GLOBALISATION IN ELT AND THE DILEMMAS FACING EFL

GLOBALISATION IN ELT AND THE DILEMMAS FACING EFL EDUCATORS Ho Thi My Hau Hue University College of Foreign Languages

OUTLINE 1. The Global Spread of English 1. 1. English Around The World 1. 2. Reactions to the Global Spread of English 2. The Dilemmas Facing EFL Educators 2. 1. Standard variety/varieties for teaching and learning 2. 2. Cultural implications 2. 3. Teaching Materials 2. 4. Assessment and Testing 3. Implications

1. The Global Spread of English 1. 1. English around the World § 1/3 of world population speak English (nonnative speakers = 3/4 or 4/5 users of English) (Crystal, 2008) § The vast majority of communication in English not involve any native speakers (Graddol, 2006)

Models representing English use around the world Kachru’s (1985) three concentric circles The “Expanding Circle”, e. g. China Egypt Indonesia Israel Japan Korea Nepal Saudi Arabia Taiwan USSR Zimbabwe The “Outer Circle” e. g. Bangladesh Ghana India Jamaica Kenya Malaysia Nigeria Pakistan Philippines Singapore South Africa Sri Lanka Tanzania Zambia The “Inner Circle” USA UK Canada Australia New Zealand

Modiano’s (1999) centripetal circles Learners Proficient in International English Native and foreign languag e proficien cy People who do not know English The centripetal circles of international English (Modiano, 1999 a, p. 25)

Yano’s (2001) cylindrical model EFL (Japanese, etc. ) EFL (Danish, Dutch, Swedish, etc. ) EGL (acrolect) ESL (mesolect-basilect) American variety Indian variety Nigerian variety Singaporean variety Yano (2001, p. 124)

“[k]nowing English is like possessing the fabled Aladdin’s lamp, which permits one to open, as it were, the linguistic gates to international business, technology, science, and travel. In short, English provides linguistic power. ” Kachru (1986, p. 1)

1. 2. Reactions to the Global Spread of English § Concerns about linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992; Pennycook, 1994; Canagarajah, 1999 a, 1999 b) § Reactions against the ownership of English (Cook, 1999; Seidlhofer, 1999; Alptekin, 2002) § Inequality between native and non-native English speakers § TESOL - a “Trojan horse of globalisation” (Birch & Lyannage, 2004)? § Suggestion of a Lingua Franca model

A lingua franca is “a mode of communication which allows people to interact with others without aligning themselves to ideological positioning indicative of specific mother-tongue speech community” (Modiano, 2001 a, p. 170)

Table 1: Traditional v ELF pronunciation targets for production Potential English Pronunciation features (PR) Traditional Br-English-based pronunciation syllabus (used for EFL/ESL) Lingua Franca Core (recommended for ELF) Consonant sounds all 24 sounds of RP all sounds except , ð and [: ] Consonant clusters all word positions word initially, word medially Vowel quantity (i. e. length) Vowel quality* long-short contrast close to the 20 sounds of RP L 2 (consistent) regional qualities plus з: Weak forms* essential for ‘naturalness’ unhelpful to intelligibility Features of connected speech* Stress-timed rhythm* all essential for ‘naturalness’ inconsequential or unhelpful important unnecessary/ does not exist Word stress* critical unteachable/ can reduce flexibility Pitch movement* important for indicating attitudes unteachable/ incorrectly linked to ‘NS’ and grammar attitudes and grammar critical Nuclear/ (tonic) stress Adapted from Jenkins, 2002: 99 (Jenkins, 2005 b, p. 4)

Table 2: Potential features of ELF lexicogrammar from Seidlhofer’s VOICE non-use of third person present tense –s (as in “She look very sad”) interchangeable use of the relative pronouns who and which (“a book who”, “a person which”) omission of the definite and indefinite articles where they are obligatory in NS English, and insertion where they do not occur in NS English use of an all-purpose tag question e. g. isn’t it? or no? instead of shouldn’t they? (as in “They should arrive soon, isn’t it? ”) increasing of redundancy by adding prepositions (as in “We have to study about…” and “can we discuss about…? ”), or by increasing explicitness in e. g. ‘black colour’ (vs ‘black’) and ‘How long time? ’ (vs ‘How long? ’) heavy reliance on certain verbs of high semantic generality, such as do, have, make, put, take pluralisation of nouns which are considered uncountable in NS English (e. g. informations, staffs, advices) use of infinitive constructions with that-clauses, as in I want that…. (e. g. “I want that we discuss about my dissertation”) Adapted from Seidlhofer, 2004: 220 (Jenkins, 2005 b, p. 5)

1. 2. Reactions to the Global Spread of English (cont. ) § Issues relating to ELF v ELF – “a patronizing approach” (Taylor, 2006, p. 51), “another ‘Centre-led’ definition” devised by native speakers to lessen their feelings of guilt? (Holliday, 2005, p. 9) v ELF/EIL promoted for all learners of English lacking understanding of specific context v Debate by scholars lacking teachers and learners’ voice

2. The Dilemmas Facing EFL Educators 2. 1. Standard variety/varieties for teaching and learning § Native-speaker norms: v utopian and irrelevant (Cook, 1999; Rajagopalan, 1999; Alptekin, 2002; Seidlhofer, 2003) v Native vs non-native teachers such [native] teachers may have little or no training other than a short preservice course, and few have experience of teacher education. As a result, their knowledge of the language and their teaching skills can compare badly with those gained in lengthy university degrees by nonnative teachers. Jenkins (2006 a, p. 172) v a comfortable pedagogical model still preferred by teachers and learners (Jenkins, 2006 a; Llurda, 2004; Seidlhofer, 1999; Taylor, 2006; Timmis, 2002; Kuo, 2006)

2. 1. Standard variety/varieties for teaching and learning (cont. ) § English as a Lingua Franca v lacking pedagogical descriptive model (Kuo, 2006) v affecting international intelligibility (Petzold, 2002; Seidlhofer, 2005)

2. 2. Cultural implications § Native-speaker norms: Cultural bias, irrelevant in international communication (Cortazzi & Jin, 1999; Mc. Kay, 2003) § English as a Lingua Franca: v neutral, cultural free? v language taught separately from its culture? v How to communicate meaning at deep levels? (Modiano, 2001; Alptekin, 2002; Llurda, 2004; Tarone, 2005)

2. 3. Teaching Materials § based on native-speaker norms v v § Native-speaking contexts strange to learner’s real life encounters EFL teachers may become “purveyors of both cultural and linguistic imperialism” Birch and Liyanage (2004, p. 93) not based on native-speaker norms: no specific framework yet

2. 4. Assessment and testing § Native-speaker norms: Discrepancy between English used in tests and language encountered by learners in real life situations (Hill & Parry, 1994; Davidson, 1994; House, 2003; Jenkins, 2006 b) § English as a Lingua Franca: v Lacking standards for testing (Seidlhofer, 2003; Taylor, 2006) v “Reverse influence”: discrimination against non-ELF users (Davies, 2006)

3. Implications § § § § § Raising learners and educators’ awareness Incorporate both local and international contexts in materials design. Adapting existing materials Changes in curriculum made by both experts from inside and outside community Reality of practice from local contexts taken into consideration Incorporate a view of World Englishes in teacher training courses Real innovation in testing criteria focusing more on efficiency than being near native Facilitate learners’ chance to share ideas about their own cultures Parents should be informed of the changes in English use