemata 545, 553 Schneider, E.W. 261 Science with Borders (SwB) Program 176, 177–8 Scollon, R. 26 Scollon, S.W. 26 Scott, M. 431–2 second language acquisition (SLA) 75, 244–6 second-language use (SLU) 245 second-language writing 417 second-order contact between similects 10, 75, 247 second order global speech communities 48 secondary education: China 497–9; Japan 171, 496; Taiwan 500, 502 sedimentation 297 Seidlhofer, B. 1, 28, 45, 76, 203, 256, 299, 362, 457, 484, 565; communities of practice 301; online communication 351; variability 201, 202; VOICE 140, 249, 299, 471, 596 self-initiated repair 214 self-organisation 52 self-representation 349–50 Seligson, P. 63 seminars 451–2 Sepedi 393 September 11 2001 terrorist attacks 168 shared kitchen space 285–6 shared languages benefit 375 shared multilingual resource pool (MRP) 239 shared repertoire 43–4, 152, 312, 317, 318; ELF-based communities of practice 45–8 shared understanding 314 sharedness 15, 299, 300–1; language norms 268–9 617
Index
Sharma, D. 599 Shohamy, E. 588, 590 Sierra Leone migrants 548–51, 552–3 Sifakis, N. 457, 458 similects 2, 9–10, 75, 133–4, 140, 155, 247 simplification 247, 248; initial clusters 225, 228–9, 231; lexical 17; structural 14, 17 Sinclair, J. 79 Singapore 146, 510–11 Singlish 510, 511 single nouns in plural function 205, 206 Síqueira, S. 180 situated learning 38 situated norms 271 situational context 15 Siyanova-Chanturia, A. 79 Skinnari, K. 69 Slobin, D.I. 81 Smit, U. 40, 43, 44, 390, 395, 401, 404 Smith, L. 166, 168, 594 ‘so’ discourse marker 216–17 Soars, J. 63 Soars, L. 63 Sobotka, B. 121 social contexts 321–32; code alternation in social ELF 321–3, 329; ELF couples 20, 322–30 social dimensions of language 61–2; manifestations in ELT textbooks 63–6 social learning 38–9 social network sites (SNSs) 347–9; EMIC on SNSs 349–50, 351–3, 354 sociocultural perspective 449 sociolinguistic resources 562–6 sociolinguistics 8, 95–6; of mobility 296 soft assembly 53–4 solidarity-based humour 334, 335–8 South Africa 186–98, 393, 394; Constitution 192; contextualising the rise of English 186–8; English in education 190–1; English proficiency 188–9; English as spoken 189–90; state departments 192–5; use of English in the civic domain 191–5 South African National Defence Force (SANDF) 193 South Korea 121–2, 494 South and Southeast Asia 259–60 sovereignty 156 Spanish 176, 392, 559 spatial repertoire 298 Speak Good English Movement 510 Speak Out Upper Intermediate (Eales and Oakes) 65 specific knowledge 315 specificity of a joint enterprise 42–3 spectrum of modalities 390 speech communities 10, 48, 154, 155, 156, 263, 264, 532 618
Sperber, D. 349 Spolsky, B. 590 Sprat, T. 102, 111 stability, concern for 575 stakeholders 464 Standard English 85–100, 106, 263, 264, 521, 523; and code fixation 96–7; comparison of Standard English and ELF perspectives 91–6; ELF and Standard English ideology 88–91; ideology in China 498–9; Singapore 510–11; and standardisation 86–8; and standards 88 standardisation: Standard English and 86–8; and WAELF 415 standardised rating scales 588–9 standards 88 state departments 192–5 static interferences 375 Steels, L. 56 Steiner, G. 506 stereotypes 540 strategy use 519; pre-emptive strategies 323–4 streams of updates 348 Street, B. 430, 431 Strevens, P. 102, 104–6 Stroud, C. 432–3 structural linguistics 507–8 structural simplification 14, 17 student admission policies 428–9 study skills support 429–30 subject-specific language 487–9 substitution: in initial consonant clusters 226, 230–1; lexical 237–8 support provision 429–30 supportive humour 334 Suzuki, A. 449 Suzuki, T. 166 Svartik, J. 262 Swain, M. 62 Swift, J. 102 Sylvén, L.K. 487 symbolic competence 32, 56 synchronous communication 346 syntactic variation 238 syntax see grammar system/practice dichotomy 506–17 systemic functional linguists 510 Szundy, P.T.C. 178 Tabouret-Keller, A. 11 Taiwan 494, 499–502 Tamagawa University Center for English as a Lingua Franca 171, 497 Tannen, D. 336 target language vs mother tongue use 68–9 task-based language teaching (TBLT) 477 teacher education: Brazil 180–2; China 499; ELF and 441–55; ELF-aware teaching and
Index
teacher development 456–67; links between ELF and 456–8; ongoing professional development 442, 449–52, 453; pre-service 442, 443–9, 453; relevance of ELF 441–2 teacher educators 447–9 teasing 286–7, 288, 289, 336–7 technical terms 376, 487–9 telementational fallacy 537 television 192 tense markings 141, 142 TESOL conferences 452 test accommodation 590 testing 570–82; critical language testing 583–93; see also assessment text, and discourse 108–11 text organisation 376 textbooks 496; China 498; ELF and ELT materials 468–80; Japan 496; Saudi Arabia 133; social dimensions of language in ELT textbooks 63–6; Taiwan 500 thinking for speaking 81 third-place identities 31 time scales 20–1 TOEIC test 172–3 Tomlinson, B. 475–6 top-down approaches 563 Top Global University Project 402 topics, textbook 64–5 Touchstone coursebook series 469 tourism 121, 122 traceability 204 trait (construct) of a test 587–8 ‘transcultural communication 25–6 transcultural flow 350 Transcultural Psychiatry Journal (TPJ) 552 transference 563–4 transformationalism 564 transient multilingual communities 264 translanguaging 2, 221, 420, 560, 601; CLIL 486–9; ELF and multilingualism 357, 362–5 translation 122, 369–83; ELF and 377–9; ELF as alternative to in Europe 120–1; ITELF 369, 371–2, 379–80, 381 translingua franca English 598–9, 601 translingual practice 295–308; changing orientations of ELF research 299–300; differences between ELF and 300–4; global use of English 297–8; translingual orientation to communication 295–8 translocal professionals 297–8 trauma narratives 551–3 trilingualism 392 Trinity College London 443, 444, 445 Troudi, S. 132 Trudgill, P. 87, 262, 600 Twitter chat sessions 451 typification 268–9
Ullman, M.T. 77 uncertainty 85–6 uncooperative encounters 279–91; uncooperative interaction 280–3; uncooperative lingua franca encounters 283–8 unique features of language 588–90 United Arab Emirates (UAE) 128–9, 130–1 United Kingdom (UK) 259–60; ELF and teacher education 443–53; international students 427; joining the European Community 118; referendum on leaving the EU 117, 599, 603; UK standard 513, 514 United States (US): American culture 500, 501, 522–3; tests 588; US soldier checkpoint encounter 286–7; US standard English 513, 514, 523 universals 140, 247–8, 250 University of the Basque Country 392 University of Cape Town 393 University of Limpopo 393 University of London Institute of Education (ULIE) 594–5 unjust tests 586–7 ‘unmarked’ interactions 545 unskilled migrants 298 update, streams of 348 uptakers 219 urban vernaculars 195 usage-based linguistics (UBL) 75–6, 79, 80 usage-based models of languagein-interaction 15 users 520; vs learners 206–7, 520–3 validity 584–5; construct validity 585–6 variability 2, 201–9; analysis using POS tagging 201, 203–7 variation 101, 106–8, 532; idioms 237–8; morphosyntactic 238, 255–66; syntactic 238; text and discourse 108–11 variety 106–8; problematising 261–3 verbal-guise technique (VGT) 533 vernacular universals 140 Verwoerd, H. 187 Vetchinnikova, S. 18, 80 Vettorel, P. 361 Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE) 140, 203–7, 249, 299, 471, 596 virtual language 76–7, 80–1 vocabulary 483, 489 VOICE 140, 203–7, 249, 299, 471, 596 voice-enabled chat room 284–5 Voloshinov, N. 508–9 Wächter, B. 394–5 Wang, Y. 156 619
Index
Web 2.0 348 Webb, V.N. 188 Webster, N. 103, 111 Weinreich, U. 8 Wenger, E. 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43–4, 45, 310, 317; joint enterprise 41, 311–12; shared repertoire 43–4, 312 West African refugees 551–3 Whiteside, A. 56 Widdowson, H. 66, 76, 261, 262, 457, 595 Wilss, W. 380 ‘win-win’ mentality 314 word/morpheme reduplication 547 working memory 18 World Englishes 2, 75, 108, 153, 512, 513, 514, 571; attitudes to in GCC states 132; and ELF 105–6; morphosyntactic variation 257–61; Taiwan 501 World Standard Spoken English (WSSE) 600 world university rankings 401 Wray, A. 79
620
Wright, S. 118–19 Written academic English as a lingua franca (WAELF) 413–26; disciplinary 416–20; future directions 420–1; rationale for 414–16 Written ELF in Academic Settings (WrELFA) corpus 251, 303, 596 written language 145–6, 251; differences between translingual practice and ELF 302–3; grammar and second language acquisition 506–7 Xu, Z. 28 Yanaprasart, P. 364 Yoruba 548 ‘you know’ discourse marker 215–16 Yu, M.H. 500, 501 Zacchi, V. 180 Zeller, J. 188–9 Zhu, H. 26, 30, 31
