Lívia Foki
(University of West Hungary Department of English Studies- Szombathely) [Bio]
Email: flivia@btk.nyme.hu
Introduction
Central to this article is the assumption that the spreading of English as a lingua franca all over the world presents new challenges in many fields of life. Therefore, this paper aims to present different definitions of English used in an international context, focuses on diverse discussions on the English language standards, and on questions of intelligibility and comprehensibility. Finally, the need for the reconsideration of language teaching goals and approaches is discussed.
According to Crystal (1997) and Graddol (2006) there could be about 1.3 billion speakers of English, and only about 330 million of those are native speakers. Numerically, non-native speakers of English outnumber native speakers in the world bringing different cultures and contexts with them that leads to the change of the language itself. Consequently, English is no longer exclusively owned by the native-speaking communities and its ownership is also shared by non-native speakers who, therefore, have a right to be heard in matters affecting the language (Widdowson, 1994)
Kachru’s Three Circles Model
The most influential description of the status of English worldwide is Kachru’s (1985) Three-Circles Model dividing English use into three categories: the Inner Circle, Outer Circle and Expanding Circle. The Inner Circle are the predominantly English-speaking countries (e.g. Britain, USA, Australia). The Outer Circle represents the institutionalized non-native varieties in the former colonies (e.g. Singapore, India, Nigeria). The Expanding Circle includes performance varieties of English essentially in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context (e.g. China, Japan, Austria and a number of other countries).
The model has been criticized for several reasons. First, it fuses several levels of analysis: nations, types of speakers and functions of English or varieties. Second, the model does not take into account the fact, that English has been used as a lingua franca between all three circles and especially within the Expanding Circle. Third, the model fails to accomodate some places (such as Denmark or Argentina) that seem to be moving from Expanding Circle to Outer Circle status although they do not have colonial links with England. Inner Circle countries are regarded as norm-providing, possess their own varieties of English, while Outer Circle communities are norm-developing, being in the process of developing their own varieties. Expanding Circle countries are norm-dependent. (Kirkpatrick and Deterding, 2009; Graddol, 1997; Mollin, 2007). However, a positive feature of Kachru’s model is that it recognizes the development of many different varieties of English supporting the idea of accepting variation as the norm.
Terminology issues
In connection with the spread of English a number of terms have been used with slightly different meanings that need some clarification. These terms are ‘World Englishes’ (WE), ‘English as a Lingua Franca’ (ELF), ‘English as an International Language’ (EIL), ‘Global English’, and ‚Standard English‘.
The term World Englishes is used as an umbrella term covering all varieties of English worldwide (Bolton, 2004). A fundamental principle in the study of World Englishes is that variation and change are natural and inevitable. This use is sometimes represented by other terms including International English or Global English. However, over the past few years, ELF research has often been seen as having a very different agenda from WE research. One of the major differences between WE and ELF is that the former reflects local phenomena and cultural values, often through the use of borrowings from local languages while ELF speakers generally avoid the use of local lexis and idioms (Kirkpatrick, 2007).
Jenkins (2006) and Seidlhofer (2001b), on the other hand, use the term World Englishes in a strict sense to refer to the outer circle Englishes, and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) to refer to the use of English in the expanding circle. It is also important to note that both authors use the terms EIL and ELF interchangeably to refer to the same concept. Therefore, in this paper they will be used as synonyms.
English as an International Language is used to refer to the use of English as a means of international communication across national and linguistic boundaries that is across the countries of Kachru’s expanding circle (Jenkins, 2006). McKay (2002) uses the term EIL to refer to the uses of English in both intranational and international contexts. In defining EIL McKay offers the following assumptions:
-
‚As an international language, English is used both in a global sense for international communication between countries and in a local sense as a language of wider communication within multilingual societies.
-
As it is an international language, the use of English is no longer connected to the culture of Inner Circle countries.
-
As an international language in a local sense, English becomes embedded in the culture of the country in which it is used.
-
As English is an international language in a global sense, one of its primary functions is to enable speakers to share with others their ideas and culture. (2002:12)
This suggests that English as an international language is no longer linked to a single culture or nation but serves both global and local needs as a language of wider communication. Finally, in the discussion of terms Standard English refers to a monolithic form of English that scholars like Crystal (1997) and McArthur (1998) believe in.
Debates over standards
Traditionally, debates concerning intelligibility have centered on how far varieties of English should be allowed to depart from a rigid native speaker standard. This is illustrated by the famous debate of two scholars Randolph Quirk and Braj Kachru that opens Seidlhofer’s (2003) book Controversies in Applied Linguistics. They both expressed very different views on standards in English as a Lingua Franca communication. Quirk argued that a single standard, based on either British or American English, should be consistently applied in both Inner Circle countries and those outside the Inner Circle. Quirk’s position is that variation in the non-natives’ use of English is an error, non-native varieties of English are regarded as an interlanguage stage and accordingly as inappropriate pedagogical models in non-native contexts.
Kachru responded that the spread of English had brought with it a need to re-examine traditional notions of standardization and models as they relate to Outer Circle users. His model presents the functional domains in which English is used across cultures and languages. Allowing for a variety of norms would not lead to a lack of intelligibility, rather to an educated variety that would be intelligible across the others.
Furthermore, Kachru argues for the legitimisation of variations from native standard English as innovations and urges for these to be taken as pedagogical models in the native contexts. From this point of view errors and fossilisation become irrelevant terms in language acquisition.
Kachru believes that Expanding Circle countries are dependent on the norms set by the native speakers. This position is rejected by some ELF researchers (e.g. Jenkins, 2007; Seidlhofer, 2001a) who claim that Expanding Cirlce Englishes are also norm developing just the same way as the Outer Circle Englishes. Moreover, they adopt independent norms to achieve intelligibility.
Intelligibility and comprehensibility
If different standards develop as new Englishes how will this effect mutual intelligibility among them? Intelligibility is defined in connection with two other terms comprehensibility and interpretability in the three dimensions of understanding. In this context intelligibility means the ability of the listener to recognize individual words or utterances. Comprehensibility refers to the listener’s ability to understand the meaning of the word or utterance in its given context, and interpretability is interpreted as the ability of the listener to understand the speaker’s intentions behind the word or utterance. According to McKay (2002) the term intelligibility is used to cover all three types of meaning given above. ‚Interpretability is at the core of communication and is more important than intelligibility or comprehensibility‘ (Smith (1988): 274). In an international context the speakers will cooperate to achieve interpretability that causes the greatest problems in the use of English as a Lingua Franca.
Native vs non-native speakers
As native speakers are outnumbered by multilingual speakers, their ownership and norm-enforcing status are questioned; native speakers and their Englishes have become relatively unimportant in international communication. Books such as Medgyes (1994) and Braine (1999) have contributed to the interest in non-native speakers‘ positive role in the teaching of English as a foreign or second language. Non-native speakers‘ experience of code-switching enhances their understanding of the demands of the learning situation; since they have gone through the process of acquiring English as a second language themselves. Another advantage of non-native English teachers is that they can anticipate the problems their learners may have in acquiring the language. In addition to that they are in a position to provide their students with a model of a good language learner that is relevant to their own experiences (McKay, 2002) According to Seidelhofer (1999) non-native speaker teachers of English are ‚double agents‘ in their own country since they know the language and culture of their students as well as the target language.
From the investigation of the literature comes out clearly that the native speaker issue is a highly controversial concept. Considering the tendency of the continuing spread of English all over the world, in the coming decades non-native speakers of English are likely to be using the English language for international communication. Therefore, the native speaker hegemony should be challenged in language pedagogy. However, traditionally a native-speaker model still appears to be more appropriate and appealing to many non-native speakers including non-native teachers.
English as a Lingua Franca as an alternative to English as a Foreign Language
There have been several attempts to define ELF. These definitions share common principles. ELF is a non-native variety of English which does not depend either on childhood acquisition or on cultural identity. In its use it is clarity and comprehensibility rather than conformity to one of the existing standards that matters. (Jenkins, 2007; Richards, Platt, and Platt, 1992)
The study of English as a Lingua Franca in the expanding circle has arisen as a new research area in applied linguistics. ELF research is argued to be an alternative approach to English as a Foreign Language. When making the distinction between EFL and ELF Jenkins (2005) argues that:
‚Speakers of EFL use their English chiefly to communicate with NSs of English, often in NS settings …. . The norms of EFL, then, are NS norms. Speakers of ELF, on the other hand, use their English primarily (or entirely if one takes the ‘purist’ interpretation of ELF) to communicate with other NNSs of English, usually from first languages other than their own and typically in NNS settings. They need therefore to be intelligible to, and to understand, other NNSs rather than to blend in with NSs and approximate a NS variety of English. Instead, ELF speakers have their own emerging norms‘ (retrieved from http://www.hltmag.co.uk/mar05/idea.htm).
Recently a lot of research has gone into the linguistic features of ELF that offer insights into the nature of international communication at different language levels leading to formulating guidelines for English language teaching. The research of Barbara Seidelhofer and her team at the University of Vienna who have created the VOICE Corpus of ELF and Anna Mauranen and her team at the Universities of Helsinki and Tampere who have assembled a corpus of academic ELF have contributed to a better understanding of how English is used in international communication. Seidlhofer’s corpus study, VOICE (Vienna Oxford International Corpus of English) aims to find out which items are used systematically and frequently, but differently from native speaker use and without causing communication problems, by expert speakers of English from a wide range of L1s.
Based on empirical data Jenkins (2000) proposed the Lingua Franca Core, that covers the phonological and grammatical options that non-native speakers adopt to facilitate intelligibility. Seidlhofer (2001b) appeals for a description of English as a Lingua Franca. The ELF approach, which suggests that a degree of phonological and grammatical redundancy meant to protect the correctness of the message that can be omitted as long as intelligibility is being maintained.
Some of the items that Seidlhofer has specified in her corpus study VOICE are:
-
’non-use of the third person present tense -s (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 which are obligatory in native speaker English and insertion where they do not occur in native speaker English.
-
use of an all-purpose question tag such as isn’t it? or no? instead of shouldn’t they? (They should arrive soon, isn’t it?)
-
increasing of redundancy by adding prepositions (We have to study about… and can we discuss about…?, or by increasing explicitness (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 native speaker English (informations, advices)‘ (2004:220)
ELF clearly has a major role to play in the modern world, and the choice of English is often seen as natural.
Euro-English
The development of English as a Lingua Franca is a more recent phenomenon in Europe. A group of researchers advocates for the recognition of a variety of English that has developed in Europe within the European Union. Crystal (1997) observes that there is already a kind of Euro-English, a type of English used in Brussels by diplomats of the different European countries.
‚This kind of non-native English might develop into a global English that is easily accessible to everybody. The specific properties of this kind of English deserve further inspection, and might then be used in language courses. In this way it may be possible to develop Euro-English as the lingua franca for the whole of Europe.(Crystal, 1997: 137).
The study of the features of Euro-English has already started by some linguists. (Modiano 2001; Seidelhofer; 2001a; Jenkins 2001). They firmly believe that if Euro-English is an emerging variety of a European Lingua Franca then it should be possible to describe it systematically and eventually also to provide a codification which would allow it to be captured in dictionaries and grammars and to be taught, with appropriate teaching materials to support this teaching. However, Mollin’s (2006) research shows a different picture. She carried out an empirical study to find a specific corpus of spoken and written Euro-English. Here are some examples from what she discovered and labelled as unique features of Euro-English:
-
In lexis the word actual is used in the sense of ‘current’, and not with the meaning of ‘real’
-
Possibility is used by European speakers in the sense of ‘opportunity’.
-
The most frequently used verbs are: have, be , do and put.
-
There are also some specific words that are unique to Euro-English: Euro, Euro-zone, Euro-area, member states, additionality, internal market, Berlaymont.
Mollin suggests that the above mentioned specific uses – although considered incorrect according to native speaker’s norms -are more closely related to the speaker’s proficiency level in English, rather than to the deliberate choice of that use by European speakers. The author concludes that Euro-English is not a variety as had been believed earlier. She believes that it is an aid in non-native speakers‘ communication and the native-speaker standard is still favourable. Although the differences are usually unproblematic and do not cause misunderstanding still she expresses the opinion that the term Euro-English cannot be applied to any variety of English spoken in Europe. According to Mollin, the term should be discarded. Continental Europe is, as far as English is concerned, norm-dependent but not norm-developing (2006).
Teaching English as a Lingua Franca: rethinking goals
Considering the tendency that ELF is used to communicate across linguistic and cultural boundaries and that native speakers have become inappropriate models, the goal of teaching English should not be to achieve native-like competence any more. English lessons should endow students with the capacity to move freely from their L1 to the L2 and vice versa. Learners of English as a Lingua Franca will not be monolingual users, but they will have to transfer information from one language to the other.
Since the spread of English has brought with it language change and variation, the goal of teaching should be to ensure intelligibility among the speakers (McKay, 2002). Therefore, language differences that do not cause intelligibility problems – although might be regarded as correct in standard English – might not be penalized in lessons. For example, the pluralisation of nouns like informations or equipments.
According to McKay another important goal of language teaching should be ‚to encourage the acquisition of interaction strategies that will promote comity ((2002:127). These might include finding ways to seek clarification or minimize cultural differences. Therefore, language classrooms must necessarily provide the conditions for students to practice these skills, rather than focussing on an artificially monolingual communicative setting.
Conclusion
It is clear from the preceding review that research is moving in the direction of a paradigm shift envisaged by Kachru in his model. Based on research findings English as a Lingua Franca interactions take place mostly among non-native speakers whose language use and communication strategies differ considerably from those of native speakers. Despite all this English is still taught as if the main aim of the learners were to communicate with native speakers of English. The orientation of teaching English as a Lingua Franca should be shifted from correctness to appropriateness and intelligibility and from native speaker norms to global inclusiveness to meet diverse local needs. This shift is still waiting to be explored and acted upon in English language teaching.
Bibliography
Bolton, K. (2004): The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. World Englishes, in A. Davies and
C. Elder (Eds.), Oxford, Blackwell: England. pp. 369-396.
Braine, G. (ed.) (1999): Non-Native Educators in English Language Teaching. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crystal, D. (1997): English as a Global Language. (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Graddol, D. (1997): The Future of English. London: The British Council.
Graddol, D. (2006): English Next. British Council Learning. Online a
http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-research-englishnext.htm
Jenkins, J. (2000): The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
Jenkins J. (2001): Euro-English accents. English Today, 68. 16-19.
Jenkins, J. (2005): ELF at the gate: the position of English as a Lingua Franca. Humanising
Language Teaching, 7/2 retrieved February 2 2011 from
http://www.hltmag.co.uk/mar05/idea.htm
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.
Kachru B. B. (1985): Standards, Codification and Sociolinguistic Realism, The English
language in the Outer Circle. In. R. Quirk and H. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the World:
Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press. pp. 11-30.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007): Implications for International Communication and English Language
Teaching. World Englishes, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Kirkpatrick, A. & D. Deterding (2009): The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics.
World Englishes, in J. Simpson, (Ed). London: Routledge.
McArthur, T. (2004): Is it world or international or global English, and does it matter?
English Today, 79/20 pp.3–15.
McKay, S. (2002): Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
Medgyes P. (1994): The Non-NativeTteacher. Hong Kong, Macmillan Publishers, Inc.
Modiano M. (2001): A New Variety of English. English Today 68:13-14.
Mollin S. (2006): Euro-English. Assessing Variety Status. Tübingen, Gunter Narr Verlag.
Mollin, S. (2007): English as a lingua franca. A new variety in the new Expanding Circle?
Nordic Journal of English Studies 5/2 pp. 41-57.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J. & Platt, H. (1992): Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied
Linguistics. Singapore, Longman Singapore Publishers Pty Ltd.
Seidlhofer, B. (1999): Double standards: teacher education in the expanding circle. World
Englishes 18/2 pp. 233-245.
Seidelhofer, I. (2001a): Towards Making ‚Euro-English‘ a Reality. English Today, 68. 14-16.
Seidlhofer, B. (2001b): Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a
lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11/2 pp. 133-58.
Seidlhofer, I. (2003): Controversies in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Seidlhofer, I. (2004): Research perspectives in teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics. 24. 209-39.
Smith, I. E. (1988): Language spread and issues of intelligibility. in P. Lowenberg (Ed.)
Language Spread and Language Policy: Issue, Implications and Case Studies. Georgetown
University Press, Washington. pp. 265-282.
Widdowson, H. G. (1994): The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28/2 pp. 377-81.